project1939

[project1939]

I Did It! 200 Films!

I actually watched 200 films from 1952! (And let's be real, it was a very mid year in Hollywood history.)

It took 10½ months, 3 packages of pens, 8 notebooks, and hundreds of hours of research, watching, writing, and posting about each film. I'm getting exhausted just thinking about it!

Right now, I’m going to recuperate a bit, but I’ll be back with an overview of stats, ratings, what I learned, and my thoughts in general. Stay tuned! 

Until then... OMFG, I CANNOT WAIT TO WATCH A MOVIE WITHOUT HAVING TO TAKE NOTES!!! I haven’t watched a film without a notebook in front of me for almost an entire year! 

[project1939]

200 Films of 1952

Film number 200!!!!: This is Cinerama

Release date: September 30th, 1952 

Studio: Cinerama Productions 

Genre: documentary 

Director: Mike Todd, Michael Todd, Jr, Walter A. Thompson, Fred Rickey 

Producer: Robert L. Bendick, Merian C. Cooper 

Actors: Lowell Thomas 

Plot Summary: This is a documentary that introduces the moviegoing public to the Cinerama film process and the stereo sound that came along with it. We see many famous sites and performances from around the world, followed by an aerial tour of the United States from coast to coast. 

My Rating (out of five stars): ***½  

I wanted to save this film for last, because it was the beginning of the major shift to widescreen films and stereo sound in Hollywood. In 1952, movies still used mono audio and had the almost square aspect ratio of 1.375:1. Cinerama was 2.65:1. Needing to compete with television, movies literally became bigger, longer, more colorful, and more sonically complex. This film was an epic illustration of the future, using sound and spectacle that must have been mind-blowing at the time. 

The Good: 

The curved screen still looked impressive on a flat screen today, due to the “Smilebox” framing. Sitting close to my screen, it felt like it wrapped around me, using my peripheral vision to make it feel almost like real life. 

The immersive stereo sound they used was super cool. I listened with headphones, hoping to hear the difference better, and boy was it noticeable! It was much like modern films, where if a character was speaking on the left side of the screen, the sound was more on the left side. My favorite trick was the way sound moved from back to front as well. When a church choir or a parade of bagpipers was moving past you, the sound imitated the real life feeling of sound coming and going. 

The color looked very nice. It was apparently shot in Eastmancolor (think Kodak Film), and then printed in Technicolor. It didn’t look as nice as a film shot in Technicolor, but it was still vivid and lovely. 

Starting the film with a black and white section with mono sound and a regular width was a smart idea. It amped you up for the change and made the juxtaposition even stronger. 

That black and white beginning was an entertaining journey through film history via 1952 eyes. It felt like a Film 101 class, which I enjoyed. But shockingly (and NOT shockingly), it gave absolutely no mention of the vital contributions of the French in early film history! 

The score was excellent- it was epic sounding without overdoing it.  

The sequence in Venice on the canals was my favorite. I want to go back and watch it again. 

The views of the Grand Canyon were stunning as well. 

The sequence showing off tricks with sound using a church choir was another highlight. I loved hearing the sound travel all around, from being almost whisper quiet behind you, to completely filling a room. 

Watching all of the people in the crowds was as exciting for me as anything else. The color made it especially fun to have that time machine feeling as you watch what “normal” people looked like 72 years ago. 

I got a kick out of imagining the experience through 1952 eyes. Having seen 199 standard films from the year, I can definitely get a taste of how overwhelming it must have felt to see and hear such futuristic things! 

The Bad: 

The novelty wore off after about an hour or so, and things sometimes got boring, especially because there was no plot or characters. The novelty would probably last longer in a real theater, though. 

It was very Eurocentric when it “traveled around the world.” The only countries we saw were Scotland, Italy, Austria, and Spain. I was hoping they’d show some East Asian countries, South American countries, African, etc... There were so many great sites all over the world they could have shot. 

My least favorite sequences were the theatrical ones featuring operas. There were only chorus scenes and chorus music- we never got to hear any arias! The scenes also went on waaay too long.  

The section with Dick Pope’s water-skiing show also ran much too long. It tried to introduce a minor character, but that just padded the time and made it go on even longer. It was fun at first, but that died down well before the section ended. 

Because of the filming process, the camera couldn’t do much more than point straight ahead. There was so much spectacle happening, though, so it wasn’t too noticeable. 

[project1939]

200 Films of 1952

Film number 199: The Stooge

Release date: Dec 31st, 1952 

Studio: Paramount 

Genre: comedy 

Director: Norman Taurog 

Producer: Hal B. Wallis 

Actors: Dean Martin, Jerry Lewis, Polly Bergen, Marion Marshall 

Plot Summary: Singer/comedian Bill struggles as a solo vaudevillian, but when his manager suggests adding a stooge named Ted to his act, they become a big hit. Ted is happy just to be a part of it all, but Bill’s growing ego refuses to give Ted any billing in the act. Bill’s wife and manager become increasingly horrified at his behavior. 

My Rating (out of five stars): ***¼  

The last Martin and Lewis film I saw was Sailor Beware, 189 films ago! (It was number 10 on my list.) I thought that was all I could take, given the fact that Jerry Lewis is an acquired taste for me. But I decided to watch one more film, because Martin and Lewis were simply everywhere in 1952. They were two of the biggest stars in the country- they had a television show, a radio show, and they released three films in just that year alone! Thankfully I liked The Stooge better than Sailor Beware- it portrayed the camaraderie and bond between the two more effectively and movingly. It made me understand why they were so famous and beloved. (some spoilers)

The Good: 

The chemistry and affection between the two was palpable in this. It was hard not to fall in love with them as a team. Dean Martin isn’t your typical cold and annoyed “straight man” in the act. He shows such warmth toward Lewis, it makes me a little verklempt!  

Dean Martin’s singing.

Both men are very natural on screen. They’re good actors with a kind of unaffected ease- to use the old phrase, “the camera loves them.” 

The film especially highlighted why each of them just wasn’t as good alone as they were when they were together. Even the scenes they were in separately lacked the same sparkle. That was exactly the point of the movie, which made the fact that they later split up even sadder. 

The final performance scene was nearly perfect. When Lewis snuggles into Martin, my heart melted, I’m not gonna lie. 

This film had more of an actual plot than Sailor Beware- it wasn’t just a string of gags loosely tied together.  

Aunt Bee! Frances Bavier played Lewis’ mom in this, eight years before her stint on The Andy Griffith Show. 

I wanna ride on an old train! Travel scenes in old movies where characters are in compartments like mini hotel rooms always seems so cool to me. Plus, I love the sound of trains going over the tracks. 

The Bad: 

Some of the schtick Lewis did was pretty predictable. The scenes that were basically just set ups for his gags were probably my least favorite part of the film. 

The first part was also too heavily weighted with these scenes. It felt like it got more balanced as things progressed. 

Bill’s character was not fleshed out enough. It was hard to understand both him and his choices, and the film spent virtually no time explaining or examining it. 

The first drunk scene with Bill just came out of nowhere. I don’t remember it ever even being mentioned that he liked to drink.  

Bill’s wife Mary got a bit annoying after a while- purely because of the way her character was written, not because of the actress. I liked Polly Bergen, but her character basically had a case of Classical Hollywood Good Wife Syndrome. It was a somewhat lighter case, though, because she was going to leave Bill before his change of heart- she wasn’t just a “suffering but loyal” wife. 

It maybe got a bit too maudlin at the very end. 

[project1939]

Maureen O'Hara as a pirate in Against All Flags (1952). I can't find words to describe how utterly... everything she is in this!

[project1939]

200 Films of 1952

Film number 198: Against All Flags

Release date: Dec 24th, 1952 

Studio: Universal 

Genre: adventure 

Director: George Sherman, Douglas Sirk 

Producer: Joseph Hoffman, Aeneas MacKenzie  

Actors: Errol Flynn, Maureen O’Hara, Anthony Quinn 

Plot Summary: A British naval officer goes undercover on the coast of Madagascar to break up an infamous colony of pirates. Claiming to be a deserter, he works to win their trust. Things take an unusual turn when he meets a very unexpected pirate- a gorgeous, strong-willed, sword fighting woman! 

My Rating (out of five stars): ***¼  

I can tell you why I enjoyed this film in two words: Maureen O’Hara. Wait! Make it three words: Maureen O’Hara’s outfits! Put O’Hara in trousers and high boots, and I am lost. Lost! She was so dazzlingly beautiful, I had trouble focusing on much else. Thankfully, the rest of the film was just bright high-energy fun. It wasn’t particularly remarkable, but it breezed by quickly and never got tiresome. It may even be one of my favorite pirate movies from 1952. (minor spoilers)

The Good: 

Maureen O’Hara! Normally I’m not a big fan of hers; although undeniably striking, she’s such a man’s woman type. Here she was swaggering around in pirate garb, taking no shyte from nobody, and I fell in love. Amid so much sexually harassing behavior by men in the media in 1952, I wanted to jump for joy when her character pushed Flynn away and said- “I kiss when I feel like kissing, and see that you remember that!” 

Prudence “Spitfire” Stevens, the character O’Hara played, was one of my favorites of this project. She was sexually in charge, she could handle her own with men, she was good with a sword... everything about her was the opposite of a wilting little damsel. This lady would never let John Wayne drag her across the ground by her arms and hair! 

My favorite quote, spoken by O’Hara: “I was a fool to think that you might be different from the others- swaggering, misbegotten bullies who think that a girl is without pride of her own- just something to satisfy their selfish lusts and vanities because she’s weaker! Well, I’m not weaker! I go after what I want, just like they do. I can defend my own self-respect, and if any man dares to damage it, I’ll shoot the eyes out of his head- both of them!!” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

The Technicolor looked amazing. It especially made the costumes look good. 

The plot was briskly paced, entertaining, and lively. You might even say it was buoyant? Ha! Couldn’t resist the pun. 

Most of it was clearly filmed on sets, even the scenes at sea, but it looked noticeably better than Blackbeard the Pirate, which I watched only a couple of days ago. 

The scene where all the sabotaged cannons fire was also one of my favorites. 

The Bad: 

Errol Flynn was a bit too old for the role, in my opinion. He looked quite weathered and a little paunchy, making his swashbuckling scenes less convincing. It was kind of a sad reminder of the prowess and agility he used to have. In his younger days, he made my knees weak, but he didn’t age as gracefully as someone like Cary Grant. (Who does?!) Flynn was also severely alcoholic by this time, and he wasn’t sober during filming, which definitely didn’t help. He could still be charming and appealing, though. 

Anthony Quinn didn’t have enough to do! I love Quinn, but all his character really got to do here was snarl. 

Flynn and O’Hara didn't have much chemistry. O’Hara told stories later of how Flynn would be so drunk in the afternoon, she had to do her love scene close-ups across from a flag with an X marked on it, while a script girl read Flynn’s lines! So the lack of chemistry shouldn’t be surprising, I guess! 

The sword fighting, while not bad, was a little underwhelming sometimes. 

A white girl playing the role of a Southeast Asian princess? Of course, this is Hollywood! (Hey! It was Alice Kelley- I was kind of mean about her acting ability in Francis Goes to West Point. She was much improved here.) 

So the pirates raid a ship with the sign of Islam on the flag, yet the ruling princess inside is surrounded by Hindu statues? 

Do harems have Irish governesses? 

It was definitely gross to see a teenage girl and a man who looked 50 kiss each other. 

The scene of auctioning off captured harem girls as wives was horrifying. It was played almost comedically when a kidnapped teenaged girl was bought by a slovenly, stupid, ugly man at least 15 years older than her. There were even jokes about the wedding night! It was really a rape auction for god’s sake! It was disgusting and infuriating, and the only girl actually saved from that fate was the princess.

[project1939]

200 Films of 1952

Film number 197: The Member of the Wedding

Release date: December 25th, 1952 

Studio: Columbia 

Genre: drama 

Director: Fred Zinnemann 

Producer: Stanley Kramer 

Actors: Ethel Waters, Julie Harris, Brandon De Wilde 

Plot Summary: (Based on the play by Carson McCullers.) Twelve-year-old Frankie is a sensitive and wildly emotional girl who feels left out and alone. When her older brother Jarvis arrives home with his pretty fiancée Janice, Frankie irrationally falls in love with them and the idea of their marriage. Her housekeeper/mother figure Berenice tries to gently talk sense into her, while her 6-year-old neighbor John Henry just wants to be her friend. 

My Rating (out of five stars): ****¼  

Films based directly on plays in 1952 are emphatically different than typical screenplay-based ones! Like Come Back, Little Sheba (film number 85), this was very dark, stark, and realistic. Both deal with subtler and more mature themes, and happy endings are eschewed for something painfully ambiguous. Each film has the hallmarks of theatrical adaptations: Dialogue and acting are front and center. They take place in only one or two settings, limiting the cinematography. The scenes tend to be much much longer, and the score is sparser. They are definitely not films the average Joe would like. (minor spoilers)

The Good: 

Ethel Waters. She was the highlight. Her acting was incredibly moving, and her character felt like the actual protagonist of the film, not Frankie. She played Berenice as a fully realized motherly character- there was none of that demeaning and racist “I sho’ does love servin’ white folks!” vibe. She felt like a real woman in her own right, with her own complex life.

Julie Harris. She played Frankie in the stage version, and although her performance is divisive today, for the most part I liked it. Yes, she threw loud obnoxious tantrums, but Frankie was clearly a highly highly sensitive girl experiencing the emotional hurricane of puberty. She acted externally the way I did internally at that age, so I could very much relate! Her “overacting” mostly worked for me because of that. 

Brandon deWilde. He played a really cute oddball well. His lackadaisical attitude, desire to hang out with a 12-year-old girl, and ease at which he tried on women’s clothing made me smile. 

The writing was good- it was smart, nothing was overly explained, and it was a pretty masterful character study of both Frankie and Berenice. 

I liked that the cast for the film was the same cast used in the acclaimed Broadway run. Most movies change some of the cast to add Hollywood star power. (Think Lancaster in Come Back, Little Sheba or Hepburn in My Fair Lady.) Ethel Waters was definitely famous, but she wasn’t a big movie star per se. Harris and deWilde both made their film debuts in this. 

I appreciated the unusual “plot” and theme. This isn’t really a coming-of-age film, although it’s advertised as such. Frankie goes from one obsession to another, essentially, and neither of them are about her blooming into adulthood. It’s really about characters, not about “growing up.” 

Damn, you could feel the Southern summer heat in this! Every character was sweating buckets, and the camera lingered on it. These were the days before air conditioning was widespread, and boy do you empathize! 

There was no easy happy ending- things were left quite sad and ambiguous. 

Ethel Waters got top billing, which was almost unheard of for a black actress in Hollywood then.

The Bad: 

Although Harris’ work was lauded in this, she does not look 12 by any measure. She was 26 or 27 when this was filmed, although she doesn’t look that old either. She could believably pass for 16-18 maybe, but 12 is really pushing it. There were times I could suspend my disbelief a little, but there’s no denying it detracted from the realism. I doubt any 12 year old actress could play a role this demanding, though.

Some things with Ethel Waters’ character Berenice were cut from the film version, which was a shame. She was the strongest part of the film for me, her acting unmatched. 

Like most theatrical adaptations it got too “talky” at times for a movie. “Show don’t tell” was not the motto here. 

It also felt “stagey”- you would never doubt this was originally a play. Because of this, sometimes scenes ran on too long. 

We have yet another misleading movie poster that dishonestly exaggerates non-existent salacious content! “A girl becomes a woman in the middle of a kiss” is the yuckiest kind of false advertising! It has nothing to do with this film! 

[project1939]

200 Films of 1952

Film number 196: Blackbeard the Pirate

Release date: December 24th, 1952 

Studio: RKO 

Genre: adventure 

Director: Raoul Walsh 

Producer: Edmund Grainger 

Actors: Robert Newton, Linda Darnell, William Bendix, Keith Andes, Torin Thatcher 

Plot Summary: In the late 17th century, a Lieutenant in the British Navy sets out to prove that Sir Henry Morgan, a Jamaican government official, is engaging in piracy. In the process, he winds up on the ship of the infamous Blackbeard. 

My Rating (out of five stars): **¾  

I’m not entirely sure why, but something about this film just didn’t click for me. I’m getting a little sick of seafaring/pirate movies, though, to be honest. That could certainly color my opinion! Blackbeard was played memorably, but the rest of the characters kind of fell flat. (minor spoilers) 

The Good: 

Robert Newton as Blackbeard. Yes, he sometimes chewed the scenery a bit, but he made Blackbeard a strong villain, lacking any kind of sympathetic romanticization. I much prefer that to turning him into some kind of anti-hero. 

Linda Darnell. She looked jaw droppingly gorgeous, and it’s hard to take your eyes off of her. Thank god she got to be in a better movie in 1952 than the low budget mess Island of Desire! (film number 18) 

William Bendix as Ben, Blackbeard’s sidekick. He is such a good character actor with so much screen presence. Even in a fairly small role, he stands out. 

There were certainly some interesting adventures that are pirate movie staples- I liked the treasure plot, some of the sword fighting scenes, the escape plans, etc. 

The death of Blackbeard was pretty damn unforgettable. 

The Bad: 

The romance side plot bombed, as most romance side plots in adventure movies do. The worst part was the fact that Darnell and Keith Andes had about as much chemistry as a wet match. 

I didn’t really like Keith Andes- I don’t know if it was him or the role, but he came across as pretty bland. He looked good shirtless, though! 

Darnell’s character, Edwina. She thankfully had more strength and guile than a typical damsel in distress, but barely. 

The music in these kinds of movies is usually sweeping and epic, but even within that genre the score here was too heavy-handed. It became annoyingly distracting at times. 

The adventures started bleeding together in an amorphous way that got kind of tedious after awhile.  

For a film directed by a prominent director like Raoul Walsh, it was surprisingly ho-hum visually. 

The budget, while not small, was clearly not a lavish one either. In the scenes aboard the ship, the sets were super obvious, and the models used for the long shots of the ships weren’t much better. It really compromised any feeling of being at sea.  

 Why did no one else talk like Blackbeard? He had that strong “Argh!” type of pirate accent, but no one else on his ship or in his crew did. Would his speaking really have been that different from theirs? I know, I know, this is just a pirate movie. 

[project1939]

200 Films of 1952

Film number 195: Everything I Have is Yours

Release date: Oct 29th, 1952 

Studio: MGM 

Genre: musical 

Director: Robert Z. Leonard 

Producer: George Wells 

Actors: Gower Champion, Marge Champion, Dennis O’Keefe 

Plot Summary: Chuck and Pam Hubbard are just about to open in their debut Broadway show. The first night is a huge success, but when Pam faints after the performance, they discover she is pregnant. Chuck is adamant that Pam give up the stage permanently to be a full-time wife and mother, but Pam isn’t so sure that’s what she wants.  

My Rating (out of five stars): ***¼  

When I watched Lovely to Look At (film number 100), I was completely captivated by the Champions, and I remember writing that I wished they were the stars of that movie, not Grayson and Keel. Well, I recently found out they were the stars of a 1952 musical, and I was thrilled! I can’t be super objective about this film, because Marge and Gower are so freaking adorable I want to eat them up like a brightly colored two scoop ice cream cone! If I take my love goggles off, though, I’d say this is a somewhat middle of the road MGM musical. It's definitely not bad, but it isn't a classic either. Marge and Gower Champion are what make it worth watching, although there are a few other interesting elements too. (minor spoilers)

The Good: 

Marge and Gower Champion. Being an actual married couple, their chemistry seeps right through the screen and wraps itself around you. They dance together beautifully, both in softer ballet numbers and high energy athletic tap and swing routines. Their acting is well above par too. They are also just insanely cute, individually and together. I love them! 

The dancing! I loved all their dance numbers, especially the lively vigorous ones.  

I appreciated the way the film broached the subject of being a wife and mother while having a career. Pam was presented as totally justified for wanting to return to the stage. She wasn’t demeaned or judged because of it, and unlike Somebody Loves Me (film number 136) giving up her career wasn’t the noble thing she absolutely had to do. 

I loved the character of Alec Tacksbury, the producer. What he ended up doing, and where the plot took him, was refreshingly unexpected. By the end of the film, I was a little bit in love with him. 

The portrayals of the daughter (unfortunately named Pam Jr.!) were really good. When she was an infant, there were many scenes where a real live baby was used- it was clearly not a prop doll. Then, when she grew to be about three or four, the little actress who played her (Mimi Gibson) was incredible. She spoke so well for her age, and her acting was also surprisingly good. 

The musical numbers were filmed quite well, with some nice sweeping shots, good movement, and effective framing. The film as a whole was also visually pleasing. 

The Technicolor! Of course, of course, I loved it, and it looked MGM perfect as always. 

Some of the musical numbers that were supposed to be on a theater stage actually looked somewhat possible for once! 

I really cared about the characters. 

The added meaning of Everything I Have is Yours, and the way it became a big plot point, was a charming surprise. 

The Bad: 

I wished there were more musical numbers in the middle section of the movie. Most came at the beginning or toward the end. 

There was one very impossible “theater stage” musical number. In no planet would it have either worked on stage or have fit on one! 

I enjoyed most of the songs, but they weren’t especially memorable. (Except for the one about counting 17,000 poles!) 

There were some disturbingly racist dolls in a scene where Chuck was giving his young daughter a mountain of toys for Christmas. One of them was a Mammy-type rag doll, and another one was a fuzzy white monkey with a black face, feet and hands. The face looked more monkey than human, but it was still an “ick” moment for me. Especially juxtaposed with a sweet family Christmas scene. Of a rich white family. Of course.

[project1939]

200 Films of 1952

Film number 194: Colorado Sundown

Release date: February 8th, 1952 

Studio: Republic 

Genre: western 

Director: William Witney 

Producer: Edward J. White 

Actors: Rex Allen, Mary Ellen Kay, Slim Pickens 

Plot Summary: When Rex’s sidekick Slim inherits a ranch, he discovers he must share it with two other parties. One third goes to Jackie, a city girl who wants to get away from it all and settle in the country. The third share goes to a brother and sister with an evil scheme up their sleeve. 

My Rating (out of five stars): **¾  

This is my final western! It’s a modest little B picture with yet another singing cowboy- Rex Allen. He holds his own pretty well with Gene Autry and Roy Rogers, I must say. He’s got a lovely singing voice, his acting is on par with the others (not great, but not awkwardly terrible), and he’s got a good deal of charisma. Honestly, I think I prefer him to Rogers! But I have such a crush on Dale Evans, I could never swear off Rogers completely! (some spoilers)

The Good: 

Rex Allen. As I just said, he made a very good singing cowboy. He was probably the most macho and traditionally handsome of Autry and Rogers, and his singing voice sounded the most classically trained. He fell in the middle of Autry and Rogers when it came down to tone- Autry is almost tongue and cheek, with a heavy dose of self-awareness and a twinkle in his eye, and Rogers takes himself more seriously. 

The music. There were only three songs, but they were all very enjoyable and well performed. The final number was pretty silly plot-wise, though. I also wish we had gotten a song at the end. 

The plot was interesting and effectively structured. It wasn’t overly simplistic, and it never dragged. 

The acting was pretty good for a B western. No one was cringey. 

The Bad: 

The darkness of all the murder plots didn’t match the singing cowboy tone overall. Bad girl Carrie was seriously evil, easily willing to kill people left and right!

Everyone lives when they get shot by a gun at close range?! How realistic is that? 

The character of Mattie, who played a large black maid to Jackie, was very racially stereotyped. She was childishly jolly at nearly every moment, giving off that “I just love serving white people!” vibe. She also had the terrible dialect of almost every black person in a Hollywood film then. (“Is you sho’?”) That said, she wasn’t the least bit stupid, and the white people around her treated her like she was just one of the gang. 

There was an asinine fat joke made after Mattie’s character got shot. The doctor said, “For once, it paid to be hefty, because the bullet was spent by the time it got through all of those layers of layers.” 

Here we had another appearance of the tiresome trope of a pacifist character who must abandon his pacifism and fight to prove his manhood. 

There was no hiding that this was a cheap film. For example, the comical rear projection had me howling more than once. 

There were some dangling threads left at the end. What exactly happened to Daniel? And what about Jackie? Was she romantically linked with Slim Pickens? Or Rex? Or no one? 

The title was a blatant rip-off. For Project 1939, I watched a Gene Autry film called Colorado Sunset. This was a singing cowboy B movie made by the same studio, Republic Pictures! (They were also both about getting a new ranch.) Colorado Sundown... Colorado Sunset... Come on! 

[project1939]

200 Films of 1952

Film number 193: De VI Olympiske Vinterleker Oslo 1952 (aka, The VI Winter Olympics, Oslo 1952)

Release date: October 31st, 1952 

Studio: Norsk Film 

Genre: documentary 

Director: Tancred Ibsen 

Actors: Hjalmar “Hjallis” Andersen, King Olav V 

Plot Summary: This is a documentary about the 1952 Winter Olympics in Oslo, Norway.  

My Rating (out of five stars): ***¼  

If you’re looking for an artistic documentary about the Olympics with in-depth coverage of specific athletes and their stories, this is not the film for you. It is a rather dry and straightforward overview of the proceedings and events that occurred in Oslo in 1952. It’s wonderful as a historical record, but a thrilling watch it is not. 

The Good: 

The print I saw was in great condition. You can find it for free online on the Olympics website. 

This is priceless as a history of the event.  

It was fun to notice the differences in the ceremonies. There were only 30 countries competing! 

The glimpses of the crowds were probably my favorite part. I loved seeing details like some people wearing extra knitted foot warmers around their boots.

The speed skating sprints were the most exciting event for me. 

I was impressed with the athleticism of the men’s figure skating. The sport has certainly become more difficult today, but the difference wasn’t as big as I imagined. 

The way the compulsory figure skating routines were judged was trippy to me. All the judges stood on the ice close to the skater while they performed, and afterwards, part of what they judged was the marks the skater left on the ice! 

The bob sled races were really entertaining- it looked like the entire chute was made of ice. 

The ski jump finale was probably the highlight. The soaring athletes were watched by a crowd of 140,000 people! 

The Bad: 

The narrator was pretty monotone. 

It often felt like an extended newsreel. 

It got kind of repetitive after a while, probably because it felt so much like a newsreel. It also didn’t help that every event was either some kind of skating or some kind of skiing. 

It was clearly shot silently, and sound was added in later. The film did a decent job making the audio feel realistic, but it was still obvious it wasn't the authentic sound. 

It would have been nice if we had gotten to know some of the athletes. There were no interviews, and we were given no information about them other than their names and if they had won anything before.

There was a moment of ick when the narrator was describing a Japanese ski jumper- “An Oriental performance by Japan’s Kawashima shows us that the Children of the Sun can now jump too.” 

Was there also a stereotyping dig at North Americans in there? When speaking of hockey players, the North Americans were described as being especially prone to fights and violence on the ice, compared to their European competitors. This probably has truth in it, but the narrator's tone made it feel like a dig about how unrefined Americans and Canadians are!

[project1939]

200 Films of 1952

Film number 192: Hellgate

Release date: September 5th, 1952 

Studio: Lippert Pictures, Commandeer Films 

Genre: western 

Director: Charles Marquis Warren 

Producer: John C. Champion 

Actors: Sterling Hayden, Ward Bond, James Arness 

Plot Summary: In 1867, a Kansas man is sent to the infamous Hellgate prison in New Mexico after being wrongly convicted of being in a guerilla gang. Once there, he tries to get along with his fellow inmates, avoid an antagonistic commandant, and find a way to get a new trial. Hellgate more than lives up to its name, though, and surviving may be the hardest thing he has to do. 

My Rating (out of five stars): *** 

This was a somewhat uneven film with several things to recommend it and several things that made it disappointing. I went in thinking this was going to be a film like I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, the brilliant 1932 indictment of the prison system. Instead, it was closer to a typical “innocent man in prison” drama. It certainly showed the horrors of a brutal inhumane prison, but it didn’t seem to have anything larger to say about that, even if we got a quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes at the beginning! (major spoilers)

The Good: 

Stirling Hayden as Gil, the innocent man. I like Hayden, even if his acting style can be kind of monotone at times. It usually works for the type of characters he plays- stoic, tough, and determined. His eyes always communicate much more than the words that come out of his mouth, so you know he’s not JUST a tough guy; there is pain and sensitivity in the man as well. 

Ward Bond as the sadistic Lt. Voorhees. His performance stood out here, and it was typical Bond- gruff, angry, mean, but also a bit aloof. 

James Arness as Redfield, Gil’s cellmate. He was very effective as a hard and brutish leader.

This film looked like it had a much bigger budget than it did. I was shocked to see Lippert Pictures in the credits. Everything from the script to the sets to the performances were above par. 

The depiction of prison abuse was vivid and horrible to witness. 

The location was eerie and awful- the cells inside of a cave, the spiked logs that served as prison gates, the coffin-like solitary confinement box partially buried in the sand... it all left an indelible mark. 

The men in the prison looked realistically sweaty, dirty, unshaven, and wearing the same worn clothes. Every time you looked at them you could feel the heat and the dust they lived in. 

The Bad: 

A plague occurs later in the film, but the first disease we come across is “Classical Hollywood Good Wife Syndrome!” Gil’s wife Ellen showed up intermittently to cry, worry, or declare her love and devotion. She did get more action than the norm, though. While she was worrying and staying devoted, she was also working hard to secure her husband’s freedom. And she was ultimately successful! 

For me, it didn’t delve enough into the issue of inhumane prison conditions. This story was solely focused on Gil, and when he was set free, that was that. I understand that was probably the film's intention, but I wished it had broadened things a little more. 

There was some obvious foreshadowing when an explicit discussion happened about how crucial it was that wagons come with water every month. There was no supply of water where they were. The conversation went on for a length of time that telegraphed what would happen later on. 

The portrayal of Native Americans was not the worst I’ve seen, but it wasn’t good either. You could also tell that some of them were white men wearing Cher wigs and bandanas. 

There was a whipping scene in the film where one of Gil’s cellmates was being viciously lashed, but the incompetent way it was filmed sucked all of the realism and drama of it. Was it a budget issue? 

The typhus epidemic at the end felt like it came out of nowhere. I even rewound the film a little to see if I had missed anything that set things up more clearly. The way it conveniently enabled Gil’s arc of redemption was awfully contrived as well. 

The final scene of the movie did look like something filmed on a cheap budget- when Ellen and Gil run to each other and collapse in each other’s arms, they are clearly standing in a mediocre set meant to look like the outdoors- with fake bushes and trees placed around them in a way that screamed “set design.” 

[project1939]

200 Films of 1952

Film number 191: Lo Sceicco Bianco (aka, The White Sheik)

Release date: September 20th, 1952 

Studio: P.D.C. 

Genre: comedy 

Director: Federico Fellini 

Producer: Luigi Rovere 

Actors: Alberto Sordi, Leopoldo Trieste, Brunella Bovo, Giulietta Masina 

Plot Summary: Ivan and Wanda are newlyweds honeymooning in Rome. Wanda is a dreamy young woman obsessed with soap opera photo comics of the day, and when she has the chance, she sneaks off to meet her ultimate romantic crush, The White Sheik. Events conspire to keep her from getting back to the hotel to be with her frantic husband, who has a prestigious bourgeois family waiting to meet his new bride.  

My Rating (out of five stars): ****¾  

I was eagerly anticipating this because I remembered it vividly from my film school days. I think I enjoyed it even more on the second viewing. It’s a quintessential lighter Fellini film with an eccentric kind of charming chaos and his trademark circusy feel. Underneath all the wild weirdness, though, there’s a lot of kindness and humanity. It’s not a serious film trying to make any grand statement, but for what it is, it’s a nearly perfect little film. 

The Good: 

Brunella Bovo as Wanda. The way she played an innocent sensitive starry-eyed girl made me giggle one moment and sympathize with her the next. Her eyes were so expressive, they slayed me. 

Leopoldo Trieste as Ivan. Oh my god, this guy! If you want to see an example of perfect comedic reaction shots, look at this. He was so good at playing a kind of dorky sheltered guy thrown into the craziest and most stressful situation at the absolute worst time.

Alberto Sordi as The White Sheik. I seriously liked the fact that he was kind of a schlub! He wasn’t extremely handsome, he was kind of paunchy, and he was just ok. That worked beautifully here for the comedy and critique of the industry. 

Giulietta Masina! Giulietta Masina! I love her, I love her, I love her. If I had to make a list of my favorite actors, she’d probably be in my top five. She’s so unique, she has enough charisma to fill an ocean, and she can rip your heart out or make you laugh with just a look. All of this was on display in the precious few minutes of screen time she had here. I couldn't take my eyes off her!

There was a little boy who played one of Ivan’s relatives, and something about his appearance just melted my heart. He wasn’t a flawlessly beautiful child actor- he looked like a real unpolished kid, and the imperfection was both adorable and funny. Just another example of the way Fellini was a master at casting. 

This is probably redundant considering answers 1-5, but the casting in this was bloody perfect! 

There were lots of wonderful colorful minor characters- the writer of the stories who Wanda first meets, the cranky female lead actress, The White Sheik’s wife, the two prostitutes... 

The music in it was SO Fellini. It sounded almost like circus music sometimes, and it was full of a sprightly, lilting, bounciness that was perfect for a slightly absurd comedy. 

The look it gave us into the world of 1950s Italian photo comics was really cool. The humorous evisceration of it all was fun. 

This was the first film Fellini directed alone, and so much of his genius was already apparent here. It’s visually interesting in a way that's different from a lot of the Neo-Realism that was happening in Italy at the time, but it borrows some from it as well. He’s one of those directors who is good at using every element to serve the story. All of his quirks heighten the story and emotion of the film.

The image I remembered most from my initial viewing of the film was The White Sheik's introduction where he was swinging on a huge swing high up in the sky. It was just as insanely delicious and odd when I saw it today!

The final lines. Fellini really knows how to deliver a moving line of dialogue and then punctuate it with humor. 

The Bad: 

 I don’t always love the way Italian films of this time shot without sound and layered everything in later. Sometimes it works and feels ever so Classic Italian Cinema, which was some of the best in world, but sometimes it can be a bit distracting. In this film it was kind of a mix for me.  

[project1939]

200 Films of 1952

I have only TEN films left now! After almost a year of working on this, I am down to 3 comedies, 2 adventures, 2 documentaries, 1 drama, 1 western, and 1 musical...

Film number 190: Park Row

Release date: Sept 1st, 1952 

Studio: United Artists 

Genre: drama 

Director: Samuel Fuller 

Producer: Samuel Fuller 

Actors: Gene Evans, Mary Welch, Bella Kovacs 

Plot Summary: After reporter Phineas Mitchell is fired by a corrupt newspaper baroness named Charity Hackett, he meets a business partner and starts a paper of his own. He is idealistically determined to keep his new paper honest and dependable, and as it begins to find success, his old boss is just as determined to stop him.  

My Rating (out of five stars): ***¾  

Yesterday I was explaining to a friend what I liked about “newspaper movies,” and the first thing I said was, “There’s often very fast intelligent dialogue. A lot of the characters are writers or editors who are smart and shrewd and good with words. I like those fast-talking clever kinds of films.” There you go! That’s not a bad description of Park Row. It was very much in the vein of a newspaper flick, so there was a lot to like about it. It ended up being better than I anticipated given its B status and budget, but it was also not without its flaws. (spoilers!) 

The Good: 

Gene Evans as Phineas Mitchell. He was an actor I hadn’t come across before, and he made a worthy leading man. He had a Spencer Tracy vibe about him- he could be brash, tough, and scheming, but there was a lot of idealism underneath it all. 

Mary Welch as Charity Hackett. I was saddened to hear that she died young and didn’t make many films, because I really liked her in this. She was beautiful and fierce with a wicked unscrupulous side, but occasionally you got a peak of something nicer inside her. When she started wearing colorful clothes after Mitchell told her she looked like she was in mourning wearing black all the time, it was a small action that spoke volumes. 

There was a lot of smart fast-talking dialogue, which was markedly accentuated by the use of long takes. The opening 10 minutes or so were a wonderful energetic mix of newspaper guys shooting the shit and commiserating with each other while drinking. 

The plot was paced and structured well, and even the side plots worked. The invention of Linotype was surprisingly thrilling! 

I loved the camerawork. There were lots of long takes, effective closeups, good use of light and dark, and most noticeably there was a lot of interesting movement. There were sweeping pans, whips back and forth between and around characters, and some striking pull ins. It was surprising and fun. 

Most of the time this felt like a film with a bigger budget. The acting was all very good, the sound and cinematography were well above par, and the sets did not look cheap. If you compare it to Breakdown, a recent low budget film I watched, there’s a chasm between them. 

The Bad: 

The sexual tension/romance between Mitchell and Hackett didn’t work for me. It seemed almost absurd that they would fall in love under the circumstances they were in. (Although the super long kiss they shared was pretty spicy for the time.) 

It got overly earnest and preachy at times. 

The ending with Hackett was unbelievable. I totally bought the fact that she would change when she heard about the violence that had been committed in her name, but I just didn’t buy that the change would happen so fast, so utterly, and so completely.  

How on earth could Mitchell just fall right back in love with a woman who was literally trying to destroy him and had the blood of more than one of his employees on her hands? 

It made me sad about the pitiful state journalism is in today, especially the state of our local newspapers. The credits opened with a message saying there were 1,772 daily newspapers in the United States in 1952. I looked around to see if I could find a recent number, and according to a Forbes article from November of 2023, the number is probably around 1,210 today. That’s 562 fewer papers. 

[project1939]

200 Films of 1952

Film number 189: Les Miserables

Release date: August 14th, 1952 

Studio: 20th Century Fox 

Genre: drama 

Director: Lewis Milestone 

Producer: Fred Kohlmar 

Actors: Michael Rennie, Debra Paget, Robert Newton, Edmund Gwenn, Cameron Mitchell 

Plot Summary: Based on the epic Victor Hugo novel, we see Jean Valjean sent to prison for stealing a loaf of bread. Meeting a kindly bishop who helps him get on his feet after his release, Valjean tries to do good in the world. He breaks his parole, however, and a malevolent French Inspector named Javert becomes obsessed with catching him. 

My Rating (out of five stars): ***¾ 

I’ve never seen the 1935 Hollywood version of this film, which everyone seems to agree is far superior to this. Without that lens to view it through, I thought this 1952 version was pretty good- not great exactly, but quite good. There are a few performances in it that make it worth watching, and Lewis Milestone’s direction was visually striking.  

The Good: 

Robert Newton as Javert. He was the best part of the film for me. He played the role with a creepy, imposing, desperately obsessive edge, which was exactly what was required. 

Javert the character. One of the great characters in literature, his obsessive drive for a machine-like “justice” combined with his traumatic past creates some damn good complexity. 

Michael Rennie as Valjean. Rennie will forever be the regal alien in The Day the Earth Stood Still for me, and I love him for it. Here he played Valjean with a lot of sympathy, conveying much through his eyes and expressions. 

Edmund Gwenn as the Bishop. Who can ever resist the charms of this man? 

Cameron Mitchell as Marius. He played an idealistic revolutionary well. 

The direction by Milestone. It was a very interesting film from a visual standpoint. The close-ups were used well, and there were a lot of cool shot compositions. It was also the ideal kind of situation where things were distinctive and creative, but it didn’t pull you out of the movie. 

I thought the film did a good job compressing a longer story into a shorter period of time. 

The courtroom scenes were particularly visually arresting (pun!)- with a truly nightmarish feel. I’m sure they were influenced by the devastating 1928 French film The Passion of Joan of Arc, because I couldn’t help but think of it. 

The political and philosophical messages were conveyed without hitting you over the head with it. 

The line by Robert near the end to Javert: “How does success taste after all these years?” Chills! 

The Bad: 

Rennie was good, but maybe a little too restrained? 

Debra Paget as Cosette. Most of the blame can probably go to the script and the Hollywood portrayal of these kinds of roles at the time. She overacted, falling into that “innocent damsel” stereotype. 

Debra Paget’s makeup. How she could have been in a mid 19th century convent school with that kind of makeup on her face is laughable. 

All the talk of a high school girl being “a desirable woman” ready for marriage. Yes, it was historically accurate to the 19th century, but it was still super gross watching it now. 

The hint of incest also grossed me out. I know Valjean was only Cosette’s non-genetic guardian, but she constantly called him father. It’s not technically incest, but... eew. 

The use of the intertitles that came on the screen as chapter dividers was inane and totally unnecessary. 

I don’t know that this is bad per se, but I find it funny that Hollywood favors using English actors to play European roles, especially if they are larger protagonist roles. I could list examples, but we’d be here forever. It’s just weird to me, because why don’t you ask an English person how French or German they feel...  

[project1939]

200 Films of 1952

Film number 188: Breakdown

Release date: July 16th, 1952 

Studio: Pegasus Productions, Realart Pictures Inc. 

Genre: sports noir 

Director: Edmond Aneglo 

Producer: Edmond Angelo 

Actors: Ann Richards, William Bishop, Anne Gywnne, Wally Cassell, Sheldon Leonard 

Plot Summary: Terry Williams was framed and sent to prison, but he gets an early release to become a prizefighter. Managed by Pete and his brother Nick, he gains notoriety for consecutive and swift K.Os. Seeing this, powerful people want him to fight the current Heavyweight Champion in a massive charity event. Pete knows he’s not ready, though, and is terrified it will put his life in danger. 

My Rating (out of five stars): *** 

Hey ladies, do you ever think dating a boxer would be kind of fun? Well you sure won’t if you watch this movie! Actually, this was an entertaining boxing flick with some interesting colorful characters and a good deal of suspense. It came with punches, but it also had a sensitive underbelly. (minor spoilers)

The Good: 

Wally Cassell as Pete, Terry’s disabled manager. He played the character with such sensitivity and pathos, he broke your heart whether he was feeling joy, sadness, or fear. 

Sheldon Leonard as Nick, Terry’s tough guy brother. He was so good in this! He was perfectly cast.  

Anne Gywnne as Nick’s wife and Punchy’s former girlfriend. Sometimes she succumbed too much to the melodrama and overacted, but despite that, there was something I really liked about her. She had an interesting look and wasn’t just a stereotypical sweet and fragile wife. There was a strength underneath her brokenness. 

The bond between the brothers was extremely moving. Seeing the thuggish Nick respond to Pete the way he did made me a little teary more than once. 

There were lots of colorful characters that were relatively well fleshed out. I think this was due to a mixture of the writing, the casting, and the acting. 

The story was quite suspenseful. I knew something big was coming at the end, and waiting for it to unfold made me feel the right kind of apprehension and unease. 

There was one twist I didn’t see coming near the end. 

The final fight scene was pretty epic. For a low budget film, it was very impressive and almost traumatic to watch. 

The Bad: 

In my opinion, the biggest flaw the film had was its tendency to cross over the line into histrionic melodrama. In the more theatrical moments, the writing and the acting went way over the top, to the point of distraction.  

The music was also a big part of the above issue. It was waay too much- you'd almost think the score was for a tragic opera! It was another distracting thing when the story got dramatic. 

 I liked William Bishop as Terry, but I didn’t buy him as a lower-class parolee. He had a refined air about him that worked against his believability. 

The whole romance plot between Terry and June was... something. It was too sappy and soapy, and it seemed fanciful that a high society millionaire would marry an amateur boxer who just got out of jail. 

Oh my god was there a monumentally awful “falling in love montage!” We got the usual vignettes like the two of them eating a romantic dinner, slow dancing, walking hand in hand, frolicking outdoors... but everything was connected by daily calendar pages flipping over! It was montage cliche after montage cliche. 

The plot with Punchy was often too much. At first I liked him as an ominous character, but then it became the most breathless sweeping melodramatic stuff you could imagine. We also never got any news at the end about a possible surgery he could have, which was sad. 

Some of the sets had really low ceilings that made me feel claustrophobic, which was disturbing. I know the budget was miniscule, though. 

[project1939]

200 Films of 1952

Film number 187: Francis Goes to West Point

Release date: July 1952 

Studio: Universal 

Genre: comedy 

Director: Arthur Lubin 

Producer: Leonard Goldstein 

Actors: Donald O’Connor, Lori Nelson, Alice Kelley, Gregg Palmer 

Plot Summary: With the help of Francis the talking mule, Peter becomes a hero by saving an atomic plant from a bomb attack. His heroics capture the attention of the US Government, and he is offered a spot at West Point. But can this bumbling hero really make the grade there? 

My Rating (out of five stars): **¾  

By making my list 200 films long, I’ve included a lot of things I would never purposely choose to watch. So, I’ll be real- I hate talking animal movies. I can’t stand them. I love animals, but I loathe when real live animals talk in movies. (If it’s a cartoon animal, that’s a different story.) If they are older films, I especially worry about how the animals were treated on and off set. So... I did not want to put this film on my list! I finally gave in because it was a hugely popular and culturally significant series of movies right dab in the middle of 1952. Hell, Francis was even a guest on an episode I saw of What’s My Line? I like Donald O’Connor too, so hearing he starred in these helped push me to give it a try. 

The Good: 

Donald O’Connor! He is utterly charming and impossible to hate. He can always make me at least giggle or smile. 

For once we got a moderately realistic portrayal of a military school or basic training! All the other films I've seen from 1952 made joining the military seem like a summer camp or a class trip. Here there was tough discipline that characters could not talk their way out of. 

The real life footage of the military drills was wowing. 

I also loved the bona fide footage of a college football game. Seeing a real stadium filled with thousands of people... even seeing the parking lot teeming with vintage cars and buses was a weird nerdy highlight for me! Those snapshots of the actual world at the time are so fascinating. Still. 

I was kind of ambivalent to Francis, but I did find it amusing that he seemingly randomly knew everything there was to know. When he was tutoring Peter in French, that did make me smile. 

The Bad: 

I didn’t find the film terribly humorous. I smiled a few times, and maybe there was a giggle here and there, but was it funny? Not to me. But I also know I am not the audience for this. 

The whole premise was so ridiculous, sometimes it was too hard for me to set aside.  

The plot was relatively loose. A lot of these kinds of comedies can turn into a succession of gags bound together by the thinnest of threads. This movie wasn’t that bad- it did have a rough plot at least, but sometimes it was still too erratic. 

I try not to be mean to actors, but the actress who played Cynthia, Peter’s possible love interest, was not good. Her line delivery wasn't too bad, but her expressions were off. She kept her eyes so wide open it looked like she was having an eye exam, and it was just kinda weird. I’m sure she was a lovely person, though. ;-D

And speaking of the possible romance- what happened at the end? We never found out anything about Peter and Cynthia being together or not. 

The characters were not developed at all. I know that is expected from a comedy geared toward kids, but it made it hard to actually care about the people in it. For example, I kept getting Peter’s two roommates mixed up because they were almost indistinguishable. 

Who designed that horrible horrible poster?

[project1939]

200 Films of 1952

Film number 186: Woman of the North Country

Release date: Sept 5th, 1952 

Studio: Republic 

Genre: western 

Director: Joseph Kane 

Producer: Joseph Kane 

Actors: Ruth Hussey, Rod Cameron, John Agar, Gale Storm 

Plot Summary: In 1890, Christine Powell’s family owns the biggest and richest mining company in Minnesota's Iron Rage. She is determined to maintain wealth and power, especially when valuable ore is found on a competitor’s land.

My Rating (out of five stars): ***½  

For a cheap Republic film, this was pretty damn good! We even got a strong female anti-hero who was deliciously fun to hate! The story was engrossing, and it was unique to have a western set in northern Minnesota. If not for a few issues, this could have been a great film. Unfortunately the only print that seems to be available now is in very bad shape- it's a shame because this is a movie that deserves better. (some spoilers)

The Good: 

The character of Christine Powell was probably my favorite part of the film. She was kind of a northern version of Scarlett O’Hara, if O’Hara had an evil twin! Christine was so conniving, every time you thought she had gone as far as she could, she went further. But I loved it. 

Ruth Hussey played Christine well, especially for a cut-price film. Her refined appearance and demeanor were wonderfully accompanied by some sly and devilish expressions.  

I liked Rod Cameron as Kyle, a seemingly good man caught up in Christine’s web. Cameron could be a little stiff at times, but it kind of worked. His huge imposing frame (he was 6’5”) combined with a typical western stoicism was an asset. If you like a beefy looking cowboy, he’s your guy. 

Gale Storm! I was happy to see the girl from My Little Margie play another role. She was pleasing as the sweet but intelligent Cathy. 

I got invested in the relationship between Cathy and Kyle. They were cute together, and I loved the fact that Cathy had a high social IQ and always seemed a step ahead of her man. 

The story was very engaging, and it took some brains to keep up with it all. 

There was some good dialogue. I paused the movie a few times to write stuff down. 

I liked that it took place in Minnesota. It’s always cool when an uncommon location for a Hollywood film gets some love. 

There were no racist Native American stereotypes in this western! Rare indeed. 

The word “jackass” could slide by the Production Code in 1952? Sweet.  

The Bad: 

It tried to cram too much plot into one movie. In my view, this is the flaw that prevented it from being a great film. The plot and the momentum started to fray in the final 30 minutes or so. 

This was obviously a cheap film. The sets and the special effects were subpar, and there were some awkward beats here and there, causing that lack of fluidity that a lot of budget films can have. 

Did I like the ending with Cathy? I’m not sure she should have just welcomed Kyle back with open arms. 

The town drunk who could never stray far from a bottle was an Irish guy named O'Hara? Come on, we can do better than that sorry stereotype!