The Adventures of Robin Hood

I had never seen an Errol Flynn movie before sitting down to watch The Adventures of Robin Hood.  It's not all that surprising, I suppose; swashbuckling movies have been out of style for decades, and the rest of Flynn's body of work consists mostly of action-adventure movies in a period where I prefer moody noirs.  Honestly, I can't think of an instance where someone has even recommended an Errol Flynn movie to me; it is entirely possible that my knowledge of Flynn comes from references made by Nightcrawler in X-Men comic books.  Still, a legend is a legend, and I thought it was past time I gave Mr. Flynn a chance.

I think we all know the basic story in The Adventures of Robin Hood by now.  The rightful king of England, Richard the Lionheart, is kidnapped by another country as he attempted to return home from the Crusades.  Richard's slimy brother, John (Claude Rains), has been temporary ruler of the land for some time, and has enjoyed living a life of luxury while oppressing the Saxon lower classes.  When he hears of his brother's trouble abroad, John takes it upon himself to raise taxes to pay for Richard's ransom.

If this was a movie trailer, you would have heard a record scratch after I typed that

Just kidding!  John is allegedly raising the cash to save the crowd favorite king, but he is secretly plotting to use the money to legitimately crown himself king.  Won't anyone stand up to this mean, mean man?  Enter Robin, Earl of Locksley (Errol Flynn).  He takes it upon himself to denounce John (in John's own castle, to boot!) and promises to fight him at every opportunity.  I could go into more detail, but the rest of the film basically follows the same major plot points that the later remakes have.  Basically, Robin Hood becomes a thorn in John's side and Robin does his best to topple the would-be king.

And by "topple," I of course mean "impale"

Okay, so my first impression of The Adventures of Robin Hood wasn't that great.  It's certainly not bad, but it failed to impress me the same way that contemporary films like Pepe le Moko, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, or even another epic like Gunga Din.  I have my suspicions as to why that is, but I'll wait a bit to explain.

Hint: it has nothing to do with silly hats

The acting in The Adventures of Robin Hood is okay for the time period, but not remarkable on the whole.  Errol Flynn is naturally who you picture when you think of this movie, but there is something about his performance that doesn't click with me.  Flynn's action scenes were pretty good for the time period and it appears that he did many of his own stunts, so I like him in those bits.  It's the abruptness of his performance elsewhere that just felt odd to me.  He would go from a feisty political rant to hands-on-his-hips-head-tilted-back laughter at a moment's notice.  I will admit that Flynn looks like he's having fun on-screen, but he comes across more as an egomaniacal jerk than a hero to me. 

"'Sup, bitches?!?"

Olivia de Havilland is fine as Maid Marian; she gives a lot of dreamy eyes to Robin Hood to convey her love --- which is by no means a bad method --- but I thought the attempts to make her more than a damsel in distress, while interesting, ultimately failed. Basil Rathbone was solid as Robin's chief enemy, the Sheriff of Nottingham Sir Guy of Gisbourne.  He didn't ham it up, but Rathbone did seethe dislike for his enemy well.  Claude Rains was suitably slimy as Prince John.  I spent most of the time he was onscreen staring, mouth-agape at his ridiculous wig and disgusting beard.

Great.  Now I've hurt his feelings.

Melville Cooper was pretty good as the Sheriff of Nottingham, although his character is a lot dumber and far less threatening than just about anyone else who's played the part.  As for Robin's Merry Men, Patric Knowles matched Flynn's hands-on-hips laughter, Alan Hale played a surprisingly regular-sized Little John, and the always vocally distinctive Eugene Pallette was probably my favorite underling as the ornery Friar Tuck.

"Why, you're in Technicolor, too!"

Two men get credit for directing The Adventures of Robin Hood.  William Keighley was hired first, but was eventually replaced by Michael Curtiz when the producers were not impressed by the action scenes.  And yet, enough of both men's work made the final cut to justify co-director credits, which is odd.  I can definitely attest that some of Curtiz's action direction worked well; the sword fighting scenes in the castle are still a standard for sword fights in film.  Personally, I would have rather seen less fencing swordplay and more Princess Bride-style fighting, but it's still good, especially for the era.  I don't like that many action scenes are sped-up to look faster, but Flynn is clearly at his best in these sequences.

"You are using Bonetti's Defense against me, eh?"

It should also be pointed out that many of these scenes have become iconic; watching shadows fencing in the castle was a nice touch and Robin splitting an arrow to win the archery tournament is still classic.  The size of the production is also impressive.  The sets are enormous and there are tons and tons of extras, all wearing their gaudiest tights and hats.  The color in this film is surprisingly vivid, even by today's standards; I don't normally point out the novelty of color in films, but everything is gorgeous and bright, especially the outdoors scenes.

Everything about this movie screams "epic," for better or worse.  To go along with the huge scale, the acting performances are also very broad.  Here's the thing about the acting in The Adventures of Robin Hood: the supporting cast is playing to fit Errol Flynn's lead.  If you don't like how he delivers his lines or reacts to certain things, the supporting cast isn't going to impress you, because they are more or less props for Flynn to dash around.  This is not a subtle movie that wins you over through clever dialogue or interesting camera techniques.  This is a Hollywood blockbuster, dedicated to spectacle.  In that, it is successful.  But there are so many moments in The Adventures of Robin Hood that are not epic, and that is where this film stumbles.

Another mistake: introducing cat-style grooming to romances

Sure, I can agree that an arrow in the torso causes instant death, every time.  Yes, I am aware that Robin Hood is shown eating meat off the bone a comical amount of the time.  No, I don't care that the whole Normans and Saxons subplot is blown way out of proportion.  What I can't stand is that only villains are irritated by Robin Hood.  He rubs every single character he meets wrong at first, but eventually wins them over by being a complete dick and then laughing out loud.  And he's an attention whore!  When Richard finally reveals himself to John, it's definitely a King Moment; after maybe a second of time to react, Robin jumps in front of everybody and essentially screams "Look at me!!!"  Maybe my problem is that I never bought into Errol Flynn's performance enough and enjoyed the ride.  There are enough over-the-top quirks in this film that I can see being sources of joy for a true fan, the same way I enjoy the imperfections of many of my favorites.  Unfortunately, I was hoping for a classic and found the 1938 equivalent of a Summer blockbuster.  It's fine for what it is, I suppose, but I was left wanting more.

The Wolf Man (1941)

Despite my love for the horror movie genre, I have managed to go my entire life without seeing any classic monster movies.  That's right, I have never seen Bela Lugosi as Dracula, Boris Karloff as Frankenstein's monster, Lon Chaney, Jr. as the Wolf Man, or even any Mummy movies or The Creature From the Black Lagoon.  Last year, I reviewed The Wolfman with Benicio del Toro, so I thought I would break my classic monster movie drought with the original, The Wolf Man.

I would like to take the time to point out the movie poster above.  Exactly what is supposed to be going on there?  A giant dog's head is levitating over a remarkably turquoise field, ignoring the floating unconscious woman near the bottom of the hill, while silhouettes of cricket players wait in the background with sinister intent?  Think about it...the movie is called The Wolf Man.  How hard could it have been to make a promotional poster that was more enticing than that?

Here you go.  It's a start.

The Wolf Man is the story of Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney, Jr.).  Lawrence returns home after many years when he learns of his brother's death.  Lawrence and his father, Sir John Talbot (Claude Rains) have never really seen eye-to-eye, but age has mellowed the pair and they are suddenly buddies.  Why is this mentioned in the story, then?  I guess to make Lawrence's ignorance about the town that his family oversees (what's that about, anyway?) more plausible; although, didn't he live there as a child?  Whatever.  Lawrence, being kind of a weird guy, "accidentally" notices a pretty young lady in town when he points a telescope into her bedroom; what are the odds?  He tracks her down at her place of work (classy!) and decides to buy a walking stick from her by way of introduction.  The stick comes with a hefty silver handle in the shape of a wolf's head.  The clerk/romantic interest, Gwen (Evelyn Ankers), explains that the handle represents a werewolf.

She should be afraid of him for stalking, even without the werewolf-ing

Apparently, this was not part of the popular lexicon in 1941, so she explains it as a person who transforms into a wolf at certain times of year.  To back up her story, she recites this poem:

Even a man who is pure in heart
And says his prayers by night
May become a wolf when the wolfsbane blooms
And the autumn moon is bright

If that doesn't make much sense to you right now, don't worry.  It will be repeated at least four more times in the film, just in case you missed anything.  On the bright side, it appears that lycanthropy is like a seasonal allergy; apparently, it doesn't happen outside of the autumn, when wolfsbane blooms.  Interestingly, moonlight or the full moon do not play a part in triggering a werewolf's transformation (in this movie).  As you may have guessed already, poor peeping Lawrence winds up on the wrong end of a werewolf bite.  He manages to kill the beast by caving its skull in with his walking stick's silver handle, but he's the only one who saw the lycanthrope as a wolf; by the time everyone else arrived, the wolf had transformed back into a human.  So, what's a nice (if stalker-ish) guy to do when he's been bitten by a werewolf?  There aren't many options, especially when you consider that Lawrence was too old to join his high school basketball team.

A missed opportunity

I have seen a lot of movies over the years, but I have stuck to mostly high-profile pictures from this time period.  What does that mean?  To put it nicely, the movies I watch that are circa-1940 usually look pretty good.  The Wolf Man suffers from a number of production problems.  The first is their sets.  I don't know what passes for "woods" in that area, but I don't know if there are more than three trees on the screen at any time in this movie.  And I have no idea how there could be so much fog in those woods at all times.  Maybe the three trees were made of dry ice?  I feel bad picking on the Wolf Man costume, since the movie is seventy years old, but Chaney looked like he was wearing a loose teddy bear costume, and that's when you can catch a glimpse of him.  I was surprised by how rarely he is shown clearly on screen.

There are zero scenes that show the Wolf Man makeup this clearly.

This is what you get instead.

That disappointed me; I was looking forward to enjoying classic horror movie makeup, and you don't really get any iconic images from this movie.  I have no problem with the way they show Lawrence's transformation into a Wolf Man; they superimposed image after image of his body in varying degrees of wolfiness to convey the idea, and it worked quite well for the time period.  I just wish there was one iconic shot of Chaney in his make-up.

The acting is surprisingly high quality, given the low production values.  Claude Rains is classy, as always, as the senior Talbot.  His part is not especially large, despite having first-billed status, but he turns in a solid performance.  Ralph Bellamy was also pretty good, although his character is involved in a huge plot hole at the end of the film.  Bela Lugosi played...well...

He played a werewolf gypsy.  It was a character piece and it didn't require much work from Lugosi, but he overacted to an entertaining degree in his limited screen time.  Similarly, Maria Ouspenskaya was fun as a gypsy that kinda sorta wanted to help, but apparently thought vague warnings would suffice.  Evelyn Ankers was pretty enough as a damsel in distress, but her character didn't have much depth (or logic, or personality, or...).  While this isn't the first film I have seen Lon Chaney Jr. in (that would be High Noon), this is the first starring vehicle of his I have seen.  Frankly, I wasn't impressed.  Chaney doesn't have the chops to pull off the tortured soul of his character; instead, we are treated to a performance that mistakes nervous anxiety for pain.  It doesn't help that Chaney comes off as downright creepy early in the film, either.  Unfortunately, since we never catch a clear glimpse of him fully wolfed out, so I can't argue that he was great in his iconic role.

I was disappointed, too, Lon.

The Wolf Man was directed by George Waggner and, for the most part, he did a decent job with the story.  Aside from Chaney, the actors appeared to be handled well enough, and the gypsies were entertaining, in an over-dramatic sort of way.  It's pretty basic to assume that Waggner would have shown more of the Wolf Man character on screen if he could stand the scrutiny, so I'm not going to hold him accountable for my disappointment in that area.  He deserves credit for the horrible inconsistencies in the film, though.  For starters, why does Bela turn into a big wolf, but Lawrence Talbot transforms into a teddy bear?  More importantly, Ralph Bellamy's character, the local policeman, notices a slew of clues at the scene of Bela's death; when faced with a nearly identical crime scene later in the film, he ignores every single recurring clue that he noticed at the first scene.  I get it, the film was wrapping up (it was a concise 70 minutes), but that was unbelievable.

I didn't particularly like The Wolf Man.  I didn't have huge expectations for the film, but I still managed to be underwhelmed.  I will admit that the supporting cast was surprisingly good, and it was interesting to see the werewolf lore that was started (and, in some cases, ended) in this film.  Still, it didn't stand the test of time for me.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

My first knowledge of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington came from an episode of The Simpsons, which had Homer helping Mel Gibson spice up the ending to Mel's remake of this classic.  If you're unfamiliar with the episode, check it out here.  I took a few tidbits away from that show.  First, never dismiss the power of shifty eyes.  Second, there is apparently very little vigilante justice in the original Mr. Smith.  Years went by, and I never got around to seeing the movie.  One day, I got curious and researched it a little and was impressed by what I found.  It was directed by Frank Capra, who also directed It's a Wonderful Life and Arsenic and Old Lace, two of my favorite movies from Hollywood's Golden Age.  It was nominated for eleven Academy Awards, (including Best Actor for James Stewart, Director for Capra, and Best Picture) but won only one because it had the misfortune of being released in the same year as Gone With the Wind, Stagecoach, and The Wizard of Oz.  It is also ranked right around #100 on IMDB's Top 250 rated films, of which I have seen about 180.  Pitiful, I know.  So, with high expectations and a desire to slowly chip away at my IMDB 250 checklist, I rented Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

So...many...paper cuts...!

After one of his state's US Senators dies in office, the corrupt Governor "Happy" Hopper (Guy Kibbee) is faced with a pickle of a problem (to use the parlance of the times).  You see, Happy's string-pulling political boss, Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold), wants Happy to appoint one of his stooges, a yes man that will do whatever Taylor tells him to.  However, the people of Happy's unnamed state are quite vocal with their displeasure for that idea; they want to see a reform-minded man in office.  Happy's children suggest Jefferson Smith (James Stewart), the head of the Boy Scouts Rangers.  Happy knows that he can't cross Taylor and win his next re-election, but he also can't antagonize his constituents further with his obvious ties to the political boss.  So, thanks to a pretty unlikely coin flip, he chooses Jefferson Smith to be the junior Senator for Monfornirado (that's just my logical guess as to his state).  So, if you've ever wondered how politicians can make some of their choices, now you know: they listen to their children.

Mr. Smith is just flattered at the invitation and the chance to do Senator things with his state's senior Senator, Joe Paine (Claude Rains), a dear friend of Smith's late father.  All's well in Washington, right?  Not so fast.  Senator Paine might seem sincere, but he is secretly a stooge of Jim Taylor.  "No, not Senator Paine!?!"  I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but it's true.  The Taylor political machine has a scam in the works to skim money off a publicly funded dam; Senator Paine is in on the deal and is the primary supporter of the bill needed to put the scam in motion.  Jefferson Smith starts out, essentially, like a tourist in a new city; everyone knows that he was appointed to be a seat-filler and not accomplish anything, so nobody takes him seriously.  To keep Smith busy, Paine suggests that he write and propose a bill to the Senate.  Being the head Boy Ranger, Smith wants to create a national boy's camp in his home state...exactly where the proposed dam is supposed to be built.  When he proposes his bill, Jefferson Smith, the country wolf to Paine's city wolf, suddenly becomes an unwitting enemy of the Taylor machine.

Like you wouldn't pay to see Jimmy "Aww Shucks" Stewart as a sex-crazed wolf.

Normally, any opponent of Taylor finds himself ground to dust in a matter of hours; Taylor has politicians and newspapermen (remember those?) in every pocket, and he likes to destroy his enemy and salt the earth so they can never grow again.  But Taylor has never faced Jefferson Smith, a man willing to fight back because he believes in the god-blessed U. S. of A.

For being made 30+ years before Watergate, this movie has a pretty modern view on how politics work.  I imagine that, at the time, this was a pretty controversial take on the political body; more importantly, this cynicism prevents Mr. Smith Goes to Washington from feeling like a movie made in 1939.  And yet, despite this cynicism, the underlying tone is unabashedly idealistic.  You just don't see movies that are this earnest any more. 

Okay, so the tone of the movie is both in step and out of step with our times.  How does the acting hold up?  Well, let me put it to you like this: I love me some Jimmy Stewart.  Personally, I'm fonder of his later performances, but the young James Stewart was no slouch, either.

Jimmy, about to make a very racist joke.

It is very difficult to play an earnest character without making him a comic character or overly melodramatic, but Stewart plays the part perfectly.  Really, the Jefferson Smith character is perhaps the personification of the American ideal (hard-working, optimistic, can-do, honest, etc.), and it's hard to take a character that goodie-goodie and make him...well, not annoying.  Stewart infuses his role with charm, wit, genuine emotions, and a childlike innocence, so that when he goes on about how great America is, I somehow get something stuck in my eye every time.  He doesn't fight his battle on his own, though; Jean Arthur does a good job as the jaded Washington insider that falls for Smith and his dreams, despite her better judgment.  Really, the entire cast is pretty special.  Thomas Mitchell (who won an Oscar for Stagecoach that same year) was also fun as a drunken reporter.  This film also has two actors that were nominated for Best Supporting Actor for their work, Claude Rains and Harry Carey.

"Holy cow!  I got nominated for an Oscar?  Let me put my pants on..."  No, I said Carey, not Caray.

Rains' character is a little melodramatic for my taste, but he plays the part well enough.  Carey has a very small part in the film and it is mostly nonverbal, but I really liked his portrayal of the Vice President/President of the Senate.  I think it's cool that a bit part full of smirks and sideways glances could get an Oscar nomination, and this was a fun role.  The rest of the cast is okay, but these were the standouts.

Frank Capra really knew how to make movies that were appealing to everyone.  I wouldn't normally think of a story of political disenchantment as something I would enjoy, but Capra is able to blend humor and drama together to great effect.  While I don't think the camera work in this film is particularly outstanding, the scenes were framed well (lots of pretty pictures) and the Capra is a master craftsman when it comes to telling a story.  As the three acting Oscar nominations suggest, Capra worked well with the cast as a whole and Stewart in particular, which is one reason why this was Jimmy's breakout performance.

Capra's dramas tend to be morality tales, with all the good and bad that implies.  Yes, he creates likable everyman characters that overcome fantastic odds, but there are rarely shades of gray with his characters; you are either on the side of angels, or you're a bad, bad man.  With Mr. Smith, we have a extremely likable everyman that believes in the principles of our government; that earnest innocence is appealing, but also sometimes a tad corny.  Of course, that corniness is part of James Stewart's charm, so it doesn't detract from the film.  However, Capra has some tendencies toward "wah-wah" moments that add more corniness to the film than I would like.  The early scene where Governor Hopper flips a coin to decide who to appoint is a good example of this; heads, he appoints a Taylor stooge, tails he appoints a reformer --- but the coin lands on its side?!?  Wah-wah!  I also rolled my eyes when Smith begins his famous filibuster scene, which caused all the newsmen to be super excited; one even called the filibuster the most exciting moment in politics.  All I can say to that is "wow."  Those are small complaints, though.  This is still a great movie that has aged remarkably well in the past seventy years.  If you haven't seen it yet, it will give you a smile and a warm, fuzzy feeling.