1930s_Time_Machine
Joined Dec 2021
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings665
1930s_Time_Machine's rating
Reviews647
1930s_Time_Machine's rating
It's fascinating to see how the evolution in Hollywood's content, style and tone reflected the rapidly changing tastes and attitudes in America through the 1930s. By the middle of the decade FDR was putting the economy back on track and the decline and despair of the early days of The Depression had been replaced with the spirit of cautious optimism.
The anarchic nihilism we see in early Marx Brothers films and cynicism of the gangster pictures gave way to sentimental feel-good movies. That Pandora's box effect evinced itself in Marx Brothers films by introducing romantic sun-plots....and worst of all, actual plots! Mainstream, middle-of-the-roadness was born.
Irving Thalberg may have been the 'boy wonder' who made MGM the biggest and possibly best studio in Hollywood but despite his genius, he nearly ruined the Marx Brothers by bringing them under his wing. Why on earth he chose opera, the most abhorrent art form known to man as the vehicle for his friends' first picture with him (Thalberg really was a good friend of the brothers), is anyone's guess. The opera isn't the worst part of this - what MGM introduced here was a soppy romance between two of the dullest people on earth - who happen to be opera singers to boot.
Compared with their last picture - their best picture, DUCK SOUP, this feels very slow. Whereas DS was essentially a hundred random Marx Brothers sketches pummelled together into a concentrated dose injected directly into your veins, OPERA is a proper film with a proper (albeit lame) plot with the Marx Brothers acting out actual roles.
Nevertheless, although this is so horribly padded, this is still one of their best films - provided you've got a fast forward button. In addition to DUCK, along with HORSE FEATHERS and MONKEY BUSINESS, fifty percent of this is an absolute must for Marx Brothers fans.
The anarchic nihilism we see in early Marx Brothers films and cynicism of the gangster pictures gave way to sentimental feel-good movies. That Pandora's box effect evinced itself in Marx Brothers films by introducing romantic sun-plots....and worst of all, actual plots! Mainstream, middle-of-the-roadness was born.
Irving Thalberg may have been the 'boy wonder' who made MGM the biggest and possibly best studio in Hollywood but despite his genius, he nearly ruined the Marx Brothers by bringing them under his wing. Why on earth he chose opera, the most abhorrent art form known to man as the vehicle for his friends' first picture with him (Thalberg really was a good friend of the brothers), is anyone's guess. The opera isn't the worst part of this - what MGM introduced here was a soppy romance between two of the dullest people on earth - who happen to be opera singers to boot.
Compared with their last picture - their best picture, DUCK SOUP, this feels very slow. Whereas DS was essentially a hundred random Marx Brothers sketches pummelled together into a concentrated dose injected directly into your veins, OPERA is a proper film with a proper (albeit lame) plot with the Marx Brothers acting out actual roles.
Nevertheless, although this is so horribly padded, this is still one of their best films - provided you've got a fast forward button. In addition to DUCK, along with HORSE FEATHERS and MONKEY BUSINESS, fifty percent of this is an absolute must for Marx Brothers fans.
I have a huge problem with this film: classic movie fans revere it, James Whale fans consider it his best work - a masterpiece, horror aficionados say it's the best Universal monster movie....but I think it's rubbish.
The problem is: I do consider myself a classic movie fan: I've probably seen and enjoyed more 1930s films than most normal people - so is it me - am I missing something or is just like CITIZEN KANE, one of those Emperor's New Clothes type delusions?
Yes, I can see the echoes of German expressionism, yes I can Whale's expressive camera angles expanding the chacters' perspectives, yes I can see Whale's dark humour and the cynical view that without restraint man can become a monster BUT I can also see Una O'Connor's annoying puerile unfunny comedy! It's not a horror film, it's not insightful, entertaining or intelligent and the depressing theme is simply miserable. The "hero" is thoroughly unlikeable, everyone else is one dimensional (apart from Una O'Connor who's just awful) so you can't get emotionally invested in this.
OK, I understand we don't need a big scary monster because man is the monster but without a big supernatural nasty this just isn't a horror film. A couple of years earlier Rouben Mamoulian, who unlike Whale really was one of cinema's greatest directors, made the magnificent DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE. That was a thoroughly engaging picture about the true nature of man without the chains of society. That beautiful piece of cinema makes this seem like an episode of some dreadful 1970s children's programme.
Like modern art or opera or Emerson Lake and Palmer or indeed CITIZEN KANE, this film is one of those things you're conditioned to like to prove you know what you're enlightened. If you're someone who visited The Picasso Museum in Malaga and marvelled at a plank of wood with two rusty springs nailed to it, then this is your picture! If being uneducated and unsophisticated means not having to suffer this garbage then I'm happy to be a Philistine.
The problem is: I do consider myself a classic movie fan: I've probably seen and enjoyed more 1930s films than most normal people - so is it me - am I missing something or is just like CITIZEN KANE, one of those Emperor's New Clothes type delusions?
Yes, I can see the echoes of German expressionism, yes I can Whale's expressive camera angles expanding the chacters' perspectives, yes I can see Whale's dark humour and the cynical view that without restraint man can become a monster BUT I can also see Una O'Connor's annoying puerile unfunny comedy! It's not a horror film, it's not insightful, entertaining or intelligent and the depressing theme is simply miserable. The "hero" is thoroughly unlikeable, everyone else is one dimensional (apart from Una O'Connor who's just awful) so you can't get emotionally invested in this.
OK, I understand we don't need a big scary monster because man is the monster but without a big supernatural nasty this just isn't a horror film. A couple of years earlier Rouben Mamoulian, who unlike Whale really was one of cinema's greatest directors, made the magnificent DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE. That was a thoroughly engaging picture about the true nature of man without the chains of society. That beautiful piece of cinema makes this seem like an episode of some dreadful 1970s children's programme.
Like modern art or opera or Emerson Lake and Palmer or indeed CITIZEN KANE, this film is one of those things you're conditioned to like to prove you know what you're enlightened. If you're someone who visited The Picasso Museum in Malaga and marvelled at a plank of wood with two rusty springs nailed to it, then this is your picture! If being uneducated and unsophisticated means not having to suffer this garbage then I'm happy to be a Philistine.
However down you might be feeling, this will cheer you up. Its warm and uplifting mood will give you a big hug and put a big smile on your face. It's sentimental without being soppy making this a perfect little rom-com.
This might not be a classic but Claudette Colbert is as classic as ever. Besides being the most beautiful woman ever (as we, the enlightened ones realise!), she had that natural ability to make even the silliest role seem completely believable and real. In this, following a romance with one of those hundreds of sons of English Lords in disguise who, according to Hollywood seemed to populate America in the thirties, celebrity is foisted unexpectedly upon her. She copes with this just like any of us would - with incredulity followed by self effacement then reluctant acceptance. Her performance is so natural and so endearing.
Also, I must commend Fred MacMurray! You'd never guess that this was his first lead role - he and the divine Claudette show real chemistry. He was just one of those naturally natural actors.
The story is far from original, the humour's ok though not side-splitting but the intoxicating charm of the three leads makes this something special. The romance is cheesy and corny but it never ventures into the nauseatingly sentimental which a lot of films did back then. No, this has a healthy streak of cynicism flowing through it which adds to its realism.
This might not be a classic but Claudette Colbert is as classic as ever. Besides being the most beautiful woman ever (as we, the enlightened ones realise!), she had that natural ability to make even the silliest role seem completely believable and real. In this, following a romance with one of those hundreds of sons of English Lords in disguise who, according to Hollywood seemed to populate America in the thirties, celebrity is foisted unexpectedly upon her. She copes with this just like any of us would - with incredulity followed by self effacement then reluctant acceptance. Her performance is so natural and so endearing.
Also, I must commend Fred MacMurray! You'd never guess that this was his first lead role - he and the divine Claudette show real chemistry. He was just one of those naturally natural actors.
The story is far from original, the humour's ok though not side-splitting but the intoxicating charm of the three leads makes this something special. The romance is cheesy and corny but it never ventures into the nauseatingly sentimental which a lot of films did back then. No, this has a healthy streak of cynicism flowing through it which adds to its realism.