One of the things that struck me, and in fact has often struck me in recent years, is that these movies from the 1930s have gotten to be quite far from us in time now. They did not feel thus in the 80s and 90s, not only since many of the stars and other figures of the era were still alive (Jean Arthur and Frank Capra lived until 1991, for example, and Jimmy Stewart until 1997), but also many contemporary movies and TV sitcoms in that era still retained something of the, for lack of a better word, optimistic goofiness of classic-era Hollywood in their DNA. The personality of these kinds of entertainments since around 2000 seems to me to have finally shed this for the most part and operate from a more sober and realistic worldview, which makes films of this type especially feel more remote to me (from the present age; not from my own sensibility) than they used to.
Many serious commentators consider this to be the best Frank Capra film over the (today) much better-known It's a Wonderful Life, though others prefer Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, and still others It Happened One Night, though I have not seen this last. I am not able to concur in this. Mr. Deeds I came to with much anticipation and found disappointing. This one was an improvement on that effort and contains much that is memorable and different and well done though the resolution ultimately is a little too far-fetched for me to find satisfying. The exaggerated hokiness does not bother me, since it is the source of the tension in the story, and Jimmy Stewart is of course very good in carrying it off. I found myself wondering in some of the scenes where he is challenged or mocked by the more hardened operators how he was going to respond creditably, and in several places he pulls it off, though not always. I don't think this is one of Claude Rains's great roles, though he is as always a great actor--having him play a compromised but somewhat conflicted person in authority does not play to his strengths. He is arrogant and devilish, but not in what I would consider a Claude Rains way. He isn't humorous in this, nor is he particularly sympathetic. Jean Arthur is starting to grow on me a little, though she has not traditionally been a particular favorite of mine. She is very well-liked by what I would loosely call the Gen-X classic film blogger community, and she does, in her roles at least, seem like someone who would not be completely out of place if she were transported to our time. She's not a simp, she is capable, her inner emotional life seems like it might be interesting without being the central motivator of everything she does. I like her small figure--she is listed as having been 5 foot 3 and 110 pounds, which is in accordance with my taste--and I like a lot of the dresses she wears in this as well. Probably my favorite role I've seen her in so far here (Mr Deeds, The Plainsman, Shane).
This is the dress I really liked.
The sets in this movie are top notch. It is very pleasurable to look at. I love giant 1930s era offices with high ceilings and heavy desks and bookcases, and this movie is full of them. I like the montages showing the sights and monuments of Washington as well, as there seem to be few cinematic depictions of that city, which I have spent a decent amount of time in, before the 90s at all.
The movie contains a commentary by Frank Capra, Jr which is so-so. He does have a lot of old Hollywood/studio lore which is probably of interest to some people, but it doesn't tend to be the kind of tidbits that grab me. He is not the most engaging talker, and what he is talking about frequently is not related to what happens to be going on in the film at the time. I would prefer either a more academic commentary on the film or a personality spinning entertaining yarns with the occasional insight, but there is not really either here.
No comments:
Post a Comment