Tuesday, January 8, 2019

Keaton and Todd are absolute greatness in 'Speak Easily'

Speak Easily (1932)
Starring: Buster Keaton, Jimmy Durante, Thelma Todd, Ruth Selwyn, Sydney Toler, and Henry Arnetta
Director: Edward Sedgewick
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A bookish professor (Keaton) gets news that he has inherited $700,000, and he decides it's time to live his life to its fullest. While on his way to New York, he encounters a struggling theatre troupe with more heart than talent. He become smitten with Pansy, the lead dancer (Selwyn), and he decides to be their financial backer for a Broadway show.


"Speak Easily" is a very uneven comedy that is dragged down by long stretches of unfunny or repetitive gags separated by some excellent bits. It's got a solid and talented cast that deserved better than the material they have to work with.

For example, poor Buster Keaton is the star of the film, but he still has very little do. He is more frequently than not relegated to the role of straight man to Jimmy Durante, and most of the bits he has of his own are dragged out past the point of being funny. As for Durante, he, too has to struggle with routines that drag on; there's a bit involving luggage that starts out amusing and grows tiresome and annoying by the time the film finally moves on.

The one performer in the film who gets to appear in all the films best scenes is Thelma Todd, and it's in these scenes were Keaton gets to shine his brightest, too. Todd shows up in the second act, and she is the closest thing this genial story has to a villain. Her character, Elanor, is a burlesque dancer who is willing to do almost anything to get a part in a Broadway play, from stripping down to her underwear at the slightest suggestion--which immediately convinces Durante's character, James, that she has what it takes to be in the show--to setting up Keaton's Professor Post to be blackmailed for sexual indiscretions. Unfortunately, the good professor is simply too oblivious to even realize that Elanor is trying to seduce him, and her big scheme backfires when her efforts end up with both of them so blindingly drunk the couldn't be "indiscreet" if they wanted to.

This drunken scene, and its aftermath, with Keaton and Todd features a hilarious mix of spoken and physical humor and it is the highlight of the movie. In fact, the story-thread that starts with Elanor showing up in the Professor's office, through her attempts to seduce him and blackmail him, through the steps that James takes to extract him from any possibility of scandal, is so sharp and so well-done that it feels like it belongs in a much better movie. These scenes show that it wasn't that the famed silent movie star Keaton was getting old and had lost his edge (as some claimed at the time... and perhaps even today); it was that he didn't have anything good to work with. With quality material, and partner that can give as well as she got--which he had in Todd in these scenes they did together--Keaton could still deliver the physical humor that had made him famous, as well as deliver spoken jokes with perfect timing and the driest of dry wit.


While Keaton also has a few great moments toward the end of the film--during a Broadway opening  that's bound to be a disaster unless some miracle happens--the scenes he shares with Todd really are the film's high point. It's really a shame that the rest of the cast is stuck with mostly sub-par material,. because there are several instances where they show that they are all quite talented. Nowhere is this more clear that the scene where Professor Post decides to bring the troupe to Broadway. The performance they put on is such a wretched display of hammish acting, lousy singing, and bad choreography that leaves viewers in awe at how bad it is... which is proof that we are watching performers of the highest caliber. It takes a lot of skill, and even more practice and rehearsal, to be as bad as they are in that scene.

It's at once heart-breaking and touching that Professor Post is so smitten with the troupe's leading later that he can't see how bad Pansy and her fellow performers are... and it also gives Jimmy Durante's character a likable dimension to what otherwise comes across as a fairly wretched human being: James truly believes that he and his troupe could be the next big thing if only they could get a break. When the Professor offers to fund their show, James isn't motivated by greed, but rather by the excitement of making his (and his fellow actors) dreams come true and to get them the recognition he believes they so richly deserve. At no point does James's faith in his troupe waver, even when the experienced Broadway director that Professor Post hires (played by Sydney Toler, who is best known as Charlie Chan) accurately and truthfully describes the level of talent the performers have. As annoying as I find Durante as an actor, I really liked his character of James... and I really wished he'd been given  better material to work with.

(Of course, here I am laying blame on the scriptwriters and the director for the movie being  mostly weak when maybe I should be giving credit to Buster Keaton and Thelma Todd for making the scenes they have together so sparklingly brilliant. After all, they are the common denominator for the movie's best parts... and their hilarious scenes together are plenty reward for sticking around through the rest of the film.


One odd bit of trivia: When she appeared in this film, Thelma Todd was co-starring in her own series of comedy short films with ZaSu Pitts that was being produced by Hal Roach and released through MGM. One of these was titled "Sneak Easily", released in December of 1932 (and I actually posted a review of it last week). "Speak Easily" was released in August of that same year. That these titles are so similar can't be an accident--especially since the title of the short film makes little sense given its subject matter--but I can't figure out what the reason for it would be. Anyone out there have a thought about it?

Monday, January 7, 2019

Flash Gordon turns 85!

Today, January 7, 2019. it's exactly 85 years since Flash Gordon by Alex Raymond first graced the funny pages. Here's a gallery of photos and art celebrating Flash, his friends, and his enemies!

Jean Rogers and Buster Crabbe, the first live-action Dale & Flash




Dale (Jean Rogers), Ming the Merciless (Charles Middleton), Princess Aura (Pricilla Lawson),and Minions of Ming, in a scene from the 1936 serial "Flash Gordon".
Flash and Dale in Trouble (By Alex Raymond)
Flash Gordon, Prof. Zarkoff, Dale Arden and Pal.
(By Troy Burch)

Flash! He'll save everyone of us! (By Don Newton)
Flash and Dale: Ready for to the next 85 years of adventure
(By Gabriel Hardiman)



Musical Monday: Strangelove


Let's get the second week of 2019 started off right, with one of the greatest songs from Depeche Mode, orginally from the "Music of the Masses" album. (And be assured that there is nothing strange in loving Depeche Mode!)


Sunday, January 6, 2019

To Know Her is to Fear Her....

... and she's Jessica Drew, the only one TRUE Spider-Woman!
By Joyce Chin

By Sean Izaak
By David Finch and Danny Miki
By Shonemitsu

(And is this the beginning of a "Spider-Woman Sunday" series along the lines of the "Princess of Mars" one? Time will tell!)

Friday, January 4, 2019

'She-Wolf of London' is a disappointment

She-Wolf of London (aka "The Curse of the Allenbys") (1946)
Starring: June Lockhart, Don Porter, Jan Wiley, Sara Haden, and Dennis Hoey
Director: Jean Yarbrough
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

Young heiress Phyllis Allenby (Lockhart) comes to fear that she has fallen victim to a family curse and has begun committing grisly murders in a nearby park. Her fiance (Porter) sets about to prove her fears wrong by finding the real killer.



"She-Wolf of London" is a slightly lethargic thriller that's more of a mystery than a monster movie, despite the title. It could be that this is a movie that's become predictable given the hundreds of similar films that have been made since its release in 1946, but I pretty much knew how it was going to resolve some five-ten minutes in, as well the true reason for the Allenby curse's return.

Usually, I don't mind being right about guessing where a film is heading before it gets there, particuarly when the filmmmakers throw in some nice bits of misdirection that make me suspect I'm wrong... and the actions of Phyllis's insensitive friend Carol (Wiley) were so well orchestrated that they made me do just that--could she REALLY be that much of a bitch without trying, I had to ask myself? Unfortunately, in the case of this movie, when it does arrive at the ending I had already guessed, it completely botches it. Setting up Carol as a possibility for the she-wolf was really the only decent bit of storytelling here, everything else being very pedestrian and the ending being a suspenseless, badly written and badly staged cop-out.

I wish more effort and care had been put into giving "She-Wolf of London" a better ending. I became very interested in the film about halfway through when I realized that its storyline was very close to what the 1941 classic "The Wolf Man" (review here ) was originally supposed to be--a psychological thriller where the "werewolf" might just be a deluded psychopath whose "transformation" is a figment of a diseased mind--and this concept could have been put to far better use than it is here. I might have felt the letdown of the poorly executed ending more sharply because I got my hopes up for what was coming, but I suspect it's more likely the pathetic ending is simply the natural outcome of a production where quality wasn't a top priority. After all, this is a film set in 1890s London, with lead characters who are all British bluebloods, but none of the stars make even a halfhearted attempt at a British accent.

In the final analysis, this is a shoddy movie that is very solidly deserving of the 4/10 rating I'm giving it.

Thursday, January 3, 2019

Who's greater than Tony the Tiger? Superman!

Then there was that time where Superman saved ZaSu from getting beat up by her abusive husband...



(We're presenting this slightly disturbing television ad, which aired during the Superman television series at some point between 1953 and 1958, because ZaSu Pitts was born on January 3, 1894--125 years ago today.)

Wednesday, January 2, 2019

Thelma is a Bombshell for the Defense

Sneak Easily (1932)
Starring: ZaSu Pitts, Thelma Todd, James C. Morton, Bobby Burns, and Billy Gilbert
Director: Gus Meins
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Attorney Thelma Tood (Todd) is defending a mad scientist (Burns) who has been accused of murdering is wife when juror ZaSu (Pitts) accidentally swallows a piece of evidence--which just happens to be a sample of the time-released high explosive of the madman's creation. Will ZaSu develop a case of terminal indigestion, or will the Thelma and the rest of the officers of the court find a way to save her before it's too late?


When I read a logline for this film--"Juror Zasu accidentally swallows a piece of evidence which just happens to be a time bomb."--it moved to the top of the list of things to watch. However, while amusing, this outing for these great comediennes is deeply flawed in several ways, almost all of them originating with the script.

The problems start almost immediately. Three minutes in, I felt like I had missed the beginning of the film, because so many questions are raised by the way Thelma Todd's attorney character is introduced. She is clearly an inexperienced attorney trying to inflate her image, but why? And how did she end up defending the mad scientist? Perhaps her apparent inexperience with court procedures is an indication that she isn't an attorney at all but is some sort of fraud? The sense of having missed out on a chunk of the story only deepened when an exchange between ZaSu makes comments to Thelma that not only establishes that they are closely acquainted but that they may even be roommates like they are in other entries in the series; how could ZaSu be on the jury in a murder trial if she has close ties to the defense attorney? It makes sense if Thelma is some sort of fraud and somehow managed to get ZaSu on the jury as a "ringer"... but, again, that means there's a chunk of story missing. I don't mind joining a story in progress when it comes to short films like these, but I do mind when it feels like I came in late.

Another problem is a bizarre repeat of footage during a high-speed driving sequence when ZaSu is being rushed to hopeful salvation in an ambulence. I thought maybe the DVD had skipped, but, no. For whatever reason, the filmmakers decided to insert the same few seconds of external footage of cars on a road twice in the same sequence, with only a short scene of the actors mugging it up in the ambulance in between. It's unncessarily distracting and looks sloppy and cheap. If it was done for comedy, I'm missing the joke.

Despite the flawed beginning, once ZaSu swallows the trial evidence, the film is utterly hilarious and top-notch. While Todd doesn't get to show off her flair for physical comedy, Pitts gets to do plenty of pratfalls. In fact, it many ways, Todd serves as the eye of a storm of craziness, as she is the only actor who isn't hamming it up... at least not until the explosive prelude to the film's twist ending.
"Sneak Easily" is one of 17 short films included on the two-DVD set containing



Tuesday, January 1, 2019

Welcome to 2019!

Our thanks to Alice White for making sure we're keeping with the times here at Shades of Gray. 2019 promises to be a very busy year.


(Although we're hoping that the next time she makes an appearance, she'll be wearing one of her many silly hats.)


Monday, December 31, 2018

The end of 2018 is almost here...

... and Dorothy Lee and Thelma White are counting down the final minute of what's been a busy year here at Shades of Gray...


... while Lilian Harvey is ready with a toast...























... and Bessie Love just keeps on partying, because she knows that 2019 is going to be even busier!




























WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT YEAR (in just another minute)!

This 'Conspiracy' isn't worth uncovering

Conspiracy (1930)
Starring: Bessie Love, Ned Sparks, Hugh Trevor, Gertrude Howard, Rita La Roy, and Donald MacKenzie
Director: Christy Cabanne
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

After killing a drug kingpin, Margaret (Love) is hiding from both the drug syndicate and the police, her identity as the killer still unknown. Then a crime writer turned amateur detective, "Little Nemo" (Sparks), decides to solve the case, gets onto her trail, and may expose her to cops and crooks alike.


When I reviewed "The Sawdust Ring", I said that I could easily see why D.W. Griffith was sure Bessie Love was going to be a star from the moment he first saw her, and why she did indeed become a huge star during the 1920s. In that film, she had a certain charisma that almost seemed to make her leap off the screen. In "Conspiracy", however, very little of that aura is evident... in fact, the performance she gives here barely distinguishes her from a generic "damsel in distress"-type character. (I might even argue that her performance seems a bit off, since she's playing a character who's been undercover with a drug gang for several months. Sure, she's just stabbed someone to death as the film starts, and later she's been cooped up with an obnoxious asshole for two weeks, but I would still expect something more than confusion and panic to each and every situation she encounters.)

Perhaps Love was modulating her performance to be complimentary to the boring, bland stock hero played by Hugh Trevor. Maybe she was trying to be lowkey so Ned Sparks' supremely annoying, grumpy old man character would seem even more annoying and grumpy. Or maybe she knew she was in a badly directed third-rate movie with a weak script full of squandered opportunities and only one mildly interesting twist, and she wasn't giving it her all. Whatever the reason, there are only two times in "Conspiracy" where we see glimmers of the Love that graced the screen 15 years earlier: During the obligatory insta-romance-sparking scene where she tells her tale of woe to Trevor's dull alleged man of action, and during the scene where Sparks' character threatens to turn her over to the police, and she in turn threatens to bash his brains in with a paperweight.

Still, even if Love had given the performance of her career, she probably couldn't have saved this movie which leads with its very best scenes and then steadily goes down hill. The biggest problem here, really, is that the filmmakers couldn't decide if they were making a comedy or a thriller or a melodrama; or if the central character was Margaret, Love's caught-in-the-middle woman on the run; Little Nemo, Sparks' annoying and obnoxious and played-strictly-for-laughs crime writer; or Trevor's boring feature section reporter. It also doesn't help the movie that anything remotely suspenseful happens off-screen or in a flashback (where we already know the outcome).

As terrible as this movie is, and as disappointed as I was with Bessie Love's performance, I did keep watching. Ned Sparks as Little Nemo was entertaining in a train-wreck sort of way... and I watched with captivated awe while Sparks and Gertrude Howard (as Little Nemo's beleaguered black housekeeper) played through a series of comedic (but extremely unfunny) and deeply racist exchanges. Also, Rita La Roy's femme fatal-ish character that shows up at about the halfway point as an agent of the drug ring trying to milk Little Nemo for information and seduce him into turning Margaret over to the gang when he finds her, was a lot of fun.


Unless you're a huge Ned Sparks fan (I think this was the closest this accomplished character actor ever came to playing the lead); want an opportunity to be able to tell exactly how brilliant Bessie Love is in some of her other roles; or are looking for an old movie with some racists scenes to fill you with righteous outrage, there are far better movies to spend your time on. (But if you do decide to check it out, I recommend you watch it for free on YouTube.)