Harrison's Reports (1931)

70 HARRISON’S REPORTS “Dude Ranch” with Jack Oakie (Paromount, May 9; running time, 69 min.) Entertaining! At the Paramount theatre, where it was shown, there was constant laughing. The comedy is caused by the situations, the good acting, and the excellently written subtitles. Eugene Pallette and Mitzi Green cause much of the comedy. There are some thrills in the end, too; they are caused by the chase the hero and his friends give some bank robbers. The hero chases them in a machine, overtakes the bus, and by a well executed move he climbs the bus, kicks the driver out, takes the seat, slows down and when one of the holdup men sticks his head out to find out what was going on he grapples with him. The hero’s friends, who followed, tackle the others, until the sheriff arrives and puts the handcuffs on them. These scenes are naturally thrilling and win the spectators’ good will for the hero, who up to this point was considered a bluffer. There is a charming love affair, too. The action revolves around some stranded actors, among whom is the hero, who undertake to “put on an act” for a “dead” hotel so as to induce the dissatisfied guests to remain. During their “act,” the hero and his fellow-actors engage into a controversy with some high-class crooks, who had come to that region to rob a bank. The crooks rob the bank and succeed in fastening suspicion on the hero. But in the end, the robbers are caught, and the hero is exonerated. The plot has been founded on a story by Milton Krims; it was directed by Frank Tuttle. (Not a substitution.) Excellent for children. The fact that the picture is more or less a farce-comedy may disarm parents from objecting to the robbery scene. Good Sunday show for small towns. “The Public Enemy ( Warner Bros., May 15; running time, 83 min.) The success “Doorway to Hell” and “Little Caesar” have made no doubt induced Warner Bros, to make more pictures of this kind with the hope that they might save their crumbling edifice. Like the former two gangster pictures, “The Public Enemy” is “packing” them at the Strand, where it is having its first run; but like the others, it is demoralizing. It is, in fact, much more demoralizing than the others in that the cutthroats are not punished in the end by the authorities; the two gangmen are exterminated by their rivals when they went to shoot it out with them. It is the type of picture that will bring upon the industry the worst kind of regulation, and the most stringent laws; so stringent, that it will be unlawful even to show a criminal. The story revolves around two young men who start their criminal career from childhood. Murder is no bar to their ambitions. They become beer racketeers, coercing speakeasy men into buying beer from them, destroying their speakeasies and threatening them with death when they refuse to obey their orders: in fact terrorizing everybody and everything. But in the end, they lose their lives at the hands of gangster rivals. The story is by Kubec Glamson; the direction, by William A. Wellman. Edward Woods, James Cagney, Donald Cook, Jean Harlow, Joan Blondall, Beryl Mercer, Ben Hendricks, Jr., Leslie Fenton, Louise Brooks, and others are in the cast. The talk is fairly distinct, but the sound is poor. Most demoralizing to children of every age; and to many adults. It is “poison” as a Sunday show in small towns. NOTE: The original title is supposed to have been “His Brother’s Wife.” Though the work sheet does not give the author’s name, or any story, it says, “A Sophisticated drama of married life.” Since the picture is not a “drama of married life,” it is a theme substitution and those of you who do not like to show gangster pictures in your theatre have the right to reject it. You could reject it even if it were not a substitution, on the ground that it is inciting to crime. A CORRECTION In the substitution analysis made last week, it was stated that “Men on Call,” Fox, is a substitution for the reason that the finished product has been founded on a story by James K. McGuiness whereas the author given in the Work Sheet was to be Tom Geraghty. Fox informs me that the name of Tom Geraghty was a typographical error, and that it was intended to be James K. McGuiness. I am inclined to believe them. May 2, 1931 “The Flood” with Monte Blue and Eleanor Boardman ( Columbia , Feb. 28; running time, 69 min.) A disreputable story — the heroine commits an indiscretion and the spectator is constantly reminded of it. In the second half, the other man (villain) returns and pursues the heroine, even though against her will. This is interwoven with the breaking of a levee on account of torrential rains lasting for days. The picture ends with the villain’s death — he is swept away by the raging torrent and was not seen again. The heroine escapes death — the hero discovers her clinging on a raft and rushes to her rescue. Happiness is supposed once again to prevail. The flood should thrill second and third rate picturegoers. But intelligent persons will become exasperated on account of the lack of intelligence not only in the conception of the story but also in the construction of the plot. There is hardly any sympathy for the heroine. The title of the picture does not give the author’s name but the press-sheet states that it was written by John Thomas Neville. The direction is by James Tinling. David Newell is the villain. The talk is clear. (Not a substitution.) Demoralizing for children and young men and women. Not for Sundays in small towns. “Born to Love” with Constance Bennett ( KKO Patlie, April 17; running time, 80}4 mm.) If there were some one in this world who could grant wishes and came to me willing to accept one wish from me, I would not use it to ask for riches; I would wish that any producer who would conceive “murdering” a baby in a picture to further the action be stricken numb, in brain and body, and not restored to normality until he gave up the idea. It is too cruel, too inhuman an act. The death of a baby, for causes unknown, is brought about in this picture to create dramatic effect. But, instead of attaining such a result, it turns the picture into a heartrending tragedy; it will undoubtedly sicken many picture-goers, especially parents, particularly those who have lost a child, even though it may direct a powerful appeal to morbid natures. The first half of the picture is tiresome and sexual: the heroine a nurse at the war front voluntarily surrenders herself to the hero, even though he offered marriage to her, because of her knowledge that the wife of an officer was not allowed to remain at the front, and she wanted to be near him. In the development of the plot, it is shown that she had heard that the hero had been killed. She grieves for his loss, but she eventually accepts a marriage proposal from a titled man, former officer, whom she had met at the front, and who loved her passionately. He refuses to withdraw his offer even after she had told him of her past relations with the hero and of the fact that she was about to become a mother. The child is born and soon the hero returns. The heroine is naturally disconsolate for she still loved him. But she is loyal to her husband. The husband, however. misinterprets her behavior and there is a break. He obtains a divorce and at his demand the Court grants him the custody of the child, even though it was not his; he did it to punish the heroine. The heroine does not return to the hero but tries to get a job to make a living. The hero hears of the divorce, goes to London, and eventually locates her. He finds her on the day her husband gave her permission to visit her child. She refuses the hero’s offer for aid, fearing lest her exhusband withdraw his offer should he find out that they were together again. The heroine goes to her ex-husband and rushes to her child’s bedroom. But she finds her babv dead. She utters a scream and almost loses her mind. She walks to her room, but the hero is there to receive her in his arms. The heroine’s part is naturally unsympathetic in the first half, and not very pleasant in the second. The acts of Paul Cavanagh as a husband are out of step with his earlier characterization; there was nothing to indicate that he was anything but a he-man, and incapable of the later villany. One feels shocked when he resorts to such cruel means to punish his wife, who had not disgraced him while she was his wife, and who, on the contrary, was determined to sacrifice her own happiness so as to be loyal to him. The story is by Ernest Pascal; the direction, by Paul L. Stein. Joel McGrea plays opposite Miss Bennett, who does well despite her part. The talk is clear. Not for children. Not for a Sunday show in small towns.