Film Essay: The Struggle with the Inner Demons in the Hearts of Men

Last Halloween, I talked about two of cinema's greatest foes with a split personality Norman Bates, and Professor Jarrod. Both were frightening characters that carried out such vicious acts in their place of business, as we found ourselves having a bit of sympathy for them. I'd like to revisit the topic this Halloween, only instead of being characters who completely snapped as villains with no way to return back to sanity, I'm looking at the characters who always struggled. The kind of characters with personalities that are conflicted, or even at times split, like Jekyll and Hyde for instance.

WARNING: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS!

Two of these examples will include the classic Universal Monsters, only I'm going to start out with a character who's not from a horror film which is the man (George O'Brien) from "Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans". The film falls under the category of a romantic melodrama. Nevertheless, some elements in the film would qualify as being part of a thriller or a psychological drama. The atmosphere at times looking dark and dreary. It has nerve-racking suspense. And watching O’Brien performance of a man driven to insanity is highly intense to watch. Plus having F.W. Murnau (the director of "Nosferatu") in the director's chair would indeed help a lot when bringing terror where the film needs it.

To have the audience connect with the characters, Murnau chooses to give them no names to indicate that the events in the film could happen to anybody. The man in the film finds himself torn with the decision to kill his wife (Janet Gaynor). Before the events that currently take place within the film's narrative, he and his wife were once very happy as they lived on their farm without a single worry. As time went by, their love for each other began to fade away. They don't hate each other, but the spark that they once shared together is not as strong as it once was. Adding to his misery is that he is financially struggling to keep his farm, leading him to a loss of hope of rebuilding everything he previously had in his life.

Upon meeting a woman from the city (Margaret Livingston) who is visiting the countryside, he finds a new hope to gain something better than what he currently has. He is resistant at first, until she starts seducing him with a kiss and a promise for a new life of living in the city with her. All this excites him, because he has a chance to live with someone who gave him the same amount of love he used to have with his wife in the glory days. As well as living in a new environment that he's never been to before, but has heard amazing things about. Rather than just running away with her, the woman insists that he must kill his wife in order to sell his farm and live with her. For his envy to live a new life with a different woman, he takes up a more sinister personality to end his relationship with his wife by drowning her.

While looking hostile when trying to carry out his dark deed, he finds himself torn if he should go through with it or not. He wants to leave his old life, but he still feels remorse for her. Right from the start when he's given the idea, he doesn't jump-on it right away, he's very hesitant and fights back against the woman who puts these notions in his head. The primary reason why he finds himself so conflicted is that his wife is not exactly a bad person. She is sweet, humble, cares for him, and tries to help him out in any way she can. Her purity is what keeps him from murdering her, making him realize how blinded he was with excitement to be tempted to kill someone who has done him no harm. Because of his hesitance, he fulfills something better than what he was offered. He gets to rekindle his love with his wife by having a romantic date in the city together. During the trip unfortunately, he still fears giving into temptation when seeing a girl who reminds him of the city girl when given a shave. And when noticing that a rich man is hitting on her, believing that she will leave him or worse he threatens him with a knife. Though he finds himself incredibly happy with her, his fears of abandonment, and the savage side that was released from the woman he met earlier hasn't exactly left him.

Horror is always a great place to look for characters who struggle with their different personalities. Another famous mad scientist who struggles between personalities is the character Dr. Jack Griffin, better known as the Invisible Man (Claude Rains). Griffin was a struggling chemist who is deeply in love with his employer’s daughter Flora (Gloria Stuart). Feeling that he had nothing to offer her to be a worthy husband, he wanted to do something great to assure finical success by making a scientific break-through. He achieves this by finding the means to make himself invisible with the use of an obscure drug called monocane. Until he finds a way back to becoming visible, Griffin covers his face with bandages and dark goggles and runs off to an Inn far from home without anyone knowing his secret. The people at the Inn grow suspicious of him by his odd look and behaviors. When the owners have had enough of his strange habits as he is falling behind with paying rent, they try to evict him only to cause him to assault one of them forcing them to summon a police officer to arrest him for his crime. This action along with the dangerous side effects of the monocane that can cause a person to go insane causes him to snap and take-up his Invisible Man personality.

As the Invisible Man, he gives up using his discovery to benefit the world by seeking for world domination as his new goal. Knowing how he is the only person to have the power he found, he can use it to spread terror by causing mayhem through vandalism, robberies, and murders. The fact that no one will see him when he commits these crimes leaving people with the uncertainty of when and where he will strike next brings him nothing but joy. He shows no remorse when committing these crimes, he is insanely happy to watch people scream and suffer at his mercy. Having this power makes him feel like a god than just any other ordinary criminal. Though he is powerful, he acknowledges that he's not immortal because Mother Nature can still cause him to be spotted whether its water from the rain being on top of his head and shoulders, or the footprints he leaves in the snow as he freezes in the cold (he has to go about naked to be fully invisible). However, he is confident that he can work against Mother Nature after making such a grand discovery. With his power and fellow Scientist Dr. Kemp (William Harrigan) assisting him (who he forcefully recruited) he feels that nothing should get in his way.

There is one thing that can help Griffin regain sanity, the very person that motivated him to carry on his experiments, Flora. As soon as he hears about Flora's arrival to Kemp's home, his wild and hostile behavior dies down as he's reduced back to his old gentle sentimental self. Flora's presence reminds him of why he began all this in the first place, making him consider giving this power to the world instead of himself. With Flora bringing him back to the kind man he was before his transformation, her Father Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers) can reason with him by informing him about the dangers of the drug he used. Griffin is almost willing to call off his scheme, but due to the drugs still taking a toll on his way of thinking followed by the arrival of the police force, he goes back to his Invisible Man personality, but not before protecting Flora with the promise that he will return to her. He does see her, only it is on his deathbed after being shot in both lungs. Before dying, with the drug wearing off the last thing he tells her is his realization that there are things that man should not meddle with, leaving the viewer with his dead body slowly becoming visible.

Mad scientists are not the only kind of characters in the Universal Monster series that struggles between personalities. Let us not forget about how poor Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) struggles when he became the Wolf Man. Unlike how the previous two characters developed their alternate personality through their desires, Larry was simply a regular man who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Before Larry's incident with the wolf, he already had problems. For being away from home for so long in another country, he feels out of place, having trouble adjusting to his old surroundings as he's about to be given the estate after his brother's passing. The only thing that is keeping his feet on the ground is his love interest in Gwen (Evelyn Ankers). Ever since his encounter with the wolf he killed, he found himself descending into madness. Everybody in the village suspect him of being murderer since he owns the weapon that killed a gypsy (Bela Lugosi). And when he tries to convince others that he killed a werewolf and was bitten by one, people think he's insane since there is no evidence to prove it (down to the point where is bite mark disappears).



While the villagers point fingers at him for going off the deep end, the Mother (Maria Ouspenskaya) of the deceased gypsy tells him that he is becoming a werewolf after being bitten by one who used to be her son before he killed him. Larry would never ever think or believe about the subject of werewolves. Now that he is in an environment where people are making him feel and think that he's a murderer and a werewolf, it brings him to a paranoid state of mind where he becomes nervous around everyone, especially when he hears or sees something that's related to the symbol of his fear. When asking his Father (Claude Rains) about his fear, he tells him that there is good and evil in every man's soul, where in his case his evil has taken the form of a wolf. People tend to simply judge life simply what they see is good or bad. Considering how everybody has a different point of view, the more a person dives deeper into the topic of trying to understand every side the less sure of an answer shall be found. He closes this conversation by informing him that "anything can happen to a man in his own mind".

Larry discovers the truth after waking up from his second transformation, as the Wolf Man. When becoming the Wolf Man, Larry has no control of his actions now that his inner demons have taken control of his alternate personality. Therefore, he will go on attacking anybody he sees, especially those who are marked for death when he sees the pentagram appear in his or her hand. To avoid hurting anyone with his other personality, he tries to run and hide from those who want to help him, going as far to begging his Father to strap him in a chair and lock him up in his room. He knows he can't save himself from this curse, but he can try to save others from him. Never does Larry find any moments of peace from his struggle with his split personality until he suffers from the same fate that the Gypsy did, only this time it is at the hands of his own father instead of a stranger.

Hopefully next year I will find time to write more than one horror related and essay for October. Until then, Happy Halloween!

Film Essay: Early Essential Anti-War Films

Anti-war propaganda movies have always remained a popular subject. Usually when modern audiences think about them, many tend to refer to the ones made in the 70s to the present with such classics as "Full Metal Jacket", "Platoon", "Saving Private Ryan", "Apocalypse Now", "Schindler's List", "Hacksaw Ridge", and "American Sniper." That mainly comes from how modern audiences tend to focus more on films made after the "Black and White Hollywood era." But there are still many who are unaware of the existence of anti-war movies made during the early stages of cinema as most of them were used as propaganda for fighting the war than calling out on the horrors and tragedy of it. They were undoubtedly a product of their time, yet, there were still anti-war films made around the time that has gone as far as to win the award for Best Picture for how powerful their messages were executed.

Through the silent era, anti-war films such as "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" and "The Big Parade" have successfully managed to shock and depress people through their portrayal of war. The first significant anti-war sound film that has won many audiences and critics over is Lewis Milestone's "All Quiet on the Western Front" from 1930. At the start of the film, it doesn't seem to treat itself as an anti-war film. We watch soldiers proudly march and sing in the background, wherein the foreground we see a friendly mailman (John Wray) making his last delivery before proudly going off to serve. We then enter a classroom filled with students who are given a lecture from their professor (Arnold Lucy) about serving the war. To inspire his class to join the war effort, rather than telling them to fight for their country, or to go to learn discipline, he instead glorifies it. He tells them that the war will be short with very little casualties, where they will easily be praised as heroes, for simply standing out on the lines and killing a few people while being properly taken care of. Through his speech, we see the students’ daydream about how they will be praised when they get back home. They think little of the risks and more about the parades and medals honored to them for their bravery, which will attract all the women around them. For their brains being filled with dreams that were directly placed in through their heads by their professor's propaganda, they immediately run off to join the war after they're questioned of who will go out and fight.

The training camp becomes their wake-up call about the realities of war as soon as their drill sergeant enters (who was formerly their mailman). The first order he gives them is to forget everything they learned as well as their dreams, so they can be dehumanized as soldiers. This order contradicts everything they were told by their professor, as they spend the next few weeks of rigorous training with hardly any breaks. Little do they realize that the horrors they are facing have not even begun. When they are sent off to fight, the war is nowhere close to their professor's description. They live in the trenches in a small bunker filled with rats, starving, as bombshells keep falling around them, almost making their bunker collapse above them. The constant bombings, the lack of food, and sitting around in boredom causes them to go insane. The action they part-take in doesn't make them feel any better. Not just because their lives are at risk, but also because they are watching their friends die in horrible ways as they kill the enemy realizing that they are probably not in the war for the right reasons either. Many have families they left behind as well. There is medical treatment available for the soldiers; however, it isn't reliable for how poor the conditions are, as most of them are sent home in a box after spending endless hours of agonizing pain. In the midst of all this, as the soldiers sit down to have a great feast after spending so many weeks or so with little food, they sit around wondering why they are fighting. They understand it's because their country leader is offended by another country leader, but they question why they have to do all the fighting instead of the people who overpower them. Why can't they settle their matters themselves, and send people who most likely don't care or offended by their conflicts fight for them? All they know is that the people who make them go are safe, as they are the ones catching the hell.

The closest that the film has to a main character is Paul (Lew Ayres), as the film is mostly just an ensemble cast. By the time Paul is allowed to visit his home, the war is still going on after the few years he's been fighting, with no signs that it will end soon. He hopes that people's opinions of the war will change, but it turns out that people are still living in ignorance. Paul is celebrated for his honor, but the people around him believe they know more about the war than he does. They tell Paul how he and the troops should have had a different strategy than the one they have, believing it would have ended the war quicker. Despite that Paul has been behind enemy lines seeing all this, he's being told that he doesn't know the details of war, as they foolishly believe Paul is under good treatment while the people at home live in conditions worse than the troops have it. This ignorance from the citizens’ point of view disgusts Paul, but it's not until he visits his old classroom that causes him to snap. Right as his professor is using the same kind of propaganda that lured Paul and his friends to fight, the professor uses him as a perfect of heroic bravery to his class so they can be just like him. Paul doesn't wish to tell the class the details of war until he is pushed by his professor to tell them. Instead of lying to the class about how wonderful it is to be a soldier, he tells them the cruelties that he and his friends have faced, telling them there is no glory when fighting. For this, the students in the class label him as a coward. Paul at this point becomes certain that everybody is brainwashed by the propaganda supporting war, knowing that many more lives from young recruits will be wasted.

"All Quiet on the Western Front" tackles more on the battlegrounds then it does the aftermath of the war. An anti-war film that focuses strictly on the aftermath of the war is William Wyler's "Best Years of Our Lives" from 1946, which follows the lives of three soldiers returning home after serving in World War II. The character who takes up most of the film's plot is ex bombardier Fred Derry (Dana Andrews). Before being shipped out to war, Fred married a beautiful woman named Marie (Virginia Mayo) that he's only known for less than a month. After returning home, Fred seeks to find a better career than his old soda jerk job since his skills in the war have made him ambitious to explore new horizons. Unfortunately, since he only worked one job, and spent all his time fighting which isn't qualified for any job in his town, Fred crawls back to his old job that is now under new management. As all this is going on, the woman he married who fell madly in love with him for being a war hero who is about to make a lot of money from his service, spends it all and quickly loses attraction to him for being nothing more than an ordinary man. Fred overtime begins to discover (along with another veteran) that there are people at home who don't appreciate soldiers. One of the patrons at the soda bar he works at, for instance, goes as far as to insult soldiers calling them suckers right to their faces. Fred can't so much as get a good night sleep from all the troubles he's facing after the war because his memories of fighting the enemy and watching people on his platoon suffer haunts him in his nightmares.

Fred has trouble finding a job, but former Platoon Sergeant Al Stephenson (Fredric March) gets a promotion at his old job from a banker to a Vice President in charge of small loans. The problem is that he notices that the bank has not been helping that many vets out because of their lack of collateral for being away fighting. The lack of finical help from the bank disgusts Al, believing that soldiers deserve a chance to rebuild their lives after serving their country. Al himself has trouble rebuilding his life at home. For being away for so long to heed Uncle Sam's call, he has missed watching his children grow. For their knowledge, difference in behavior, and work-life, he does not feel that they are not his children for how much they evolved. It becomes harder for him to rekindle with his kids now that they are at the age where they have their own lives, despite living at home. Although many of the scenes of Al drinking is played-out for comedy, there is still emotion to be felt since alcohol is the only thing at the moment that can help him cope with all his troubles.

In the very least, Fred and Al have made it out of the war in one piece. The third veteran they meet on their way home named Homer (Harold Russell) has lost his hands. The tragic part is he wasn't involved in any of the war combat. He was confined to a repair shop below the ship's deck. Due to a fire that was caused by enemy planes as the boat he was in sunk, Homer’s hand was severely burnt beyond any medical treatment. To replace his hands, the army gave him hooks as they trained him on how to use them. The hooks don't bother Homer until he returns home. Everywhere he goes he is pitied for his loss than he is treated like any other soldier who made it home without losing a limb. Some people (particularly children) just stare at his hooks in shock of his deformity. This angers him where he feels that he must prove to society that he can function fine without hands. However, when adjusting to the activities in his home life, though succeeding in some eras with his hooks, he realizes he can never again feel his lover's hair. He notices that he can no longer light a match as quickly as others can because of his limitations. On top of it, he needs his father to assist him with getting ready for bed after taking off his hooks, who is now at this point as helpless as an infant is. Due to his depression from adjusting to society, he shuns away his girlfriend Wilma (Cathy O'Donnell) fearing that she will no longer love him now that she has to deal with his disability.

The reason why the topic of anti-war films has lasted so long is that war is a topic that has always stayed relevant. Whether the film takes place in World War II, the jungles of Vietnam, or during the Civil War, the portrayal of the horrors of war never seemed outdated. The times may be different, the weapons they carried may not be as advance as today's weapons, however, the pain and suffering the people go through is timeless. By watching the sadness that has happened to the lives of people in the past, we reflect on it knowing that war will only get worse during the course of time.

Tarzan and His Mate

As promised I'm starting the new decade out by reviewing the first sequel to the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan film...

Despite the film flopping at the Box Office, the film has been considered by critics and historians to be superior to the first Tarzan film. As a matter of fact, this was the only Tarzan film to be placed in the "National Film Registry", even though the first film is considered a classic. This sparked my curiosity to watch the film after hearing all the praise it’s been given. And I feel like it would be unfair not to give my thoughts on it given its reputation. After all, it did come with my DVD copy of the first movie. Does this sequel really surpass original, or is it in the very least similar like the first film except this time we see Maureen O'Hara wearing an outfit almost as revealing as Weissmuller's? ON WITH THE REVIEW!

A year later after Jane (Maureen O'Sullivan) decided to live in the jungle with Tarzan (Johnny Weissmuller). Jane's previous suitor Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton) returns to the jungles of Africa to once again find the elephant burial ground and sell the ivory with his partner Martin Arlington (Paul Cavanagh). The two encounter Tarzan and Jane on their expedition who are still living happily together, with the hopes that Tarzan will lead them there. Jane convinces Tarzan to do so, without realizing their intentions, eventually leading treachery. The plot and structure are almost near identical to the first film. We get ten minutes of exposition about the same destination. The characters are shown to be fighting against obstacles before meeting the title character. We get many scenes of Tarzan either fighting wild-life or interacting with Jane. Jane gets into a love...square. One of the men tries to kill Tarzan leaving him to be severely wounded. And the climax involves Tarzan recusing the characters from a native tribe. It's easy to pinpoint how the story is going to unfold.

The only big difference when it comes to the plot is that Jane is happily living in the jungle with Tarzan that is one of the strengths that this film has over the first one. As intriguing as their relationship was in the last film, a good half of it was seeing Jane looking scared and confused around Tarzan's presence. Which is undoubtedly understandable given how the two are from totally different worlds. The problem is that there weren't enough scenes of them showing mutual feelings for each other. In this film, they're now inseparable. Seeing them cuddle, swing on vines, and swim is incredibly sweet to watch given how close they always are. O'Sullivan and Weissmuller genuinely look like they're madly in love with each other who both live for the thrill of adventure. Admittedly as cute as they are, they have become a little less interesting. In the first film, though we know that Tarzan was deeply in love with Jane, we never fully knew what he was thinking due to his wild nature, which made him a bit of a danger to Jane and the characters. Now that Tarzan is officially with Jane who has been tamed by her, he no longer has that intense edge that he used to have. It's not necessarily a bad thing by any means, it's just Tarzan no longer acts as vicious when people cross-him in the last film now that Jane is holding his leash. Jane who I considered to be one of the strong female heroines of her time despite still getting in trouble has definitely evolved. While keeping her man under control, she takes great pride in living in the jungle with the love of exploring, performing daring stunts while making a jungle call (that's far from sounding inhuman from Tarzan's), coming up with strategies, and fighting back on a few occasions. With that said, there are many times when she needs to be saved by Tarzan. I get that the film needs to have scenes of Tarzan being heroic, but how she gets in trouble seems forced. There's a sense that she can escape from the animals that are after her (with the exception of the climax) since we've already seen scenes demonstrating her psychical strength, and yet for the sake of having an action scene with Tarzan, the film decides to have her act foolish or make her suddenly weak. Her being vulnerable in the original made sense because she never experienced the jungle before. After spending a year living in the wild, you'd think she'd be a little more independent. Despite a few things that have weaken the characters, they're still overall very charming to watch, making the kid inside me wish that I was out exploring the jungle with them. Furthermore, it does offer some interesting insight into the characters about society outside the jungle. In an attempt to woo Jane away from the jungle, Harry brings material that can only be found from her homeland. As Jane is happily reliving some of the fine things in life that she left behind, we witness Tarzan interacting with some of the items. This idea is a fantastic way to explore both of the leads outlook of civilized society due to how one left it behind, while the other never experienced it. The downside is, this whole idea is used up in one scene since the film wants to play itself safe by following the same formula from the first film.

The supporting characters are as minimal as they are before. Neil Hamilton is still cool to watch as Harry, whose character has grown to be more supportive and understanding. Becoming more of an ally than a rival. That's not to say that he doesn't still have feelings for Jane. However, he wouldn't go through the lengths of attempting to kill Tarzan after everything Tarzan has done for him and Jane. For the film feeling the need to have an antagonist the same way how the film needs to put Jane in countless danger despite appearing that she can take care of herself, we have Harry's partner Martin filling in the position. Right from his first appearance in the film, despite being good friends with Harry, you can tell that this guy is bad news. Throughout the film, he's shown coldly killing people for selfish reasons without any second thought, while making the moves on Jane. Paul Cavanagh's gives a good performance, appearing to be a better rival than Harry was when he first met Tarzan. Unfortunately, he's forgettable for how shoehorned in he feels as a villain who's not really that riveting as a character. He's just the typical greedy hunter who just wants the money and the woman. And yeah, that whole love square that Jane gets involved in doesn't have too much value to the plot either since there is no tension that is felt between the three men that want to be with Jane. Most of the actions that Martin takes are more toward gaining the ivory than winning Jane's heart. And suppose that Tarzan truly is out of the way, what does Martin plan to do with Harry since he loves Jane too? Like the love triangle in the first film, it just exists for the sake of having a rivalary. The supporting cast wouldn't be complete without Tarzan's monkey companion Cheeta, only instead of one we discover that Cheeta now has a baby. Though Cheeta was cute and helpful in the first film, Cheeta and baby Cheeta leave more of an impression for being given a little more to do. As we're given some moments of them looking cute or doing something silly, they have plenty of scenes of them aiding Tarzan and Jane. Not just by reviving them, or running to get help by escaping numerous obstacles, but by going as far as to jump right into the middle of the danger to defend them.

The film definitely has its fair share of dangers compared to the amount of action that went on in the first installment. It's actually in many ways more impressive for how gigantic the scenes are put together with the characters facing higher stakes. In the climax to the first film for example, the characters were captured by a tribe where they are forced to fight against a big gorilla for their amusement. The climax involves a tribe too, only it doesn't involve a person wearing a ridiculous ape costume that would be suitable for a buddy comedy with Abotto and Costello, or Crosby and Hope. We're watching people being slowly tortured as Jane and the others watch in fright, to having Tarzan and his animal friends fight both the natives and a whole swarm of lions that their opponents have summoned. As awesome as it is to see Tarzan fight against wild animals (the highlight is the scene when he fights an alligator), it's really the scenes for whenever the characters have to outrun and fight against tribes that are filled with the right amount of tension and excitement that you could want from an adventure film of this kind. From a special effects standpoint, like the first film they use a variety of different kinds of effects that are hit and miss. There's not much to say about them in comparison because they pretty much have the same pros and cons. Nevertheless, even when they do look hokey and dated, the action presented is still exciting enough to overlook the flaws.

The most impressive effects come from the scenes that wouldn't get passed other films after the pre-code era. This was the last of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films before the Hays Code would control Hollywood films. Before the code would affect the other films, this film takes what they were able to get away with from the first film and take it to a whole new level. I've talked about how surprised I was to see a high body count of stabbings that were happening in the last film. This film doesn't have the same body count of stabbings compared to the last film, it's worse, we're seeing blood really gushing out of the people and animals that are being cut open. There was blood in the first film but it wasn't nearly as grotesque as this. One particular shot that shocked me is when we see a tribe member gets brutally stabbed in the back as we watch blood ooze out up close to the frame. This is the kind of imagery I would expect to see in a slasher film, not in a classic 30's adventure film aimed for families. As if watching people being stabbed and tortured doesn't give kids enough nightmare fuel, Harry and Martin come across rotting corpses filled with blood and bugs earlier in the film!

The suggestive material that's shown in this film doesn't get any family friendlier either. It was already touchy in 1932 to have a lead character who is half-naked. Now the film has both stars showing too much skin, as Jane has traded in her jungle outfit for a skimpy halter top and loin cloth exposing her hips and thighs. And since this is the last of the pre-code Tarzan movies, this is the only film in the series to show Jane wearing her revealing costume as she would go on to wear a costume showing less of her skin to appease the Hays Office after the code was enforced. Jane's outfit isn't the only thing that dirty old Hollywood is using to capitalize on her sex appeal. The most iconic scene in the film is the beautifully shot and choreographed underwater sequence of Tarzan swimming with a butt-naked Jane. It's already shocking to see a film this old look so gruesome, now we're staring at Jane's butt and breasts for 4 minutes? This film doesn't hold back with getting away with as much risky material as possible. The crazy part about this whole scene is that there were three different versions of this sequence being shot. The reason for this was to give each state in the U.S. a choice of which version of the scene to screen. All prints were later removed due to controversy and were lost. Luckily the original version was discovered in the vaults of MGM and can now be shown on modern copies of the film. What fascinates me about all this is this isn't the only time in the film where we see a woman topless. Earlier in the movie when Harry and Martin are sitting outside planning the safari, behind them you can see a bra-less native woman walking past them. It's not easy to spot, but it's still there.

If there was one thing that certainly aged poorly in the first Tarzan film was its depictions of Africans. If the body count didn't involve endangered animals, it was people of color who died in the harsh jungles in Africa. When they weren't played as victims from both nature and the people they work and slave for, they were portrayed as a savage tribe by little men covered in blackface. This film, unfortunately, doesn't stray that far away from the racism present in the first film. To give the first film some sort of credit, at least the African's weren't killed by the people they work for. Martin at one point flat-out murders one for refusing to go into forbidden territory. I get it! I know he's the bad guy. Yet for some reason, Harry doesn't seem that upset by his action of taking a man's life. Then again, Harry makes the same racist excuse as Jane did of Tarzan being like their kind for his whiteness. At the very least, the film was merciful enough to spare us from seeing tribes in blackface.

Overall Thoughts

The film is just as good as the first film by containing the same elements that worked and didn't work in the first film, making it a little difficult for me to say that it's better than the first film. The plot is similar that only has a few subplots that either don't go anywhere or have a reason for existing. Weissmuller and O'Hara are still very pleasant to watch even though the film makes Tarzan too tamed and Jane foolishly vulnerable. Harry and both Cheeta's are likable supporting characters, but Martin is forgettable for how uninteresting of a foe he is. The effects are a mixed bag, yet it's still inventive to see so much creativity being brought to the action scenes, as some of them still hold-up. The action is as riveting. And the film takes risks like the first film to keep it from being a standard adventure film. It's the same reasons why I consider the first film to be good, just with new flaws, so why does it get more attention than the first film? Well, a few reasons. Tarzan and Jane interacting in the jungle as a happy couple are more pleasing than seeing Jane constantly feeling afraid of Tarzan. The risks that the film takes are higher than what was shown in the first film by showing more gore and skin that still has the ability to shock given the film's age. The action looks grander as the stakes feel higher than the first film. And though the portrayal of Africans hasn't aged well in this film either, it feels less insufferable by comparison since the film doesn't decide to distastefully have white actors in blackface. So for those reasons, I fully understand why this film has a bit more of a reputation. Still, I urge people to watch the first film for a background on the characters and seeing the many things that made the first film good that its sequel was successfully able to improve upon. They're both classic fun adventure films that deserve to be seen. Perhaps in the future, I may review the rest of the sequels from time to time. After all, the lines that were spoken from the audio-animatronic of Jane on "The Great Movie Ride" is none of the dialogue heard in the first two films. It could simply be that her dialogue was never from any of the films and that they got a sound-a-like to voice her since they did the same for the John Wayne audio-animatronic. But if you listen to how crude the audio sounds for when Jane speaks, it seems most likely they used archive sound-footage from the films. So while I've finally seen the Tarzan films, I still have yet to see the film that was supposedly used on the ride.

Tarzan, The Ape Man

Usually I just end the year with a review of "A Christmas Carol", but this year marks something special upon my years of critiquing films and TV programs. This is my tenth anniversary! I know I have had this blog for eight years, but my blog isn't the focus. For ten long years since I was a freshman in High School, I found a way to devote my love and passion for film by writing reviews and discussing a bit about its history through my Facebook to eventually running my own blog. I didn't think at first I would commit to this for so long, but I have and am still making time to write reviews through my busy schedule, regardless how the number of reviews I write each year have decreased. The problem is I don't remember the exact date when I started writing reviews (my reviews on Facebook have been deleted and moved to this blog). I remember it happening in the Middle of my freshman year, but I can't remember so much as the month I began. Therefore, I figured it would be best to celebrate my ten-year anniversary for reviewing films on New Year’s Eve.

I began wondering what I should review or discuss to celebrate this occasion on my blog. Until I turned my memory back to the moment of my life when I realized that film was going to be my life devotion after riding Disney World' former attraction "The Great Movie Ride". Over the years, I've seen all the movies on the ride, as well as reviewed some of them for my blog loving each and every one of them for different reasons. But there was one movie I have yet to see that was featured on the ride through its display of audio animatronics, and that was...

It's funny how it took me so many years to finally see it. Not for being part of a life changing experience, but for how I knew about the film since I was a child.

My earliest obsession that I had involving films as a kid was "George of the Jungle". I heavily admired the show and the movie for its humor, characters, jungle setting, and above all its catchy theme song that I could sing forever and ever at that age. I always had a blast seeing this muscular hero be so cool, and yet so foolishly clumsy as he'd swing like on a vine like a pro to suddenly crashing into a tree like an amateur. It made me laugh while also encouraging me to do similar activities like him such as climbing trees, exploring nature, and swinging on ropes (and mildly crash into a few trees occasionally).

While I was in my "George of the Jungle" phase as a child, my Mom took me to her job at "AMC" one day as I was exposed to Johnny Weissmuller's famous portrayal of Tarzan through a promo poster, and an action figure that made his famous jungle call. I thought he was cool, but I still refereed to the character as "George of the Jungle" completely disregarding the character's name, due to how used I was to his parody counterpart, and that I was never shown any of the Tarzan films.

It wasn't until Disney's version of the character came out when I started to understand the basis of the character, therefore acknowledging the fact that my hero was a joke on a popular hero. During this point as I was discovering this, I was already out of my obsessions with "George of the Jungle", as I had little to no interest in Tarzan's character.

I later changed my tune when I went on "The Great Movie Ride" a second time, this time having the knowledge who the character really is than thinking it’s an older version of "George of the Jungle". I was having the same amount awe at watching the Johnny Weissmuller animatronic swing across the jungle as I did as a child, while also taking an interest in...

his monkey companion Cheeta...



and admiring the beauty and sophistication of Jane sitting on top of an elephant.

I then tried to see it, only I had trouble finding it at Blockbuster and my local library. The worst part was, as I began searching I realized that this wasn't a stand-alone movie but a long running movie series. This turned off my interest a bit because I didn't feel like watching every film in the series since the character didn't wow me as other heroes with an ongoing franchise like James Bond and Batman. On top of it, the films looked boring, silly, and racially offensive, so I didn't push myself as hard as I would with the other films.

After leaving High School and got into the full swing of reviewing films, I wanted to watch and review them, only I didn't want to feel obligated to cover the whole franchise since the film's weren't exactly my cup of tea. After so many years of debating to watch these films and review them, I feel like I owe at least the first film a review since the character was practically part of my nostalgia and inspiration. And as a special treat since my DVD copy came with its successful sequel following after the first film "Tarzan and his Mate", I will make that my first review for next year! Is the first Tarzan movie something that I regret missing out on? ON WITH THE REVIEW!

Jane joins her father (C. Aubrey Smith) and explorer Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton) on an expedition in the jungles of Africa to find the legendary elephant graveyard. After coming across a few obstacles on the journey, Jane is taken away by the wild Tarzan. The two gradually form a love connection through their fascinations of how different they are from each other, as Tarzan fights against wild animals and native tribes. It's your traditional classic A to Z adventure plot, that's more based on the experience and interaction with the characters, than it is a character driven story. In many ways it shares a similar formula to the groundbreaking giant monster film that would be released the following year "King Kong". We quickly get acquainted with our characters learning enough about their personalities before they go on their journey through the Jungle. At about the halfway point of the movie we meet the film's title character whose origins remain a mystery. And he falls in love with a girl who's afraid of him as he fights to protect her. All that's missing is for Tarzan to be taken to a different land where he runs a muck after being shown to be people for entertainment.

We may not be given any depth to Tarzan's history before Jane crosses his path, however this is one of those cases where the less we know about him the more fascinating he becomes. We don't know why this man lives in the jungle, how he was raised by apes, or what exactly he did to become practically "King of the jungle". It would be interesting to know, but at the same time, it's not required. Much like how "King Kong" and Tim Burton's "Batman" would put us through the perspectives of the supporting characters interactions with the title character, we're following Jane through pretty much the entirety of the film. Therefore, when Tarzan shows up we relate to Jane's fear and fascination with him, given how little knowledge we have about him in terms of background and personality. He acts savage, yet he has a child-like personality. He'll defend Jane from wild beasts, but then he'll start attacking the people in her group after one of them kills one of his ape friends. Tarzan looks heroic and we know he's going to do right in the end, however he still comes off as a bit intimidating for how unpredictably wild he is, whether it would be acting violent or getting a little too touchy with Jane (I know he's curious about her, but some moments do get uncomfortably rapey).

What makes these characters work so well is the performances from Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O'Sullivan. Weissmuller barely says a word in this movie, and he tremendously sells out the emotions we're supposed to feel from this character. His body language, mannerisms, expressions, and awkward delivery of pronouncing English words all contribute to the believability that he's a wild jungle man with animal instincts who’s been isolated from society, despite looking so unbelievably clean and handsome. Apart from being emotionally confused like a curious child, he has tons of moments that make him out to be such a badass. The number one ingredient of why Johnny Weissmuller's portrayal of Tarzan would be considered the best by many film historians is his iconic Jungle call. A sound that is so inhuman that many have questioned if Weissmuller did the call himself. Even with the conformation through O'Hara and Weissmuller's son that he did the call himself without any technical assistance, people are still skeptical if the information is true or false.

Going into this film, I expected Jane to be a typical damsel in distress who is beautiful and has a charming personality. She does have all those traits. There are many times where she needs to be saved while screaming nearly as much as Fay Wray does in "King Kong". But similar to the character Vicki Vale in Tim Burton's "Batman", while finding herself in trouble, she's still an interesting character with her strong points. She's the kind of character who's sick of living in a civilized society yearning to live somewhere where's there's adventure and freedom. People disprove her involvement on the safari, but she doesn't listen to any of that by remaining headstrong through her stubborn attitude. She doesn't care what others want from her, she chooses her own destiny and goes right for it. Sure, there are many times when she must be saved, but she's still knowledgeable, shows her limitations, takes part in the some of the action, and rescues Tarzan at one point. Furthermore, it would seem believable that a person who has never experienced the jungle before would be this vulnerable. If she suddenly acted tough and didn't need any kind of saving, she would be cool but not interesting as a character for being too perfect. Does that mean that I wish there were fewer times of her screaming and getting into trouble? Absolutely. But for the time she was a strong female character, who’s still admirable to watch for the amount of passion O'Hara gives to her personality by being kind, aggressive, innocent, flirty, and confident.

The cast of supporting characters is thankfully small (without including the escorts and tribe they come across). The only animal in the film the character's bond with is Tarzan's monkey sidekick Cheeta, who's cute though isn't given much to do until the climax. C. Aubrey Smith suits the role of Jane's Father for giving his character a humble presence while containing a passion for discovery. These characters are enjoyable, but it's Neil Hamilton's character who's the most entertaining out of the supporting characters. Seeing a young Commissioner Gordon from the 60s Batman show act as a daring hero who has an interest in Jane is cool to see, especially given how modern audience associate Hamilton for a comedic portrayal of one of Batman's allies. As cool as he is, the film tries to make him a bit of an antagonist for being another suitor for Jane who is willing to kill Tarzan based on his dangerous nature. I like that this character isn't necessarily a villain, but there's so little tension surrounding this love triangle that placing him as another suitor for Jane just feels like a pointless afterthought in the long run given that he doesn't want to kill Tarzan to be with Jane.

With the fear of the film boring me as opposed to entertaining me, this is indeed an old school adventure film that doesn't get dull. At first, the film felt like it wasn't going to be all that amusing. The characters all seemed fine, however during their introduction we get some rather forced humor, and very unimpressive use of a projector screen effect for how obvious they're standing in-front of stock footage (even by early 30's standards it looks bad). But once they set out on their expedition we're presented with all kinds of different adventurous scenarios, such as crossing dangerous cliffs, fighting against hungry hippos, Tarzan fighting wild animals, and a climax involving the characters being captured by a tribe. And when the action comes to a halt, we still find ourselves intrigued with the relationships that the characters have to keep them from being boring, especially the scenes with Tarzan and Jane.

From a special effects stand-point the results are rather mixed. The film has an impressive variety of special effects such as the use of costumes, puppets, real life animals, and green screen effects. The creativity when inventing these effects are admirable but that doesn't mean that every single trick works. As we enjoy seeing Tarzan and Jane interact with live animals, we get people dressed up in Gorilla costumes with cheesy looking masks. The jungle sets are cool, but some of the rear projector screens are laughable (particularly in the opening). Sometimes the film would even cut to obvious stock footage from the film "Trader Horn" for how different the quality is. Thankfully, what saves half of the bad effects from being off-putting isn't just because we get so many good ones as well, but because the action scenes are directed extremely well. During the Hippo attack it's easy to tell which Hippo is stock footage and which one's a puppet, however through solid direction the scene becomes exciting and intense. Another example is how poorly hidden the trapezes used to create the illusion of Tarzan swinging through the jungle. Yet as much this should shatter the illusion, the stunts performed are highly remarkable to watch. Regardless how well these special effects hold-up or how good they are judged by 30's standards, the action scenes that we get are exciting enough to get through the ones that don't work.

Part of what helps makes the film such an adventure is that the film was made during Pre-Code era to help give it an edge. Sex and violence were always considered a controversial matter at the time. Hollywood for instance was not comfortable with showing too much skin from their stars, especially on women, and the star of the movie is a half-naked man wearing a leopard skin, as the film tries to get as much up-skirt shots of him as possible. Let’s not forget that there are many scenes of Tarzan touching Jane due to his curiosity. At one point, he shockingly disrobes her by force with the intention to have sex with her, only to stop when he sees her upset by this action. That is rarely something that you saw in a film at the time, let alone an adventure film aimed for all ages. The violence in the film doesn’t hold back for what it could get away with at the time. I was surprised to see such a high body count of animals and people being killed in this film. Similar to how the 1932 film "Scarface" would contain left and right killings with the use of a machine gun, this film contains plenty of scenes of stabbings that a slasher film would be happy to have. There are even scenes that show some blood, which is still kind of shocking to see now for how old the film is.

All this stuff would be considered nothing by today's standards but at the time, it was heavy stuff, making the film a bit ahead of its time. Unfortunately, as impressive as the film is there are still elements that are very dated that wouldn't sit well at all with modern viewers. I wasn't wrong when fearing that the film would be racially offensive. During the course of Jane's expedition with James and her father, aiding them are African men. It makes sense why they are with them since they know this land better than the main characters do. But all they do is act like slaves, right to the point where we watch them get whipped when acting out of line. In fact, they mostly take up the film's body count. The reason why most of them die is to provide an example of how dangerous the jungles are to our trio, because after all the film isn't going to kill the few supporting characters, it has. Even the film's title hero viciously kills a few of them. When they are not dropping like the pygmies in "Pocket God", they're portrayed as cold-blooded savages when we get to the climax. Unlike how black actors were hired to play the escorts, what we have instead for the tribe are little people in blackface. And just when you think the film can't get any more dated with its racism, Jane tries to defend Tarzan's savagery by claiming that he's like them because "he's white." Oh yeah, if a strange half-naked wild man living in the jungle who acts like an animal is white, he must be civilized. But if he's of color, well he's automatically labeled as a savage!

Overall Thoughts

Some of my predictions when going into this movie were indeed true. A few of the effects (particularly the gorilla masks and some of the projector effects) look silly. Its politics and portrayal of Africans can be insufferably racist. And sometimes Tarzan's behaviors towards Jane would get a little too uncomfortable. With that said, as far as classic adventure films go, this was tons of fun. Weissmuller and O'Hara give top-notch performances to iconic characters who are almost opposite from how you would think they are. Tarzan while being a brave daring hero, he is also very vicious towards the characters who intrude on his territory (including Jane) as we know nothing about his background, which makes him fascinating. Jane though she gets in trouble numerous times in the film, it's her headstrong attitude and love for adventure that makes her one of the strong female leads at the time, who has her badass and helpful moments. The few supporting characters the film has are pleasant to watch. There is tons of action and danger to keep the film entertaining. Despite how dated many of the effects are, and awful they can look at times, they are still impressive for their time for the amount of variety that was brought when creating them, where even some of them still hold-up now. And to see how ahead of the time this film is with story and conducting action scenes are part of what makes this film a classic worth remembering. If there's one thing, I was wrong about the movie, is it doesn't bore.

Have a Happy New Decade everyone, and join me this January for my review of the sequel to get the reviews for this new one started!

A CHRISTMAS CAROL 1938

When it came to picking to review an adaptation of "A Christmas Carol", I was originally going to review the film starring Alistair Sims since that is the version that many people would consider the ultimate film telling of the story. Just as I was getting ready to start watching it, I remembered the film adaptation that came out in 1938.



Since there were very few full-length film versions of the film with sound prior to it, I have decided to cover the 1938 film first before talking about the film that many would argue to be the best version of the story. As always, there are tons of things to cover when dissecting "A Christmas Carol" adaptation, so let’s jump right into the first part of the story.

EBENEEZER SCROOGE

The actor who was originally set to portray Ebenezer Scrooge was the late great Lionel Barrymore, who was popular for playing the miserable miser every holiday season on the radio. Barrymore was committed to playing his famous radio role on the big screen; however, life had other plans for him. With arthritis taking a toll on him, he had to step down from the role. Fortunately, he was still able to help with the film by recommending his friend Reginald Owen to play the role (who you may know him as Admiral Boom from "Mary Poppins"). Barrymore chose not to play Scrooge on the radio fearing that it would hurt the success of the film, so he decided to promote the film in the film's trailer. It's a real shame that he couldn't play the part, because it would have been fantastic to see such a grand actor play this famous character on the big screen. But I suppose this was something that was meant to be regarding Barrymore's career. 8 years later he would play a miser who is much worse than Scrooge, who is non-other than Mr. Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life". I can only believe that if he were to play Scrooge in the film, and then play Mr. Potter, he would probably be less seen as one of the great villains in cinema and more as Barrymore in a type casted role for how similar he is to a famous Christmas character he would have played, just without redemption.

Now that Owen is in the lead, he in this portion does make for a good grouchy bitter-old Scrooge. He hits all the right notes when conducting Scrooge's hatred for Christmas, from his sour face, and commanding voice (though the scene when he gives Cratchit off for Christmas was too quickly paced). His interaction with his Nephew Fred (Barry MacKay) and the two Portly Gentlemen are carried out traditionally well, but his best moments is how he handles his employee Bob Cratchit (Gene Lockhart). Some of the things he says to him are so hurtfully demeaning that you can only imagine what kind of other terrible things that Scrooge says to him to keep his spirits low. For instance, when Bob Cratchit tells him that he was working a half hour overtime, Scrooge demands him to "close up" before he "makes something of himself". Scrooge later on states that he can easily "find a man more capable" than him, which is something he's clearly told him before. I know that the versions of Cratchit have had it rough, but my goodness I would be going into a deep depression if I had to keep on being told I am worthless as I work in a freezing environment with little pay. It rather amazes me how Cratchit has to put up with this for so long.

Despite that we know so much about Scrooge's hatred for Christmas, most of this is portion is focused on Fred and Cratchit. Right from the very start of the film, rather than seeing Scrooge walking, or the film going directly to his place of business after looking at the winter scenery in London, for the first few minutes we follow Fred as he strolls off to see his Uncle. And through those few minutes we see him slide on the ice with the kids where he meets Bob's son Tiny Tim (Terry Kilburn), who he places him on his shoulders as he slides on the ice. It's a nice moment, although it does replace a moment that Cratchit usually takes part in that just doesn't feel appropriate to switch him off with another character. Still the dialogue he exchanges with Tim about how he knows Scrooge, does give some nice build-up to leads nasty personality for how the kids fear him. The most interesting part about Fred in this version is unlike most versions when he enters the office with Scrooge present, he arrives when Scrooge is away with only Cratchit present. Noticing how Cratchit must be miserable working under these conditions he decides to spread a little Christmas joy to him, at the cost of breaking a few rules, such as adding coal to the fire, and taking one of Scrooge's glasses for a sip of wine he has brought. Though Fred only means well, his interference nearly causes Cratchit to be fired when Scrooge finally enters the screen. It's not a bad change of having a character who's always so perfect make a few careless mistakes for how consumed he is with sharing the joys of Christmas. Sometimes people in reality do find themselves making foolish decisions based on their blind love for the holidays without realizing that there could be repercussions to the people around them, if not just for them self. In terms of performance, MacKay is a little more grounded compared to other performances of the character. As most actors almost seem like their phoning in Fred's kind nature, MacKay though just as upbeat as the other actors who played Fred, seems more dignified. He is sophisticated, but he still does not shy away from his enthusiasm for Christmas.

Lockhart isn't a bad Cratchit either. His nervous bumbling personality for whenever he's around Scrooge does sell that his boss is not a man to be tried with. You always feel that he's walking on egg shells for how much he fears his boss, knowing that he could be fired at any time. While capturing the characters frightened side, he manages to pull off his fun child-like personality just as well (however, his sudden joy when he sees a goose is kind of creepy). In an interesting change of events, Cratchit gets dismissed from his position. Due to his child-like love for Christmas as he's showing kids how to make a better snowball to get a better hit at their target, the hat he throws the snowball at belongs to his employer. We all know in the end he's going to get his job back, however this new idea of creating tension between Cratchit and Scrooge does seem a little more engaging. Scrooge this time isn't going to see the present with Bob Cratchit still working for his business. He is going to be witnessing a Christmas without having a job to go back to after the holiday, which will no doubt lead to a grim future because of his action. I don't want to talk too much about it since there is much more to see, all I'm going to say is this change puts Scrooge in a more direct position with handling Tim's death than he did in the original story, which I find to be twice as heartbreaking of a concept.

If you read my review on the first sound film of the storywith Seymour Hicks in the leading role, I talked about how dreary and unpleasant most of London looked during Christmas time. I get that it wasn't the most cheerful environment back where the story takes place, but that doesn't mean they didn't have to make it not look festive given that it's a fantasy Christmas story. Well this version certainly improves upon the last adaptation. Right after the opening credits as we hear a beautiful rendition of "Hark the Herald", we view the city at night covered in snow that looks as lovely as a Christmas card, as opposed to feeling ominous to the point where there is little cheer to be felt. Watching the kids slide on the ice and throw around snowballs, as people walk the town to shop for tasty Christmas treats sets up the film's holiday mood on the right track for how festive it is but not to the point where everything is perfect, (there are kid Christmas Carolers singing out of key). Appropriately, the only gloomy looking place that we see in the city is the street where Scrooge works looking as unwelcoming as the very person who runs it.

MARLEY'S GHOST

The film visually so far looks better than the previous film; however, there are times when the film can look too pretty, where it loses the terror that a scene is supposed to have. For instance, before Jacob Marley appears there is always some kind of tension building-up to his full reveal. Scrooge's home looks run-down for how empty and covered in cobwebs the interiors are, as if he's living a haunted house. The music played in the background sounds otherworldly, as there is a feeling that something is following Scrooge for how the music would stop when Scrooge stops walking, to resuming when he does. Just as Scrooge is going to call it day, he goes from hearing his doorbell ringing to suddenly hearing all kinds of bells ringing loudly in his ear. The set and sounds are all perfect for this build-up, except that the lighting is excessively bright. Unlike how most versions use shadows and little lighting to create a sense of fear for when Marley is to appear, this version looks as if Scrooge is searching his house with the lights on, which isn't scary. Perhaps if the pacing was slower and the cinematography brought a little more weight with the visuals, the lighting wouldn't be as distracting. But those elements are just as off. The cinematography is very standard, as the pacing for Scrooge walking through his house moves so fast that it feels that the film just wants to show Marley as quickly as possible. The scene when Scrooge sees Marley on his doorknocker hardly takes its time for it to be creepy. Marley face quickly appears (through a decent effect), and Scrooge exclaims his name so quickly that he seems annoyed by him being on his door, than fearing that he's a ghost.

As weak as the build-up is, we at least get to see Marley on-screen, as opposed to seeing him invisible, making this the first sound version of the story to have Marley on-screen. The effects for Marley's ghostly appearance along with his make-up are good, but the performance from Hitchcock actor Leo G. Carroll I would say appears almost as bored as Ed Asner was with Tim Curry. I say almost because his supernatural voice is creepy, his cold-stare is chilling, and when showing regret for his actions when he was alive does feel melancholy. But for the most part, unlike how most portrayals of Marley's ghost are either intimidating for how aggressive he is towards Scrooge, constantly in agonizing pain, or both, Carroll doesn't seem to be giving much in his performance. He for the most part carries no emotion when helping his former partner from the terrible fate he suffers, who doesn't change his tone or expressions. Even his moaning from this endless pain sounds non-nonchalant. Scrooge at one point shuts him up because of it, when Marley should be the one who is overpowering him. Owen's frighten delivery doesn't help much either for how rehearsed it sounds. And just so the film can throw something new for the sake of it, the scene stops dead in its tracks when Scrooge summons the authorities in to arrest Marley, only for them to laugh at Scrooge since they can't see him.

GHOST OF CHRISTMAS PAST

In the previous sound film, we saw nothing of the Ghost of Christmas Past. There was a silhouette of the spirit taking the form of a man in its first reveal, but after that, it was just a blurry light. Well this version doesn't make the same mistake again, it makes a new one. Playing the ghost is Ann Rutherford, who does a fine job of capturing the spirit's humble personality. It's just unlike how Marley appeared ghostly, the ghost's appearance is pretty underwhelming. Apart from how she and Scrooge fly, there are no special effects supporting the fact that she is a spirit. Not to say that special effects that involve us seeing through them is always needed. But it looks like Rutherford's doing a local live stage show as opposed to a theatrical film since her costume looks like something that would be worn at a Christmas pageant. I am just always aware that someone in a tacky costume is playing the ghost, which is very distracting considering how nice everyone else looks in the film.

If you once again remember my review on the first sound version of the story, I expressed great disappointment that the film skipped many details involving Scrooge's past. Here, we see Scrooge's humble beginnings before he turned into a miser, starting with his childhood. Owen's portrayal of Scrooge's loving nostalgia when visiting the past feels very warm for how pleasantly excited and sentimental he is. At times, it gets a little too exaggerated but you still feel the sweetness in his performance. The whole childhood sequence takes place at the schoolhouse where young Scrooge stays during Christmas at the demand of his Father, until his little sister Fan tells him that the plans have changed. The scene visually showing young Scrooge's isolation after seeing everyone leaving is handled effectively for how empty and downbeat the school appears with Scrooge walking alone to suddenly crying after behaving as if he is fine with it before his friends leave. The downside is the kid playing Scrooge is very off with his delivery, who gives a awkward performance. To be fair, it's not just him because the other kids he talks to are as wooden as him. That is with the exception of Fan, who is a little over the top cutesy, but since that is usually Fan's personality; I can't say that it's out of place.

The first sound actor to portray Fezziwig is Forrester Harvey who has previously appeared in small roles in horror classics such as "The Invisible Man" and "Frankenstein". His portrayal of Fezziwig stays true to the character's jolly fun loving personality. Adding to the sweetness of Scrooge's visit to this part of his past is we're watching Fezziwig interact with Scrooge when he's still a teen as opposed to a young adult. It is just very heartwarming to see a kid who has had a miserable childhood regain some of it as he is still growing-up with a boss who treats him like family instead of a regular employee. The scene is then followed by a great scene of Scrooge expressing his conflicts to the spirit of being a good boss and a cold businessman.

Fezziwig's Christmas party is not shown in this version, which isn't as much of loss when compared to what happens next. The ghost informs Scrooge that she is about to show him the black years of his life when he descended into the selfish businessman he has become. Scrooge grows terrified for what he's about to see wishing for the spirit not to show him that part of his past. When it doesn't seem that she will listen, Scrooge covers the ghost's head with her cloak, and finds himself waking up holding a pillow in his grasp. This is just as stupid as cutting out Scrooge's childhood! This is the point of the story where Scrooge must reflect on what has happened to him in the past both good and bad, before thinking about what he can do in the present to assure himself a better path than the one that is leading him. And the fact that the film decides to jump passed the times in his life that have changed him for the worst (after giving such intense build-up to it mind you) is an absolute disgrace! It doesn't matter how well people the know the story, Scrooge gaining love and losing it from greed is an essential part of the story that should never ever be left out!

GHOST OF CHRISTMAS PRESENT

An example of a ghost that can still appear as unusual without the need of effects to see through them is the Ghost of Christmas Present. From his costume design, to his make-up, you look at him and you'd buy that he's not a man from this world in the same way one would view Santa Claus. Beyond that, Lionel Braham sells this role. Unlike how the first sound actor playing the character was giving half a performance, Braham fully embraces the role! The amount of energy and passion he brings to this performance feels just as big and grand as the character is written. I barely see an actor hamming it up. I only see the character. An interesting new feature that the ghost wields is a magic horn that sprinkle magic to give sour people on the holiday Christmas joy. The idea is cool. It fits the character's gleeful personality and it is delightful seeing Scrooge willing aid the spirit after finding himself amazed by it. But ignoring how obvious that there's a flashlight underneath this festive looking prop when he uses it, this idea does indeed lead to a ton of questions. Why can’t the ghost make Scrooge happy with his magic? If he has tried it on him what prevents the powers from working? What are the lengths that these powers go too? Is the Christmas cheer that it brings mostly comes from brainwashing people's minds? But oh details, details, details. I guess if we can overlook the details involving Santa, I think we can tolerate a magical horn that brings good feelings.

Before Scrooge visits the homes of Bob and Fred, there's a scene where he watches them all singing together in a church, to then sliding on frozen ice in front of the church. There are some nice moments here, like how Scrooge acknowledges the love between Fred and his fiancé Bess (Lynne Carver) when they sing together, only for the spirit to challenge scrooge's emotions by reminding him of what he said about love earlier. It's a nice scene, though it isn't as effective as it should be with Scrooge's relationship with Belle being cut. Shortly after, Fred tries to convince Bess to slide on the ice with him, though a bit corny, it's still cute to see the two interacting outside of the scene when Fred hosts his Christmas party. Moreover, the party scene that's shown before Scrooge meets the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is handled well, as they toast to pity Scrooge and play a game involving a blindfold. The real highlight of the scene is Scrooge's delight to watching all of this just as the ghost is about to leave telling him he is a fool for loving Christmas, which Scrooge fully denies. Owen sounds authentic when he wants to stay, and his love and excitement for the holiday is joyful. The only thing odd is his laughter coming off as more sinister than it is out of pure love.

Going back to the church scene, as much as I would expect Bob and Tim to be there, it does feel a little early for Scrooge to feel sorry for the boy without really getting a feel of his personality. Don't get me wrong, I'd pity any child I'd see living in a terrible condition. Yet for someone as sour as Scrooge is, he is not the kind of man will instantly look at a kid and feel bad for him or her. It takes Scrooge to see what a sweet and genuine child Tiny Tim is before appearing concerned, which we see neither before this change in his character. The scene at the Cratchit's home is played as happily as one would expect (with the exception of Tim awkwardly wanting to stroke the turkey), but even there are a few alterations that are not needed. Earlier in the film, we already meet Cratchit's family when he brings home the food, thus taking away the emotions we are supposed to have with Scrooge when he sees that Bob has a family and loves spending time with them since we already get a scene showing it just without him. The family themselves don't appear to be doing bad financially either. I don't know what Bob does with the little he makes from his job, but it seems he's living better than most versions of the character given how nice his home is. The added subplot of Bob being sacked does come back when he tells his oldest daughter about it, who only feels worse about telling her knowing that the family finding out won't be make him feel any better. And instead of Bob toasting Scrooge's health, it's his wife (Kathleen Lockhart) who proposes it as Bob stands there looking uncomfortable. This reverse in the role does seem appropriate. It would seem out of character if Bob defended Scrooge if his Wife protests against it after being fired. And as we're enjoying this nice Christmas dinner, I do like it has a bit of an edge that Bob's family will soon be evicted from his house that will lead to Tiny Tim's demise. As questionable as how they live may seem, Scrooge firing Cratchit does make-up for it now that they have no source of income.

THE GHOST OF CHRISTMAS YET-TO-COME

Transitioning to the appearance of the Ghost of Christmas Yet-to-Come, we watch the events that we saw from the past and present appear in front of Scrooge's mind as he sleeps. Scrooge still laughing with joy (then why show him sleeping if he's not going to wake up) stops when he finds himself up on a mountain near sprawl trees as the Ghost slowly walks towards him. The atmosphere for this scene is appropriately gothic for having a set resembling something you'd see from a German Expressionism film, that's carried by eerie sound effects and an unsettling score to make it feel foreboding. It would be perfect if it didn't look so bright because shadows and darkness don't play a big factor with setting the mood. The only dark image is the Ghost itself who this time is a person in a costume as opposed to being a shadow on the wall. There is not too much to say about the Ghost's presence or design since it sticks to its traditional grim reaper design as it says nothing and just points the way.

As usual, Scrooge is taken to see a couple of businessmen discussing about his demise showing no sympathy. Like I can say for many of the other versions of the scene, its acted well as it follows the material faithfully. The only amusing change is when one of the men is disappointed that he wasn't left with anything making him realize that Scrooge was never his friend after the many conversations they would share together. It's a pity we never see a scene showing it prior to what's revealed, but then again in most versions, Scrooge is not usually seen chatting with any of them. Scrooge is then shown a dead body that it is hidden underneath the covers of the bed that it lies on. The scene only happens briefly with little to no thrill with playing on Scrooge's fear of who is underneath the sheets (unknown that he is dead in the future due to his name never being mentioned). Owen's reactions to this are off too as he at first feels shaky to then acting unfazed by it.

  

So with Bob out of the job while dealing with the loss of Tiny Tim, how is he and his family surviving? Are they in a workhouse, out on the street, gathering in Church, living in a small shack? For the film giving Bob a fear of his future without any work and how he'll family will respond to it, surely this will greatly ruin his future. Actually, apart from Tim dying, he seems to be fine financially. He's somehow still living in the same fancy home and nowhere in the scene is there a mention of how his family felt about him losing his job. The scene itself is still incredibly depressing from the performances of Gene Lockhart and Reginald Owen. I only wish the film would follow-up on Bob Cratchit's added subplot of losing his support for his family. This could have been an interesting new take on Bob's future, and the fact that it builds-up to nothing is as infuriatingly disappointing as not seeing the dark years of Scrooge's past.

Scrooge learns that his future self is dead when he's taken to the cemetery where his grave is. Once again, the set fits the grim depressing tone that we're supposed to feel for Scrooge as he enters, but it forgot to be dark because of the inappropriate use of lighting. It's not as bright as when Scrooge first met the ghost, however there are still rays of bright light shining through almost as if the light of heavens are above him. I guess it is supposed to symbolize his chance for redemption in this land of darkness, however since it has been used before Scrooge approaches his grave it looks out of place. Scrooge pleading to the spirit that he will change does overcome the lack of darkness that's supposed to be present. Owen isn't only portraying Scrooge as sad and fearful in this scene, he gives him some dignity as he promises the spirit that he will honor Christmas. The way he delivers his promise backed up with patriotic music comes across that he is proud to pledge his honor to Christmas. Yet while being prideful he is still vulnerable by coming across as shaky and distressed of if he still has a chance to set things right.

CHRISTMAS DAY

The Christmas day portion of the film showing Scrooge's redemption is handled as sweet and heartwarming as one would love to see. Owen gives a lively and sentimental performance when portraying a reformed Scrooge. His interactions with the boy on the street, the Portly Gentlemen and Fred are nice gentle scenes with a little bit of humor that are exchanged extremely well by each actor. The best part of the sequence is the last scene. If you remember in the end of the Seymour Hicks film, Scrooge is never shown to be bonding with Cratchit's family or Tiny Tim. It just ends with him and Bob singing in church together. In this version, we get our first sound portrayal of Scrooge visiting the Cratchit household, only this is played a little more with laughs. When Scrooge drops by, he does not pretend to be his old-self, he enters with excitement carrying goodies scaring Bob and his wife. As they're in another room discussing Scrooge's odd behavior, they hear the sound of their children screaming thinking their being hurt, only for Bob to discover that they're playing with a beautiful toy carousel that Scrooge brought. As funny the scene it is, it does not lose track of the emotional connection that we are supposed to have from it. The film ends on a perfect note with everyone raising a glass (including Fred and Bess), Tiny Tim saying the most iconic Christmas quote of all time, and hearing the song "Silent Night" to close-out the film.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

The film is an improvement over the Seymour Hicks film, but it's just as hit and miss. The use of bright lights is overused. As great as it is to see the ghosts, the first two are disappointing from either an acting standpoint, or not looking the role. The added subplot of Bob Cratchit being sacked is incredibly pointless. And the removal of the dark years in Scrooge's past are unforgivable. With that said, the film is more visually pleasing than the previous one. Reginald Owen aside from a few awkward moments is a great fit for Scrooge. Most of the casting is spot-on! And plenty of the new scenes and ideas are nice little touches to get you into the Christmas spirit as Scrooge is. Neither one of the first two sound films are one of the best versions to offer. Nevertheless, this one hits a little closer to home than the first one. Let me put it this way. I will most likely be re-watching the 1938 film more times before choosing to sit in near total darkness seeing almost nothing with Seymour Hicks.

HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A THIRD HAPPY NIGHT OF CHANUKAH!!

FILM ESSAY: GANGSTER MOVIES DURING THE POST CODE ERA

A fascinating part of history in early cinema was the Pre-Code era. From the end of the silent era to mid-1934, Hollywood films were able to show mature and graphic content, such as sex, and excessive violence, before they would be commonplace in modern entertainment. Granted, these films are not as shocking to watch from a modern standpoint for how tamed it was, but at the time audiences and critics have found the material to be highly grotesque and inappropriate. Because Hollywood is deciding to take more risks with their films while still grounding them to the point where they can still meet most of the standards set for the time, naturally controversy would arouse (especially from the censors).

A genre that became popular during this era are gangster films. These films would take the violence in cinema to a completely new level, as the character we are supposed to identify with for the entirety of the film is a merciless criminal. A prime example of a pre-code gangster movie is the original "Scarface" from 1932. The film's protagonist Tony Camonte (an Italian immigrant in the bootlegging business played by Paul Muni) is a man with no moral values. He does have people in his life like his Mother (Inez Palange), his sister Cesca (Ann Dvorak), and his best friend Guino (George Raft). However, his relationship with them isn't exactly the best. His Mother despises him for his crime; he always abuses his sister when catching her taking part in naughty activity; and he treats Guino more as a business partner than a friend who he later kills in cold blood towards the end of the film. All he ever cared about was money, power, and his lust for women (particularly his bosses' girlfriend), who is willing to kill anybody who crosses him. During the film's entirety, he is seen to be doing numerous acts of crime such as assault, vandalizing, stealing, and murdering, showing little to no remorse or hesitation when carrying out these deeds. If anything, he loves doing it for how fun and rewarding it is to him. When Tony gets gunned-down in the film's climax by the authorities, there is no sympathy to be found in his downfall. We see him helplessly begging for his life to be spared after being cornered and losing all the people in his life, but in the end we all know that he deserved to die. The only reason why anyone would feel any emotional attachment to Tony is that he's our main character who we love to watch based on his wild personality, enjoyment for power, and taking out his rivals in such gruesome fashion. The film received a large amount of controversy from the censors, demanding for the film to be changed to make Tony seem less like an anti-hero and more of a figure that is "shaming the nation". And even with added scenes of the film stopping dead in its tracks of the public condemning Tony, and a new ending where Tony is hung, the censors were still unsatisfied. The only compromise made for the film to be distributed (with its original ending) is to let each individual state decide to screen it or not.

When the infamous Hays Code took effect, Hollywood movies began to change. Films now had to follow a list of rules and regulations of what is appropriate to show on-screen and what is not suitable to film. Because of these limitations, ruthless gangsters acting as main characters became obsolete at the time. The only way a gangster can be a main character in a movie is if he had morals. Take the classic tough guy actor James Cagney for instance. Before the Hays Code, Cagney was best known for playing the cold-blooded Tom Powers in "The Public Enemy". Just like Camonte, he enjoyed killing people, loved stealing to get what he desires, and without warning assaulted women (most infamously with a grapefruit). After the code was put into effect, until his performance in "White Heat", Cagney portrayed gangsters in a light-hearted kind of way.

As the character Rocky Sullivan in "Angels with Dirty Faces" for example, he does the same crimes that Camonte and Powers have done, only he’s not shown to be a heartless monster either. As demonstrated in his childhood, before he gets pinched for the first time for trying to steal fountain pens on a freight train, he rescues his friend Jerry before he could get hit by a train. When he gets caught by the authorities after Jerry makes his escape, he chooses to take the fall for him, not caring how he'll be treated. Tom Powers as a kid would never take the fall for someone else, let alone helping him or her. All he did was steal and play jokes on people. After fifteen years of killing, smuggling, and doing some time, Rocky reunites with his friend Jerry (Pat O'Brien) who is now serving as a priest. Though he is still going on as a criminal, he tries to help him out, whether it’s from donations out of his stolen money, or recruiting and coaching a gang of young hoodlums for a basketball game. While helping his friend, he mentors the same hoodlums who he helps coach who idolize him. Though he cares for the kids and his friend Jerry, Rocky can never leave his life of crime for how much he enjoys it. For refusing to go straight, the kids he mentors wish to be exactly like him for the money he makes from killing, stealing, and cheating. Jerry tries to steer him away from it, and though Rocky can't, he does try to compromise with his friend, rather than slapping him and coldly walking away. In the end when Rocky is caught and sentenced to the electric chair, Jerry asks Rocky to die as a coward to set an example for the kids who look up to him. Rocky refuses, until he is about to be placed on the chair fighting and begging not to be killed. The film never clearly states if Rocky really died a coward, or just faked it as his last favor for his dear friend, but we know that underneath this tough guy lies a man who still has a bit of a heart and some of mercy.

The only characters with a heart as black as Camonte and Powers in "Angels with Dirty Faces" is businessman Mac Keefer (George Bancroft) and Rocky's crooked lawyer Frazier played by the great Humphrey Bogart. Before Bogart would win audiences over with his bittersweet charm in films like "Casablanca" and "The Maltese Falcon", he would star in a number of roles playing the heartless antagonist. From playing a gangster on the run in "The Petrified Forrest", to a backstabbing racketeer in "The Roaring Twenties", Bogart's career would finally take new heights in "High Sierra". Unlike Bogart's previous roles as a gangster, his character Roy Earle is portrayed in more of a sympathetic light. After his release from prison, Roy (a gangster who specializes in robberies) plans to do one last heist before retiring from his life of a crime. While acting aggressive, and showing no problems with killing a man, Roy shows genuine wishful fulfillment of wanting to go straight. When he is not dealing with amateur hoodlums in preparation for the heist, he finds comfort with a farmer (Henry Travers) and his granddaughter Velma (Joan Leslie) who walks with a limp because of her clubbed foot. His interaction with the family reminds him of his life as a farmer before he started doing jobs for the mob. Roy eventually falls in love with Velma to the point where he pays for her operation on her foot. As Roy sets his heart on Velma, a moll named Marie (Ida Lupino) shows feelings for him. Despite that Roy has no interest in a love relationship with her, he is protective of her from the men he works with in the heist due to their abusive nature. Unfortunately for Roy, his quest for freedom doesn't get him far. Velma turns him down for a man she already loved. People fear and scorn at Roy for his reputation in the underworld when he's doing no harm. And after finding love with Marie and scoring big dough, he becomes a wanted criminal for the heist forcing him to hide up in the Sierra mountains making his last stand before being shot down.

For many fans of classic films (particularly for gangster films), the pre-code era was indeed an ambitious time for Hollywood that has given us some of the greatest baddies who have left their mark on cinema. Though many gangster films would suffer from being dumbed down too much when the code forced Hollywood to change how they made films, there are still plenty of great post-code films during that time that made classics within their limitations. It's always entertaining to watch Cagney intimidate people in "The Public Enemy", but it's also nice to see him play a tough guy who isn't heartless or completely selfish. Bogart was perfect playing villains, but it took a temporary change in film-making to prove that he can do more than just play the bad guy. Gangster films sadly wouldn't be as strong as they once were for a while until Film-Noirs would progressively help revolutionize the genre and the art of film-making. In 1965, the Hays Code finally fell in place for a rating system that is still around today. With the Hays Code no longer in control, filmmakers like Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Brian De Palma, and Quentin Tarantino have made gangster films unlike any others that has helped make the genre popular again by showing content that wouldn't be suitable in early gangster films.