Hollywood Spectator (Apr-May 1939)

ue Otted £cck £ike ; j ■■ a Colman In Best Performance THE LIGHT THAT FAILED, Paramount Producer-director William A. Wellman Screen play Robert Carson Based on the novel by Rudyard Kipling Director of photography: Theodor Sparkuhl, ASC. Art direction Hans Dreier, Robert Odell Editor Thomas Scott Music score Victor Young Interior decorations A. E. Freudeman Cast: Ronald Colman, Walter Huston, Muriel Angelus, Ida Lupino, Dudley Digges, Ernest Cossart, Ferike Boros, Pedro de Cordoba, Colin Tapley, Fay Helm, Ronald Sinclair, Sarita Wooton, Halliwell Hobbes, Charles Irwin, Francis McDonald, George Regas, Wilfred Roberts. Reviewed by W. B. ONE to put on your list of pictures to see. As a story it will interest you, and as an example of brilliant screen craftsmanship it will please you greatly. It has many excellent qualities, but the two which stand out are the performance of Ronald Colman and the direction of William Wellman. As a whole it is a psychological study made entertaining by the manner in which it is presented. Ronald proves ideal casting for the leading part, that of a soldierartist who loses his eyesight after he ceases to be soldier and becomes wholly an artist. It is his reaction to this great affliction which makes the picture so engrossingly dramatic. As I recall those I can of the roles Ronald Colman has played in the past dozen years, I would rate his Light That Failed performance as the finest, most discerning and powerful he has given us. In this picture he still is the pleasant gentleman, a quality he retains even when he is on the border of becoming a drunkard, but he adds to it a realization of dramatic values which strengthens his standing as one of the most accomplished actors. Wellman Excels Himself is leaving the room in which he has been visiting Ronald; as he reaches the door, a mirror on the wall beside it picks up Ronald, thus making the scene complete without resort to a camera change. Another striking contribution by Wellman is the manner in which he makes us believe we are looking at real people living their lives, not actors playing parts. Robert Carson's screen play is an able bit of writing, even though it is a bit slow in giving us a clue to the direction in which the story is heading. It will be clear to those who are familiar with Kipling's original, but others will be in doubt until the element of impending blindness which is to afflict the artist begins to take form. It is a somber story coming at a time when the world is somber, a factor which may effect the box-office fate of the picture in spite of its dramatic power and human appeal. Noteworthy Performances <1 With such direction as Wellman gives, only excellent performances could be expected. Walter Huston, Ida Lupino, Dudley Digges, Ernest Cossart are to be credited with fine work which is equalled in fineness by those who play the lesser parts. The picture presents us with a newcomer in the person of Muriel Angelus, who here makes her American film debut, and an auspicious debut it proves to be. Cossart plays "Beeton,” Ronald s servant, and the first time Ronald called his name loudly, I stood up. Theodor Sparkuhl s photography is of fine quality, and all the other technical contributions to the picture are of equally high standard. Recommended to students of the screen as a valuable study in film craftsmanship. Note the quiet simplicity with which dramatic climaxes are built to. and the believable humanness of all the characters. Scarcely for children; no sacrifice of good taste, and exhibitors can promise their patrons Ronald Colman's best performance. <1 William Wellman’s direction is masterly, revealing a power he previously had not attained. He is equally compelling in mass shots and intimate scenes, in the latter being particularly adept in establishing characterizations and advancing the story by subtle gestures, glances, composition and movement. In no instance does he resort to established screen conventions or lay himself open to the charge of having done something because it always has been done that way. One interesting shot is that in which Walter Huston Montgomery Film Peculiar Indeed THE EARL OF CHICAGO, MGM Producer Victor Saville Director Richard Thorpe Screen play Lesser Samuels Story Charles de Grandcourt, Gene Fowler Book Brock Williams Musical score Werner R. Heymann Art director Cedric Gibbons Director of photography Ray June, ASC Film editor Frank Sullivan Cast: Robert Montgomery, Edward Arnold, Reginald Owen, Edmund Gwenn, E. E. Clive, Ronald Sinclair, Norma Varden, Halliwell Hobbes, Ian Wulf, Peter Godfrey, Billy Bevan. Reviewed by Bert Harlen VERY peculiar drama indeed. No heroine. The piece starts out in a comedy vein and ends up with the hero approaching the scaffold. The theme is unusual too, having to do with the metamorphosis of a Chicago gangster boss who inherits a large estate and a title of Earl in England. That is to say, the metamorphosis is under way when the drama takes its somber turn. By a rather roundabout process does the drama come to the screen, the screen play by Lesser Samuels having been based on a story by Charles de Grandcourt and Gene Fowler, who in turn adapted their work from the book The Earl of Chicago by Brock Williams. Or maybe Screen Scriptist Samuels consulted the Williams book too. It is ever so slightly confusing. At any rate, that there were divergent views of the material is evident in the joint handiwork. The idea is original and clever, a few of the scenes are absorbingly entertaining, yet one feels more could have been done with the story as a whole. Could Have Ended Otherwise Undoubtedly this tragic turn of the story amounts to a shift in genre. If the ending was to be heavy it should have been prepared for. The execution was the finale of the book too, I am told, but in the film the influences of English tradition and refinement upon the gangster are shown to be so telling, and are depicted with such humor and sensibility, that we rather expect to see him ultimately fall in line with what is expected of him by those dependent on him by virtue of his high position, and some spectators may be disappointed by the outcome. One feels that the story could have ended another way. A worthy phase of the story is the setting forth of the importance of rank and of tradition and ceremony in the British social system. The racketeer, who had gone to England intent on liquidating all his property and returning with the money, comes to understand noblesse oblige. And he comes as well to experience a certain pride in the ancestors who lived in the great castle before him, and who are venerated for the part they played in building the English nation — “big shots.” The ceremony at which the fellow becomes officially bestowed with the title, is staged in a replete way, and is interest JANUARY 6, 1940 PAGE THREE