Hollywood Spectator (1938)

Page Eight May 7, 1938 Lady is one of the rare pictures you really must see. It will amuse you greatly and also will show you how a picture as a whole should be directed and how one sequence in it should not be directed. COMEDY BROTHERS AT THEIR BEST . . . # KENTUCKY MOONSHINE; 20th-Fox picture and release; a Darryl Zanuck production; associate producer, Kenneth Macgowan; stars the Ritz Brothers; directed by David Butler; screen play by Art Arthu and M. M. Musselman; based on original story by Musselman and Jack Lait, Jr.; additional dialogue and comedy songs by Sid Kuller and Ray Golden; music and lyrics, "Moonshine Over Kentucky, "Reuben, Reuben, I've Been Swinging,," and "Sing a Song of Harvest," by Lew Pollack and Sidney Mitchell; photography by Robert Planck; art direction, Bernard Herzbrun and Lewis Creber; film editor, Irene Morra; costumes by Royer; musical direc¬ tion, Louis Silvers. Supporting players: Tony Martin, Mar¬ jorie Weaver, Slim Summerville, John Carradine, Wally Ver¬ non, Berton Churchill, Eddie Collins. Cecil Cunningham, Paul Stanton, Mary Treen, Francis Ford, Brian Sisters, Charles Hummel Wilson, Claude Allister, Frank McGlynn. Jr., Jan Duggan, Si Jenks, Joe Twerp. Irving Bacon, Olin Howland. John Heistand, Carroll Nye, Tom Hanlon. Reviewed by Bert Haclen HE Ritz Brothers hit their stride as screen comedi¬ ans in Kentucky Moonshine. Their travesty on Snow White in the finale is bang-up buffoonery, and their impersonations of Kentucky mountaineers throughout most of the picture are cleverly performed and witty in concept. Mimicry is plainly their forte. Though the brethren’s comedy has always been char¬ acterized by great agility and imagination, yet too frequently in the past it has stood out in a picture like a sore thumb because it had no purpose with relation to the story. Even clowns are characters of a sort, and characters must possess understandable motiva¬ tion, a certain logic behind their behavior, if they are to win any measure of interest from an audience. Craziness for craziness’ sake, impulsive and unpre¬ dictable, does not give an audience much to hold onto, so to speak. Spectators may laugh from sheer surprise and yet feel a vague displeasure or even an¬ noyance at the incongruities and irrelevances of the comedians. I refer, of course, to comedians appearing in film stories which are told essentially in realistic terms. In vaudeville sketches comedians are abstrac¬ tions rather than representations of particular en¬ tities, and therefore mere lunacy is sometimes very funny in this medium. We Laugh This Time . . . IMICRY and impersonation, however, lend need¬ ed motivation to the work of the Ritz boys, and it is to be hoped that they incorporate much of it in their future performances. In the current picture their work is improved in another way — for the first time, or so it seemed to me, the comedians “got into the camera”; a warmth from within their personalities, something apart from any physical maneuvers, came out of the screen. At any rate, I was immensely tickled by many of their antics in this picture, and, frankly, I had cracked few smiles over their perform¬ ances in earlier ones. Their work was bettered, too, by having smarter material in this piece, particularly their sketches at the finale. Director David Butler’s eye for comedy values and his skilled tempoing of the piece are also to their advantage. The story, inci¬ dentally, has to do with three young men and a girl, radio entertainers, who, unable to secure a break in New York, travel to the mountains of Kentucky, pose as hill billies, are immediately picked up by a scout and brought back to New York. Good fun takes place in the mountains, what with the “feud¬ in' ” of the natives. Opera and lazz United . . . ONY MARTIN scores heavily with his singing. One of his numbers consists of operatic excerpts, with the orchestra working a “swing” motif into the accompaniment. Maybe Bruno Ussher will take issue with the latter feature, but I thought Martin's contribution pretty elegant, revealing a full, colorful tone, a wide and true range, and a great deal of fer¬ vor. His acting, however, could stand some polish¬ ing. Though his personality is naturally pleasing, he does not make the best use of it; he fumbles his points, fails to get deep enough into his scenes, and does clumsy and unsure things with his hands. Why doesn't Twentieth Century give him the benefit of some straight acting parts? Marjorie Weaver has an engaging warmth in her work, though the present role is not taxing. Her voice, I fear, was scarcely equal to sustaining an entire vocal number in the middle of the picture, in which she is supported by a chorus of girls. Three consecutive musical numbers are too many for this spot, anyway, and the show drops noticeably at this point. Orchestration Is Tops . . . LARGE cast lend their talents to the loony pro¬ ceedings, notably Slim Summerville, John Carra¬ dine and Wally Vernon. The music by Lew Pollack and Sidney Mitchell fills the bill satisfactorily. Moon¬ shine Over Kentucky is perhaps the most pleasing tune. I have never thought specialty numbers, gen¬ erally speaking, were very well adapted to the screen. People go to picture houses primarily, not to hear funny words, but to see things. The musical por¬ tions of the picture are greatly enhanced, however, by the orchestrations and renditions, which are full, swingy and flashy. HAD TOO MANY COOKS . . . • SINNERS IN PARADISE; Universal; associate producer, Ken Goldsmith; director. James Whale; story, Harold Buckley; screenplay: Lester Cole, Harold Buckley, Louis Stevens; pho¬ tographer, George Robinson; music director. Charles Previn; film editor, Maurice Wright. The players: Madge Evans, John Boles, Bruce Cabot, Marion Martin, Gene Lockhart, Charlotte Wynters, Nana Bryant, Milbura Stone, Donald Barry, Morgan Conway, Willie Fung. Reviewed by Bert Harlen ULL and pointless. Somewhere in the original story there may have been sound material for a photoplay, but what has reached the screen is a hodge¬ podge of divergent viewpoints and objectives. Evi¬ dently there were too many cooks, and the ones who did the most to spoil the broth were probably among