#1933 movies

[cressida-jayoungr]

One Dress a Day Challenge

February: Coeli's Monochrome Picks

I'm No Angel / Mae West as Tira

Coeli's comment: "Wowza!"

The pre-code era strikes again, with Travis Banton as the designer. The slinky, low-cut gown with spiderweb wrap in the bottom photo looks positively demure next to the costume she's almost wearing in the other photos. In Tira's defense, she is a circus sideshow performer. However, it's not too hard to see why this movie was cited as one of the factors leading to the implementation of the Hays Code.

Classic lines:

"Oh, Beulah, peel me a grape!"

"Well, it's not the men in your life that counts, it's the life in your men."

"When I'm good I'm very good. But when I'm bad I'm better."

[imkeepinit]

Lobby card by an unknown artist for the 1956 Mexican re-release of King Kong. The classic movie was presented in Superpanoramica (Superscope), which was RKO's widescreen process of choice for a couple of years in the mid 50s. Starting with Underwater, released in January of 1955, all of RKO's new films were released in Superscope, as well as a few re-released RKO classics.

The aspect ratio for King Kong was originally 1.37:1, which means that in order to achieve Superscope's 2:1 aspect ratio, a significant portion (31.5%) of the original image was lost from from the top and bottom of each frame, making the presentation essentially a vertical pan & scan.

The lobby cards were approximately 30 by 40cm, and they were printed with a variety of movie stills in the concave rectangle in the lower right. This one shows the wedding ceremony observed by the crew of the Venture upon arriving on Skull Island.

[kevinsreviewcatalogue]

Review: The Invisible Man (1933)

The Invisible Man (1933)

Approved by the Production Code Administration of the Motion Picture Producers & Distributors of America

<Originally posted at https://kevinsreviewcatalogue.blogspot.com/2023/10/review-invisible-man-1933.html>

Score: 3 out of 5

Having just moved to Boston, a natural destination for a horror fan like myself has been the city of Salem, Massachusetts about 40 minutes north. I have indeed, like a dirty tourist, partaken in many of the attractions that have made Salem famous, but one place I imagine will be a repeat destination for me is the Cinema Salem, a three-screen movie theater that not only hosts the annual Salem Horror Fest but also, this October, is running many classic Universal monster movies all month long. For my first movie there, I decided to check out The Invisible Man, the most famous adaptation of H. G. Wells' 1897 novel, and I was not expecting the movie I got. Don't get me wrong, it was a good movie, albeit an uneven one. But if your understanding of the Universal Monsters is that they're slow, dry, classy, and old-fashioned, you'll be as surprised as I was at just how wild and funny this movie can get. What would've been just a passable horror movie is elevated by Claude Rains as an outstanding villain who may be literally invisible but still finds a way to hog the screen at every opportunity, one who singlehandedly made this film a classic and part of the horror canon through his sheer presence. It has a lot of rough spots, but I still do not regret going out of my way to see this in a theater.

The film opens in an inn in the small English village of Iping, where Jack Griffin, a man clad head to toe in a trench coat, hat, gloves, bandages, and dark goggles, arrives in the middle of a blizzard. We soon find out that he is a scientist who performed a procedure on himself that turned him invisible, and shortly after that, we find out that this procedure drove him murderously insane as he came to realize that he could now commit any crime and get away with it because nobody will even know how to find him, let alone arrest him. Immediately, we get a sense of what kind of man Griffin is as he attacks the inn's owner for trying to get him to pay his rent, then leading the police on a merry chase when they step into try and evict him, his crimes only escalating from there.

Rains plays Griffin as a troll, somebody for whom the ultimate real-world anonymity has enabled him to let out his inner jerk, and he relishes it. He frequently drops one-liners as he harasses, assaults, and eventually outright murders the people who cross his path, and packs an evil laugh with the best of them. At times, the film veers almost into horror-comedy as it showcases the more mischievous side of Griffin's crime spree, such that I'm not surprised that some of the sequels to this that Universal made in the '40s would be straight-up comedies. That said, Rains still played Griffin as a fundamentally vile person, one who forces his former colleague Dr. Kemp to act as his accomplice knowing he can't do anything about it, kills scores of people in one of the highest body counts of any Universal monster movie, and clearly seems conflicted at points about his descent into villainy only for his power to seduce him back into it -- perhaps best demonstrated in a scene where he talks to his fiancée Flora about how he wishes to one day cure himself, only to slip into ranting about how he could then sell the secret of his invisibility to the world's armies, or perhaps even raise one such army himself and take over the world. The Invisible Man may be the most comedic of Universal's "classic" monsters, but the film never forgets that he's a monster. What's more, while the seams may now be visible on the special effects and chromakey that they used back in the day to create the effect of Griffin's invisibility, a lot of it still works surprisingly well. Already, as I dip my toes into the classic Universal horror movies, I've started to notice why the monsters have always been at the center of the nostalgia, discourse, and marketing surrounding them, and it's because they and the actors playing them are usually by far the most memorable parts of their movies.

It's fortunate, too, because I've also started to notice a recurring flaw in the Universal monster movies: that the parts not directly connected to the monster usually aren't nearly as memorable. I've barely even talked about Griffin's fellow scientists, and that's because they were only interesting insofar as they were connected to him, which made Kemp the most interesting non-villainous character in the film by default simply because of how Griffin uses and torments him. Flora, a character original to the movie who wasn't in the book, felt almost completely extraneous and had next to nothing to do in the plot, feeling like she was thrown in simply because the producers felt that there needed to be at least one token female presence and love story in the film. When the film was focused on Griffin, it was genuinely compelling, whether it was building tension (such as in the opening scenes at the inn, or Kemp's interactions with Griffin) or in the more madcap scenes of Griffin's mayhem. However, when the film diverted its attention from him to the scientists and police officers searching for him, it quickly started to drag. This was a pretty short movie at only 70 minutes, but it still felt like it had a lot of flab and pacing issues.

The Bottom Line

The monster is the reason why people remember this movie, and what a monster he is. Claude Rains and the effects team took what could've easily been a cheap and disposable adaptation and made something truly memorable out of it, even if the rest of the film doesn't entirely hold up today. I still think the 2020 version is a far better movie, but this was still an enjoyable, entertaining, and surprisingly wild time.

[randomcapz]

Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933).

[secretceremonies]

Facial studies for Mae West and Greta Garbo

[fanofspooky]

Classic monster movies

[diana-andraste]

Gold Diggers of 1933

[atomic-chronoscaph]

The Invisible Man (1933)

[gameraboy2]

Betty Boop's Hallowe'en Party (1933)

[weirdlookindog]

The Invisible Man (1933)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Son of Kong (1933)

I have some affection for Son of Kong, the lesser-known sequel to King Kong bafflingly released the same year. It’s not nostalgia. I’m not sure what it is. The film isn’t very good, but if you just happen upon it, or you obtained it in a box set with the original, it’s worth checking out and now that I own it, I wouldn't dream of parting with this Lost World adventure.

A month after the original Kong’s rampage in New York City, filmmaker Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) is facing dozens of lawsuits. When he hears of a treasure on Skull Island and embarks on a new voyage, he, Captain Englehorn (Frank Reicher, reprising his role from the first film), cook Charlie (Victor Wong), and a desperate young woman named Hilda (Helen Mack) end up coming face-to-face with Kong’s albino son.

The story behind the making of Son of Kong is probably more interesting than the film itself. I can understand RKO wanting to repeat the success of Kong with a sequel, but why rush it into production and release it the same year? Did they think Kong would fade from people’s memories that fast? Clearly, this wasn't exactly an inspired or artistically-driven production. It takes a lot longer to get to Skull Island, the reason for going is only so-so and the special effects vary. While the first film was groundbreaking, this one only features a few shots that are true technical marvels, and even then, they’re short. A shot of Junior in quicksand is quite impressive and there’s a stop-motion cave bear that looks great. The rest of the creatures are ok. The ninth Wonder of the World is a little dopey-looking at times.

There are enjoyable parts here and there. Anytime Sonny is duking it out with monsters, it’s pretty cool. It’s also nice to see some of the original characters return. Newcomer Helen Mack has some charms, even if she’s just a replacement for Fay Wray and her acting chops leave a lot to be desired. Typical of these monster films from the 30 and 40s, the ending comes out of nowhere. Makes you wonder if the more comedic tone was done to ensure people wouldn’t be laughing at the picture unintentionally.

King Kong didn't need a sequel. It ended on such a melancholic tone that to keep the story going feels like a betrayal. I'm glad I saw it. I laughed at some of the comedic moments. With the special effects being nowhere near as good as they were the first time around, the acting being just ok, and the story feeling rushed, the good hardly outweighs the bad. Son of Kong is not a worthy sequel. (On DVD, March 28, 2017)

[cressida-jayoungr]

One Dress a Day Challenge

February: Coeli's Monochrome Picks

Dancing Lady / Joan Crawford as Janie "Duchess" Barlow

It's always weird to me to remember that Joan Crawford was in musicals. Even weirder to remember that Fred Astaire's screen debut was with her!

I particularly like the gown in the bottom photo; it's pure distilled 1930s, with the ruffled skirt and the broad, feathered shoulder silhouette. The backlit effect in the top photo is interesting and makes it look like the dress is nearly transparent; but I suppose even in the pre-code era, they wouldn't go that far...

Just found another photo. Never mind.

[imkeepinit]

Movie poster by Gösta Åberg for the 1934 Swedish release of Lady Lou, a Paramount Pictures Release. Gösta Åberg was a Swedish painter, cartoonist, sculptor and advertising artist. He designed posters for thousands of films that are part of the Film History collections at the Technical Museum in Stockholm. (Cinematerial)

[clarulitas]

Dolores Del Rio and Fred Astaire in Flying Down to Rio (1933) dir. Thornton Freeland

[ultrakillblast]

KING KONG (1933)

[adventurelandia]

The Mail Pilot (1933)