Comments on: New DVDs: Pre-Code Paramount

By: jbryant

jbryant — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:58:13 +0000

Speaking of Pre-Code films with murder involving Kay Francis and a phonograph (but not Miriam Hopkins), I’ve always liked Van Dyke’s “Guilty Hands,” a fun little mystery with Lionel Barrymore as a lawyer who puts to the test his own theory that murder can be justifiable. When he learns that his loving daughter is engaged to his most immoral client, Barrymore decides to use his knowledge of the law to commit the perfect murder and make it look like suicide.

Van Dyke shoots the opening scene in a particularly interesting way: it’s almost completely dark, but we hear Barrymore and some other men discussing his justifiable homicide theory. The scene brightens briefly when one man lights a cigarette, but we still don’t have our bearings. Then the lights come up full and we see that we’re on a train that has just come through a tunnel. Cool effect, and there are some other good shots along the way to an absurd but smashingly effective climax.

By: Shawn Stone

Shawn Stone — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:57:30 +0000

Yes, 24 HOURS is a solid crime/love triangle film. Hopkins is the lower-class mistress, Francis the icy wife of Clive Brook. That would be good for another pre-code set.

By: Tommy Kelly

Tommy Kelly — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:41:03 +0000

Not one comment on Miriam Hopkins mentions the 1931 film 24 Hours (Paramount) also Kay Francis. Hopkins is a torch singer and sings two songs – - loved one of them. Must be seen to be appreciated by today’s fans of pre-code films. She is murdered in the film while her automatic phonograph plays a 1931 hit “Out Of Nowhere” Terrific movie. Wish they would put it on DVD.

By: skelly

skelly — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:39:51 +0000

Senses of Cinema article aside, I certainly wouldn’t want to debate that the content (or wardrobe) of Hollywood films post-code was just as racy or salacious or whatever, but I think the other elements that other commentators here have suggested that they appreciate about pre-code films – their economy, pace, looseness of structure or lack of adherence to what may seem like storytelling rules/formula were retained for a number of years post-code. Narrative style evolved more slowly as influenced by other factors (like tv as nicolas saada noted). The narrative pace and style of 1935 films like HANDS ACCROSS THE TABLE, ALICE ADAMS, PETER IBBETSON, THE DEVIL IS IS A WOMAN, RUGGLES OF RED GAP, SYLVIA SCARLET, STRANDED, IF ONLY YOU COULD COOK, THE GOOD FAIRY (to cite some I’ve seen) doesn’t seem much different than similar 1932 or 33 efforts. Of course content wise – Hepburn in ALICE ADAMS is no Stanwyck in BABY FACE or Dunne in MAGNFICIENT OBESSION is no Harlow in RED HEADED WOMAN – different stories were being told.

By: Barry Putterman

Barry Putterman — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:08:18 +0000

Right on the button Shawn!

By: Shawn Stone

Shawn Stone — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:42:59 +0000

“Still, look at women’s costuming in 1933 and then again in 1935 and tell me nothing changed.”

Barry,

It can be summed up with two films: GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933 and GOLD DIGGERS OF 1935.

By: Barry Putterman

Barry Putterman — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:41:59 +0000

Good Gravy! Take a break for a weekend and all hell breaks loose. Now we’re not even sure whether there WAS a pre Code era.

Well, “pre code” like “Film Noir” or any other shorthand term is useful up to a point but only tells a certain part of the story. Mike’s point about the mutually exclusive approaches is very well taken. All four are needed for serious comprehension. Still, look at women’s costuming in 1933 and then again in 1935 and tell me nothing changed. As for SHANGHAI GESTURE, the lead character had to have her named changed from Mother Goddam to Mother Gin Sling. THAT code is what we’re talking about.

Hollywood pacing changed in the 40s when a greater distinction began being made between and A and a B film and fewer films were being made due to World War II. Television re-enforced that in the 50s.

Hollywood studios have been trying to reduce filmmaking to a commercial science since the 10s and those who make the movies have been trying to artistically deal with it ever since. That’s how auteaurism was born.

By: jbryant

jbryant — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 07:31:29 +0000

I didn’t mean to start a whole debate on “the three-act thing,” which does indeed seem to be a Hollywood construct. And I should’ve qualified my statement about “most” post-30s films seeming to have a 30- page first act. I meant most Hollywood studio films of that era. Of course I’m generalizing and my comment isn’t based on research with a stopwatch or anything. Let’s just say that among films that use a three-act structure, the first acts are shorter than they used to be. I only brought it up as a related point regarding the evolution of pacing in film.

By: Michael Dempsey

Michael Dempsey — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:27:24 +0000

“The three-act thing” is, like “fish out of water,” “character arc,” “likeability,” “paying off the character,” and other cliches of this kind too numerous to mention, is one more piece of phony Hollywood gospel intended to reduce movie-making to a formulaic enterprise that will yield only massive hits.

Bertrand Tavernier, in particular, has railed eloquently against this apparently unkillable stupidity in several interviews.

By: nicolas saada

nicolas saada — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:15:11 +0000

how about this “3 acts” thing ? Wouldn’t you say that breaking a film in acts is almost contemporary to the arrival of television and commercial breaks ? I am convinced it’s linked to that. And it’s truer of American films than european films. Commercial breaks did not appear on Europen television before the seventies-eighties. And you can’t break a Truffaur, a Bergman or even a Powell film in acts. They seem completely independant from this culture. It’s really strange. I mean Hollywood films before television are, as we said here, too fats paced, too compact, to even fall into the “break it into acts” routine. When tv arrives, films has to become more important : you have
1) the “intermission” in big scale films
2) the “break into acts” culture.
Interestingly enough, the only film genre to use the “acts” structure before television is the serial, which, as we know was designed as 5 or even 8 hours films broken into “miniseries”, a format later used by television.
I would add to this that today’s Hollywood blockbusters are mmore “episodes” structured, than “acts” structured. Every scene in Iron Man is built like the teaser of the following scene and the “summary” of the previous one, as in tv shows like 24. I am sure we could all comment on this particular phenomenon.