Showing posts with label George Bancroft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Bancroft. Show all posts

Thursday, February 20, 2020

Review - The Docks of New York

February 20, 2020

The Docks of New York – US, 1928

Ahh, the Hollywood hangout - where everyone knows your name, where boisterous crowds of cheerful partygoers dwell and revel at pitches that mere mortals could not, where you and your friends will always find a vacant couch to facilitate your witty banter. It is a place where crowds swell to hear a poet in a business suit dazzle you with a self-righteous hymn, only to be outdone a second later by a flirtatious bartender who speaks of drinks as if they are popular sexual positions. If you’re wondering, that’s Cheers, Friends, and Tom Cruise’s underwhelming 1988 film, Cocktail, but I’m sure you could come up with a number of other examples – Titanic, perhaps. It is an image of sheer absurdity, presenting us with a vision of such excitement that our favorite haunts are made to seem rather pedantic upon comparison.

Much of Josef Von Sternberg’s 1928 film, The Docks of New York, takes place in such a spot, and since Von Sternberg was famous for placing his films in settings he conjured up in his mind – even places like Shanghai and Morocco – I have to assume he didn’t have much experience in the kind of establishment that stokers went to during their brief respites between adventures at sea. Thus, Von The Docks of New York, and it would work fine, were it not for an ending that defaults to that most Hollywood of inventions, the unearned happy ending.
Sternberg creates a place where patrons have boundless energy, where employees have the physiques of bouncers and fist fights break out with uncommon frequency. It is a place of sin and unconcealed infidelity, and it is hardly where one would realistically expect to find a fairy tale involving a tarnished princess and an insincere, promiscuous knight in shining armor. But that is indeed what Von Sternbrg presents us with in

In the film, George Bancroft plays Bill Roberts, a jovial brute whom you’d be forgiven for thinking didn’t have a sincere bone in his body when it comes to the opposite sex. One night, he thwarts a young woman’s suicide attempt, and, for some reason, elects to take her back to his room to recover. The woman’s name is Mae (Betty Compson), and in a telling moment, she describes her predicament with the following revelation: “I’ve had too many good times.” Bill doesn’t inquire any further; he knows exactly what she’s implying. So, he makes the following illogical remark: “Well, you’ve never been out with [me].” Keep this in mind. This is a woman who has just been pulled out of the water and resuscitated. She’s likely deeply depressed and still contemplating suicide. And there’s George suggesting that all she needs is a good romp with him to be as good as new. I didn’t buy it, not even from a guy with the social etiquette of a gnat.

There’s another couple worth mentioning here. Early on, we see a woman partying as if she were having the time of her life. A moment later, she spots a man (Mitchell Lewis) staring at her, and her emotions turn on a dime. The man, referred as The Third Engineer in the opening credits, had previously looked as if he were about to hook up with a woman sitting at a table alone, but we soon learn that they are husband and wife. More importantly, they’ve been separated for three years. She remarks that he’s undoubtedly surprised to find her in a place like that, and indeed, there’s no evidence that he was even interested in reuniting with her while he was in town. In short, we are witnessing a land where broken dreams and unkept promises are commonplace.

Like Von Sternberg’s other films, The Docks of New York is exceptionally well-directed. Von Sternberg was a master with lights, shadows and interiors, and here he created a realistic setting for a film about regular people. We feel the grunginess of the surroundings, as well as the addictive carefree attitude of its inhabitants. In one scene, Von Sternberg bathes Compson in angelic white light, as she sits on Bill’s bed smoking a cigarette, a look of sheer indifference to life on her weary face. Later, he contrasts conversations that hint at budding love and promises of happiness with the room’s dilapidated walls, and we are made to wonder if love has a chance under these conditions. In other scenes, Von Sternberg uses quick pans to give us a glimpse of the various stories underway in the speakeasy that night. It’s rare that we’re reminded that for each character up there on the screen, there is a story in progress.

I can’t say for sure whether the ending of the film is the result of studio interference or not. However, watching it, I couldn’t escape the feeling that it is a cop out. There’s a realistic finale to the story of these two characters, and it is not the one we see on the screen. Characters like these certainly deserve happiness, but nothing in the circumstances Von Sternberg presents us with screams that this is the beginning of theirs, especially since the events in the film take place over twenty-four hours. Just watch the characters’ body language – they both know that their whirlwind romance is a performance, a long tease crafted to make a desired one-night stand a reality.

Alas, this is not the conclusion we get, and it mars what has come before. The Docks of New York is most interesting when it focuses on the envy that Andy feels when he sees someone he views as being below him getting the girl; on the complicated characters of Andy’s wife (played by Olga Baclanova), a woman whose compassion is matched only by her pessimism; and on the face of young Mae, at times resigned to fate, at others appreciative of the distraction that brief glimpses of hope can bring. We empathize with her; we wish her happiness. Von Sternberg gives us that ending, and it is a mistake. A more realistic “Bill” would have been on the ship as the film faded out. (on DVD and Blu-ray)

3 stars

*The Docks of New York is a silent film.

Saturday, January 18, 2020

Review - Underground (1927)

January 18, 2020

Underworld – US, 1927

Josef von Sternberg’s cinematic career began with the film Underworld, a short, gritty look at the criminal world of the late 1920’s. This is a world that owed much of its existence to the colossal mistake that was Prohibition and which made celebrities out of ruthless gangsters such as Al Capone, which one Hollywood studio even entertained making a film with. (According to legend, they would have, too, had someone on the set that day not made a rather flippant remark about leaving his guns at the door.) Those gangsters, it was believed, were standing up to an oppressive government hell bent on imposing its outdated morals on a society whose only crime was that they had a thirst for alcohol, and so, it is not surprising to see the lead character in Underworld, Bull Weed (George Bancroft), portrayed in a rather pleasant light. Sure, he’s got anger issues and a slight tendency toward homicide, but other than that, he’s the kind of guy you’d have the time of your life with were you to share a booth with him at a bar or restaurant.

In fact, for much of the film, we get a pretty sanitized picture of Bull. He seems to commit robberies on his own, never appears to harm anyone in the process, and is even such a romantic fellow that he robs a jewelry store just so that he can get his hands on a necklace that his girlfriend formed in instant attachment with. I mean, if that isn’t love, what is? We also get a few scenes that reminded me of the dual nature of many of James Cagney’s gangsters. They were surely violent, but on any given day, they could have a heart of gold. In one scene which I seem to recall first seeing in a later Cagney film, Bull comes across a teenager trying to steal an apple from a fruit cart. Bull stops him cold and gives him a stern lecture on the evils of taking what isn’t yours. Then he smiles and eats the apple himself, completely aware of the contradiction. In another scene, his actions bring to mind a certain hero from Sherwood Forest, and then there’s his romantic side. When walking with his girlfriend, Feathers (Evelyn Brent), he remembers that a gentleman always walks on the side of the sidewalk closest to the traffic. At this point in the film, you’d be forgiven for thinking, What a swell guy!

Like von Sternberg does in later films with his muse Marlene Dietrich, here he creates a new and foreboding world down to the last detail. From the dark indistinct side streets to the well lit apartment he shares with Feathers, from the frequent shadows that loom large over figures in the foreground to the way von Sternberg immediately makes the audience aware of Feathers’s unique qualities and remarkable form, every detail contributes to the creation of a world in which love and brotherhood exist alongside rage and chaos. The film’s chief villain is Buck Mulligan, owner of a flower shop by day and ruthless gang leader by night, and the character provides both a contrast and a mirror to Bull. Early one, his quick temper and instant fury is juxtaposed with Bull’s calm, mocking mannerisms, and we can be forgiven for initially seeing them as polar opposites.

Interestingly, much of the film’s drama comes not from the rivalry between Bull and Buck, but from that of Bull and a former lawyer/current drunk nicknamed Rolls Royce (Clive Brook). In an early scene, a variation of which was repeated in the great Rio Bravo, Buck entices Rolls with a ten dollar bill, only to throw it in a spit bowl. His reaction is perfect. Even though he could surely use the money, he just picks up his broom and resumes sweeping the floor. Dignity supersedes financial need. The action perfectly establishes his character, and it provides the impetus for Feathers’s first inquisitive look. Sure, Bull would have done something similar, but he is in a much better financial position. Bull does it out of principle, and that means just a little bit more to her. And thus the flirtation begins.

I wish the film had spent more time developing the connection between Feathers and Rolls Royce. It seemed to me that more was needed that a scene in which she exposes her shoulder and he grins like a freshman seeing flesh for the first time, but in truth movies have rarely been good at establishing bonds that go beyond mutual physical attraction. Perhaps this is why ones that do, such as Before Sunrise, It Happened One Night, and Casablanca, resonate as much as they do. We appreciate a film that takes the time to make a relationship understandable. We root for these couples; we simply tolerate the rest. Alas, the romance in Underworld is a case of the latter, and the film is marginally weaker as a result.

Still, the film impresses and resonates, and its impact on the genre is plain to see. In the film, we see the beginnings of Hollywood’s love-hate relationship with gangsters, the need to make them both personally likeable and professionally despicable. One need look no further than The Sopranos for proof that that dilemma continues to dominate the gangster genre, and while Underworld does not end with the protagonist having been exposed as a failure for not having preserved his morals or protected his family from the hazards of his career choice, it does end in a way that will remind viewers of other films from Hollywood’s early years, ones in which a gangster is never truly without honorable attributes. He just has to find something more valuable than his own life. Once Underground get going, there’s little doubt just what that will be, but what a ride getting there, and what incredible performances. Underground is the kind of film that you marvel at, knowing full well that you are witnessing the arrival of a true master of cinema. (on DVD and Blu-ray as part of Criterion’s box set 3 Silent Classics By Josef von Sternberg, now thankfully back in print)

3 and a half stars

*Underworld is a silent film.
*Writer Ben Hecht won an Oscar for his screenplay at the first Academy Awards.