Marked Woman (1937) ***

Release Date: April 10, 1937

Running Time: 84 minutes

Cast: Bette Davis, Humphrey Bogart, Eduardo Ciannelli

Director: Lloyd Bacon with assistance from Michael Curtiz

Bette Davis leads this film in the type of role she would be famous for, the brassy no nonsense woman who fears no man. Yet underneath that facade there is a vulnerability that a lesser actress would have struggled to portray. Davis is more than up to the task and shows throughout this film why she became and remained such a big star for as long as she did. Marked Woman is carried on her back and, like Atlas, she is able to support it with ease. 

The story follows five women who work as nightclub hostesses for a club that has just been taken over by crime czar Johnny Vanning (Eduardo Ciannelli). Upon looking over the women Johnny is at first planning on dismissing one of them, Estelle (Mayo Methot), over her looks and demeanor. Mary (Davis) stands up to the gangster and convinces him to keep Estelle on. Some time later Mary is arrested when a man, whom she tried to help flee after he racked up gambling debts to Johnny without the ability to pay, turns up dead with her name written on paper in his pocket. Attorney David Graham (Humphrey Bogart) is determined to take Vanning down and uses this as leverage to try and force Mary to testify against the gangster but, fearing retaliation, she refuses. Graham puts her on the witness stand anyway but her refusal to testify leads to an acquittal. When Mary’s younger sister Betty (Jane Bryan) comes to visit and ends up dead at Vanning’s hand, Mary finally decides to rally the other girls together to finally take Vanning down for good. 

There isn’t much originality behind the plot behind Marked Woman. It is a story that has been told many times before and since and it isn’t done better here in any way that would elevate it above its B-movie roots. It’s relatively tame as well considering the time if was made. Had it been made a decade earlier it would have had more of an edge it it. The original treatment had the women working as prostitutes for Vanning yet when the film went into production the Hays Code prevented this and it was softened down to nightclub “hostesses,” only hinting at the possibility of things being a bit more seedy. 

Eduardo Ciannelli is superb in a role that threatens generic baddie. He imbues his character with a level of sadness the screenplay lacks, providing a between the lines interpretation of what drives this man. He is threatening and manipulative, yet when things come to a boil in the climax he sensibly orders his men to not go after the women who have banded together to send him to jail. He has done many evil things and is facing a very long sentence and a few more murders won’t do much to that sentence yet he is willing to let them go unpunished. 

Humphrey Bogart is in over his head as the prosecuting attorney. He is never convincing and is completely wooden. This becomes painfully obvious in the final moments between him and Bette Davis where he struggles to get any sentences out naturally. He looks like a man trying to remember his lines, not a real person speaking candidly. He feels checked out in this film. Incidentally, it was this film that introduced him to his third wife, Mayo Methot. The two married shortly after the

Is film and fought bitterly until divorcing in 1945. Alcohol and depression eventually led her to an early death in 1951. 

This is a pretty decent gangster film complete with all the trappings and clichés of the era. It suffers from being forced to pull it punches by the Hays Code as well as some weaker performances in key roles. The finale is telegraphed in advance and the ultimate resolution isn’t convincing but the solid performance by Bette Davis helps smooth out those bumps in the road. 

Bullets of Ballots (1936) ***

Release date: June 6, 1936

Running Time: 82 minutes

Cast: Edward G. Robinson, Joan Blondell, Barton MacLane, Humphrey Bogart

Director: William Keighley

With the fall of prohibition organized crime needed a new way to bring in money, especially during the economic downfall known as the Great Depression. What they fell back on was the things people in desperate situations both needed and wanted. Food and the possibility of getting rich quick. Bullets or Ballots opens up with newsreel footage outlining this problem as well as the rackets that sprung up in response. Gangsters sprung up to strong arm local grocers to only buy through them at a steep markup. Numbers games were invented to take people’s nickels and dimes on the chance of big payoffs and the enticement is so strong that, even with the low buy in, large profits are being made. Lee (Joan Blondell) has thus far been behind the numbers game but her success has not gone unnoticed. Not by the law and not by the local toughs.

The gangs have so far avoided any serious dust ups with the police but when third in command “Bugs” Fenner (Humphrey Bogart) guns down a high level law crusader against orders from his boss, Kruger (Barton MacLane), the city knows drastic measures must be taken. They promote a new commissioner, McLaren (Joe King) under the condition he will not have to explain his plans ahead of time and have full authority to tackle the problem as he sees fit. He immediately fires several officers and detectives including Johnny Blake (Edward G. Robinson), a seemingly incorruptible man who has been notoriously hard on the racketeers. Kruger jumps at this opportunity, looking for a man who can provide inside information on the police who would also have a grudge against the system. At first Blake resists the offer but eventually he joins up with Kruger, much to the annoyance of Fenner, and rapidly proves his value to the gang. He dramatically increases profits by having the gang take over the numbers racket, but fuels the resentment and distrust of Fenner when Fenner called to task for attempting to monopolize the racket under his rule. This is further exacerbated by more and more police raids targeting Fenner specifically leading Fenner to believe Blake is a rat working undercover with the police.

The film’s biggest strength is the charisma of most of the leads. Robinson is having the time of his life playing the Johnny Blake. His character is well developed and we can see the conflict he must struggle with to accomplish his goals. He’s on friendly terms with Lee and when he finds out his plan to bring the gangs into the numbers racket will force her out completely he is torn, knowing he has to choose a side against his good friend that may permanently damage that friendship. Joan Blondell is equally good here as the woman who made the numbers racket bloom only to find it stolen out from under her by a man she trusted. 

If there is a weak link here it’s Humphrey Bogart who is on autopilot as a generic gangster. Fenner does little but sneer and look grumpy for the majority of the film. He plays a pivotal role in the film’s finale but he doesn’t do much with the part. There is no nuance to his characterization leaving Fenner as nothing more than a one note hoodlum. This may have been fine as a low tier thug with limited screen time but it is woefully inadequate for a lead role such as this. 

There are some plot details that make it hard to buy into certain parts of the story. The biggest is quite possibly how deep into the organization Blake is able to get in a relatively short amount of time. He is welcomed into the business and it doesn’t take long to make it to the top, second only to the unknown big bosses who run things in the background. Only Fenner seems to distrust Blake, a plot point that is just too hard to swallow. If it weren’t for Robinson playing things to the hilt this simple issue could easily derail the entire film. Only Fenner seems to distrust him and, to the films detriment, so do we.  

The plot is exciting and riveting throughout, even if the twist can be seen almost immediately. It will not be a surprise to anyone once all the cards are laid out and the film marches into the finale. Still, it is a joy to watch, primarily because of the energy of Edward G. Robinson. He is enjoying this role and consequently so are we. His energy is infectious and permeates the screen. Ultimately, though, it falls short of greatness by the disappointing performance by Bogart and some leaps of logic that make much of the second half of the film hard to believe. 

Invisible Stripes (1939) ***

Release Date: December 30, 1939

Running Time: 81 minutes

Cast: George Raft, Jane Bryan, William Holden, Humphrey Bogart

Director: Lloyd Bacon

Invisible Stripes follows and at the same time subverts the requirements of the Motion Picture Production Code also known as The Hays Code. The Hays code was designed by Will H. Hays as a way to appease the good Christian population who looked at movies as a tool of the devil and insisted a code of morality be put in place to govern the content of films. It also insisted that films not glamorize crime and show that criminal behavior always went punished in the end. It wouldn’t do to show audiences in the 30’s that crime could lead to prosperity. Invisible Stripes tows the line in these regards but subverts it by also depicting that a reformed convict cannot find legitimate income after serving his sentence, thus being forced by the system back into a life of crime because the system designed to reform also provides no avenue for that person to reintegrate back into society. This is illustrated perfectly by the two leads, George Raft and Humphrey Bogart, two men who are on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to being reformed. Raft wants to go straight while Bogart accepts that a life of crime is all he has going for him. They may no longer wear prison stripes but the invisible stripes will follow them to their graves.

The story opens with two men, both finishing up their prison sentences. The first man, Cliff Taylor (Raft), is determined that he has learned a lesson from prison and vows to go straight. He has a woman waiting for him on the outside, family, and his old job to go back to. The second man, Chuck Martin (Bogart), is only looking to go back to the underworld and believes Cliff to be an idealist waiting to have his eyes opened to the real world. 

Upon returning home, Cliff is welcomed by his mother (Flora Robson, who was actually a year younger than her on screen son, George Raft) his brother Tim (William Holden), and Peggy (Jane Bryan), Tim’s fiancé. Tim has been putting off marriage in the hopes of being better able to provide a comfortable life for Peggy even if it means breaking the law to do so. Cliff is determined however to protect Tim from ever having to go through prison like he did. Things seem ideal at first but Cliff soon finds that not only is he no longer employed at his old job but his girl wants nothing to do with an ex-con. To make matters worse, Cliff struggles to find steady work as his status puts him at odds with either his potential employers or the men he must work around. When he finally does land a job, shortly afterwards the place is burglarized and he is arrested without evidence. He is released soon after but the damage is done and he is fired again. 

Meanwhile, Tim is getting more and more agitated at his perceived shortcomings financially, nearly coming to blows with a gentleman who mistakes Peggy for a flower peddler when she is seen holding a bouquet on the streets. An offhand remark by Peggy about luxury items sets him off further and it’s only a matter of time before he does something to land himself in serious legal trouble. Seeing no other options for himself or his brother, Cliff gets back in touch with Chuck, his friend from prison, and agrees to help with some robberies that he hopes will fund opening a business for himself and Tim so that his brother will not ruin his and Peggy’s lives.

At its heart, Invisible Stripes is a pessimistic one. It shows a world very much like the real one where a person, having committed a serious crime, may never be redeemed, at least not in the eyes of society. The world will always see those stripes on him no matter how hard he scrubs at them. Cliff starts to learn that lesson early and his ultimate decision to go back to crime is solely to spare his brother from the same life-long stigma. His intentions are noble but the world forced him into making that decision in the first place. Raft does an excellent job at portraying the frustrations of a man just trying to make good against all odds.

William Holden is equally good here in one of his first credited roles. His is the part of a man who doesn’t want to do bad things but is afraid of a world where he has a family to raise and unable to provide for it. He sees a need in Peggy for the finer things in life and fears being unable to provide them for her. Peggy doesn’t really care if they have luxuries so long as she has Tim yet he latches onto any reference from her to nice things and obsesses over how she must long for such niceties. Jane Bryan is stellar here as well, matching Holden scene for scene as the woman who loves her man, even when he grows angry and irrational. The hurt in her eyes when he explodes on the rich man attempting to buy flowers from her shows her love and dismay at the man she has latched on to. This would be one of her final performances before marrying a wealthy man and retiring from the screen. It was a loss for audiences but not one for her as the two stayed married for over forty years until his death in the 80’s.

The premise of society against the ex-con was not a new one in 1939 and it was a subject that still get’s made to this day. Marvel Studios fell back on it for their 2015 superhero film Ant-Man. It is a subject that is still relevant today as prisoners still have to battle the stigma of serving time. People in general have a hard time getting over pre-conceived notions about people. If you had a bad reputation growing up in a small town, moved away and became a successful philanthropist, then returned to that town years later you would find that same reputation has not entirely dissipated. It’s doubly bad when the nature of parole requires you to tell any potential employers of your status. You can’t relocate and you can’t pretend you are anything but an ex-con and accept what little life has for such people.

This movie doesn’t show any possible light at the end of this tunnel, just the bleak inevitability of relapse. This is personified in the character of Chuck, a convict who has no notions of being anything, but. He is pessimistic right from the start and ends up being the only life line left for Cliff after every legitimate option is exhausted. He also is the final downfall for Cliff who goes in knowing it may destroy him but also hoping it will only be a temporary setback that will save his brother and, if he is lucky, himself, too. But this is a Hays Code era film and crime cannot go unpunished here. It makes for a sad and somewhat depressing finale uplifted only by the fact that Cliff’s acts save his brother from a similar fate. It is a solid film that skirts the line drawn by Will H. Hays and his Hollywood Code, showing that crime doesn’t pay and that those who sin and repent will never be able to crawl out from it no matter how sincere they are. It’s a tragedy not unlike that of Jean Valjean and his conflict with Javert. In that novel Javert cannot see past the man who once stole a loaf of bread for his starving family. Here it’s all of society who cannot see past the past transgression. It’s a bleak world presented here that could almost be too bleak at times, yet never quite overwhelms us with it.

San Quentin (1937) **1/2

Release Date: August 7, 1937

Running Time: 70 minutes

Cast: Pat O’Brien, Humphrey Bogart, Ann Sheridan

Director: Lloyd Bacon

Pat O’Brien is ex-Army officer Steve Jameson, a man with a reputation for getting things done. He is hired to be the new Chief Guard at San Quentin after Lt. Druggin (Barton MacLane) holding the position, temporarily, is deemed unfit for it. Druggin is a rigid man long of discipline and short on temper whereas Jameson is looking for opportunities to reform the men rather than dish out harsh penalties. 

Mae Kennedy (Ann Sheridan) is a night club singer who has caught Jameson’s eye. She also happens to have a brother, Red (Humphrey Bogart), who has just been arrested and sent to San Quentin. Red initially has a chip on his shoulder and immediately gets into trouble. However, Jameson goes easy on him, seeing in the man an opportunity to help him rather than make a career criminal out of him. This leads to some clashes between the two men as well as with Druggin who is looking for an opportunity to undermine his new boss. 

The message this movie appears to be conveying from the get-go is that not all criminals are a lost cause. Yet it doesn’t seem to want to stick with that message and churns out one that is far more pessimistic. We are subjected to scenes where a prisoner, full of the word of God and repentance, jumps at the opportunity to steal a rifle and shoot one of his guards, threatening to kill his fellow inmates, too. Even Red, who seems to be getting the message and trying to improve himself later in the film, is easily steered back to violence by some well chosen words from the scheming Druggin and fellow prisoner Hansen (Sawyer), a character who only seems to be there to either harass Red or tempt him.

This would be a stronger film if it picked a moral road and stuck by it. Instead, it veers off in its final act making the message of the film confusing and frustrating. This is doubly frustrating as Red is the only well developed character in the film. Jameson and Mae are utilized merely to keep the plot rolling, often acting offscreen to do so. We get no scenes to convince us of their blooming romance, nor of why it would suddenly set Red off on a suicidal anger trip. 

San Quentin has atmosphere aplenty and has a sense of humor about it’s setting and story. It’s really too bad it were not more focused and well defined. It could have used another fifteen minutes to flesh out the characters and build up the conflict better rather than relying so heavily on generic malevolence. It’s a perfectly adequate watch just don’t expect any deeper meaning to it.

King of the Underworld (1939] **1/2

Release date: January 14, 1939

Running time: 67 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Kay Francis

Director: Lewis Seiler

Joe Gurney (Humphrey Bogart) is the head gangster in this run of the mill crime drama from the late thirties. When one of his men is saved by the combined efforts of married couple Drs. Niles and Carole Nelson (Kay Francis), Joe visits Niles and offers him a large sum of money for the work. Niles, who struggles with a gambling problem, takes the money and is instantly under Joe’s thumb. On top of his gambling debts, Niles has been neglecting his practice and has garnered some contention between himself and his wife and staff. 

Joe calls in Niles, using the payoff as leverage to force Niles to make a house call for another of his teams’s injuries and, while there the police raid the place leading to Niles’s death. The DA is intent on making a show of things and so they charge Carole with association with the gangster leaving her with just three months to clear her name or lose her license. With no other options in front of her she schemes to get close to Joe and his gang in an attempt to take the man down and exonerate herself. Meanwhile, Joe, who has a literal Napoleon complex, has kidnapped a hitchhiking writer, Bill, and is forcing him to ghost write his autobiography. Bill and Carole had recently met and she feels that she must also rescue the man from the clutches of the gang.

And thus plays out the somewhat underwhelming drama that is King of the Underworld. It is watchable, though, thanks to a over-the-top performance by Bogart who seems to be enjoying being here a lot more than any of the other stars. The same goes for his goons who all come across as caricatures. It robs the group of any real menace. Even the outlandish finale is mostly void of tension because of the absurdity of the villains. There is the distinct impression that director Lewis Seiler was trying to make a legitimate gangster film but he has painted his characters so broadly that. It’s hard to take them seriously. It’s too straight to be a parody film and too silly to be a suspense.

While it’s true this film is not very good it is not without its merits. Watching Bogart get insulted without realizing it is a hoot. Carole likes to use big words around him just so she can get away with the insults. The fact that not a single one of Joe’s gang recognizes the insults is equally funny. Or perhaps they did and didn’t dare speak up. Either way it injects the film with some levity and keeps it moving. These scenes are also the only moments where Kay Francis stands out. Outside of her interactions with Joe she is a boring character that exists simply to move the plot from A to B. Her relationship with Bill in the second half of the film is poorly developed and the final scene with them feels tacked on and unearned. 

This could have been a better film had more effort gone into making it. As it is it’s simply just a hastily churned out bit of entertainment that occasionally works but mostly just fizzles out into mediocrity. Hollywood churned out hundreds of such films in the day simply to get something into theaters and make a quick buck. It accomplishes that but could have been so much more. 

The Maltese Falcon (1941) ***1/2

Release date: October 3, 1941

Running time: 101 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, Elisha Cook, Jr.

Director: John Huston

Five years before Humphrey Bogart slipped into the role of Raymond Chandler’s quintessential gumshoe Phillip Marlow, he appeared as another famous literary sleuth, that of Sam Spade, a private detective cut from the same cloth almost to the point of being the exact same character, at least on screen. Torn from the pages of Dashiell Hammett’s novel, which took some inspiration from the author’s own experiences as part of the Pinkerton Detectives, the 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon can be looked at as the definitive version of this novel brought to life. It had been filmed once before a decade previous and while that version remains more faithful to certain elements of the novel that the Hayes Code prohibited the more recent version from depicting, it is not as effective of a translation as the one from the 40’s.

The story begins with a woman identifying herself as Ruth Wonderly (Mary Astor) who hires Spade (Humphrey Bogart) and his partner Miles Archer (Jerome Cowan) to tail a man. She overpays for the service, something that leaves the two detectives suspicious but still willing to take the case. Shortly thereafter both Archer and the man he was tailing are killed and Spade must unravel a mystery involving murder, theft and a mysterious black statue with a strange history, a statue of a Falcon that several colorful characters would do anything to obtain.

Similar to The Big Sleep, The Maltese Falcon is filled to the brim with twists and turns to the narrative. What makes this film work where The Big Sleep stumbles is that those twists are much more easy to follow and thus avoiding confusion. Raymond Chandler famously got lost himself in his own prose forgetting to even resolve certain scenes in the novel The Big Sleep. There are no such instances in The Maltese Falcon. When The End pops up on screen at the finale here there is no confusion about who did what, how and why. It is all wrapped up neatly. Yet, to it’s strength, it doesn’t fall back on an exposition dump of everything that happened throughout the whole mystery as many Agatha Christie mysteries did. Things unspool throughout the entire film and the audience can begin to understand what’s going on without being able to easily guess the final mysteries ahead of time. This makes for a fresh, exciting experience that is even more rewarding upon multiple viewings.

When people think about all the crime noir films that came out of the era most of the tropes came from this film. In fact, looking back on this film without taking history into context, this film could come across as riddled with cliches. That would be short shifting the film, though. What made those tropes cliches was the myriad of films that came after attempting to cash in on the formula that worked so well here. Everything from the beautiful woman, here played by Mary Astor, who hires a detective for a job that turns out to be more than they bargained for, to the mysterious foreigner (Peter Lorre), to the valuable object behind it all. All of that can be found in many of the films that followed. But what makes The Maltese Falcon stand out among them. It wasn’t the story; after all it had been filmed ten years prior. It was a coming together of some of the most interesting and talented performers as well as a new director who had a clear sense of rhythm and a keep eye for directing his talent.

There is no doubt John Huston was a powerhouse director in his time. The man helmed such amazing films as The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Key Largo, The Asphalt Jungle, The African Queen, The Man Who Would Be King, and Prizzi’s Honor. He had a long and varied career that spanned five decades and worked with the likes of John Wayne, Jack Nicholson and Albert Finney. He could do dramas, comedies, musicals and just about any film genre. But every great director has to start somewhere so he began with a remake of a decade old movie that failed to get a release because of “lewd” content. One mandate to getting this film remade was it had to hew close to the novel yet skirt the Production Code that kept the original from being seen again. How this was done is a testament to the strength of the new director who also wrote the screenplay.

When writing the screenplay for the 1941 version of the film primarily what was done was taking the original screenplay from the earlier film and excising anything that was deemed inappropriate for the modern 40’s audience. This included dropping several sexually suggestive moments as well as some homosexual subtext regarding Gutman (Sydney Greenstreet), Cairo (Peter Lorre), and Wilmer (Elisha Cook, Jr). Some of the subtext made it through irregardless but it is toned down to the point of going unnoticed when presented to the Hayes Board. It takes the material down a bit but never takes away from the excitement of the drama.

John Huston wasn’t the only newbie on the scene either. Sydney Greenstreet also debuts here as Gutman a.k.a. The Fat Man. Greenstreet was primarily a stage actor at the time having worked in that venue since 1902. This was his cinematic introduction and he proved to have tremendous stage presence. Because of the lateness of his start in films he was only able to act in that medium for eight years before his deteriorating health forced him to retire. Still in that short time he starred in many classic films including Casablanca, Across the Pacific, Conflict, and Passage to Marseille, all with his costar Bogart.

But the real star of the picture is,of course, Humphrey Bogart. Anyone can spout off rapid fire dialogue. It takes a master at the craft to take a character that on page threatens to be one note and imbue it with such charm and charisma. He also manages to add a degree of vulnerability to the character. Consider the scene when he explodes at Gutman, yelling after yet more subterfuge and questioning from the Fat Man. As he exits abruptly, Bogart’s mannerism changes from the faux rage he was displaying mere seconds before to a nervous laughter followed by his hands shaking as the situation he had just extricated himself from starts to settle on him. It is a subtle and brilliant performance. 

Sam is a cold and calculating character yet he manages to string everyone along as he manipulates those around him into slowly revealing the nuances of the case before him. He is cold and calculating, only showing real emotion to his secretary who has to put herself in danger while aiding his investigation. Even the way he interacts with his former partner’s widow, whom he may have been having an affair with, is cold and calculating. Yet we are never really kept at a distance from him. We know he has an honor code and even when it seems to those around him that he can be bought, we as an audience never believe it. This culminates with the final moments of the film when he finally reveals to the police the final mystery, the one that jump started the whole story to begin with, who killed his partner. It is brilliantly staged and acted by all parties and nicely closes out what was already a superb film.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) ****

Release Date: January 6, 1948

Running time: 126 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Tim Holt, Walter Huston

Director: John Huston

When looking at a list of some of the greatest films in cinematic history several of Humphrey Bogart’s movies inevitably top that list. Casablanca, The Caine Mutiny, The African Queen, and of course, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Sierra Madre, more than any of the other films in Bogart’s oeuvre really digs deep into the psyche of of its main character and challenges Bogart to sell us on its central premise. The script also provides us scenes that serve that premise well making sure that if that premise fails to convince us, it would be through the weakness of the performances and not through a lack of material to back it up.

The setting is 1920’s Mexico and Bogart is playing Fred C. Dobbs, a man who is living day to day off the generosity of strangers whom he begs money off of. When he gets any money from them he spends it frivolously on beer and grooming ensuring he will rapidly be in need of more. After being called out for begging off the same man thrice Fred stumbles into an opportunity to make some decent money albeit for some hard work. He takes the job building structures for the booming oil plantations but, when the time comes to get paid, the man that hired him skips out on all of them. Dobbs and a friend he met on the plantation, Curtin, happen upon the man a few days later and assault him, taking just the money they are owed and nothing more, then decide to pool their finances on an opportunity they heard at one of the sleeping camps from Howard, (Walter Huston) an elderly man they overheard boasting about fortunes gained and lost while prospecting gold. Huston agrees to add his own money into the mix and set off with the two for the opportunity to find another fortune and wrestle it from the earth. He does caution them though that gold and riches change a man, a prospect that both Dobbs and Curtin dismiss outright.

The journey out into the wilderness ends up being harder than either man expected and just when they are ready to call it quits a rich vain is discovered and they set into mining their fortunes. The work is hard and difficult and they have to worry about wildlife and bandits alike on top of the dangers of the mining itself. Also, as their fortunes grow, so does Dobbs’s paranoia and distrust of his two partners. 

The central conceit of this film is spelled out by Howard early on and isn’t exactly subtle. This is a carry over from the novel by B. Traven who used his prose to delve deep into the minds of his three characters. A film cannot do this so director and screenwriter John Huston had to spell it out a little more than the book did and rely heavily on the acting of his star to sell the change that occurs with Dobbs as the story plays out. At first it seems abrupt but upon closer viewing we can see that even as Dobbs is losing it he occasionally realizes how he is becoming and feels guilt, even if he isn’t always willing or able to back down. By the time we get into the final act he is beyond all of that, especially during a short stretch where Howard has to exit the group for a while and Dobbs loses the last of his moral compass.

This was one of the first Hollywood films to be made at a exotic location rather than in and around Los Angelos. While some of it was filmed in L.A., large portions were filmed in Tampico, Mexico and the surrounding areas. This gives the film an authentic appearance and feel that would otherwise be absent. It also made the shoot overly expensive causing a strain on the relationship between John Huston and Jack L. Warner who believed this film may end up bankrupting the studio. It took nearly six months to film, mainly because of the location shots, something that Huston has misled Warner about when securing the film. Warner was further upset upon seeing the final film and believing the ending would upset audiences. At first this was true as the film underperformed on its initial release. But critical reviews were strong and word-of-mouth propelled the film to eventually earn back well more than the studios investment. 

The film is successful on more fronts than just financial though. It is a good character study of how greed and riches can corrupt some people. The paranoia that so easily grips Dobbs just as easily misses Curtin, a genuinely nice man who is in the same financial situation as Dobbs yet doesn’t let the wealth or prospect of wealth corrupt his soul. Likewise Howard has gained and lost many fortunes and knows the kind of hold it can have on a man. He has a sense of humor about the whole ordeal and is happy with whatever he can get be it large or small. He is content with his lot in life and that content somehow protects him from the darker side of greed and want.

It would be difficult to top such a powerful and entertaining film such as this. The novel manages it only because it allows us to delve even further into the minds of the characters, something inherent in prose but not in film. Still, without that advantage the film still manages to nail the characters and inner struggles all of them have to deal with in such a way that we never feel like we don’t know what is going on behind their eyes. This is a powerhouse display of acting on all parts and a truly beautiful film to see and experience. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre rightfully deserves its spot amongst the greatest films ever made.

Dark Passage (1947) **1/2

Release Date: September 5, 1947

Running Time: 106 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Agnes Moorehead

Director: Delmer Daves

Vincent Parry (Humphrey Bogart) has some of the strangest flows of luck ever found in cinema. He was framed for the murder of his wife and sentenced to life in prison. As luck would have it, when he breaks out Irene Jansen, (Lauren Bacall) a woman whose father also was sentenced to prison falsely, overhears about the escape and, deducing where he will be, shows up in time to smuggle him past a police barricade. She happens to be friends with Madge (Agnes Moorehead), a woman whose testimony sent Vincent to prison, and when Madge shows up at Irene’s apartment while she is out, Vincent is convinced he cannot stay there. 

 Vincent leaves in the night but is recognized by the cab driver giving him a lift. Fortunately, the cab driver doesn’t think he’s guilty either and, even more fortunately, he knows a skilled plastic surgeon who also believes Vincent is innocent and is willing to give him a new face to help him avoid the police who know he hasn’t left the area. The surgery is successful but will require a week of recuperating but when Vincent returns to a friends home to recoup that friend has been killed and the police believe Vincent did this murder, too. Vincent has no choice but return to Irene who believes he is innocent of this new murder, too, and hides him again. Once he has recovered from the plastic surgery, in record time no less, he can freely investigate the crime he was sentenced for without much worry of being recognized. 

The best thing about Dark Passage is the performances by it’s two leads. Bogart and Bacall are in top form in a film that is several levels below their talent. There is a heat between them that is palpable even if you don’t know they were a couple behind the scenes. This isn’t as strong as it was in To Have and Have Not but it is undeniable. Even Agnes Moorehead is strong in the unlikeable portrayal of Madge, a woman who testified against Vincent at the trial and now is scared he may be coming for revenge. The film however is not deserving of all this talent though and struggles to keep afloat.

Almost from frame one the film tells you it’s going to be a challenge getting into it. Director Delmer Daves had two ways he could tell this story and he took the road less traveled. Yet it is less traveled for a reason. He knew when Vincent undergoes the plastic surgery mid-way through the film he wanted Humphrey Bogart’s face to be the altered version. So, instead of hiring a separate actor or putting Bogart through makeup to alter his appearance early on we get a jarring and disorienting filming style where we see most of the first third of the film in the first person perspective. When we do step away from that perspective Bogart is filmed in shadow or from behind in an obvious attempt to hide his face. His dialogue is dragged through a filter to mimic how he would sound to himself but it makes it echoey like bad voice-over. Early on in the film there is a confrontation between Vincent and a man who picks him up hitch hiking along the side of the road. When it is revealed that Vincent is an escaped con a fight breaks out and viewing the fight through the eyes of Vincent is limiting and poorly staged. 

But what’s worse than the gimmicky first person is the sheer happenstance Vincent keeps bumping into. He just happens to be found easily by Irene who just happened to be listening to the radio and heard about his escape. She just happened to know where he would be heading when the police did not. She happened to have a father who also was sent to prison under similar circumstances. She happened to be friends with the one who sent Vincent to jail. Vincent happened upon a cab driver who not only sympathized with him but knew someone who was perfect to help Vincent avoid the police. The list goes on and on. All of this happenstance strains the credibility of the viewer to the point that the greatest thespians couldn’t land it. By the time we get to the end things have happened that, had we not been shown it on screen, we would never believe Vincent to be innocent of any of it. Yet somehow Irene never wavers in her trust in this man. If the actors weren’t playing things so seriously it could almost pass as farcical.

The mystery is intriguing and the twists are not too obvious, yet this film is difficult to invest in. There are just too many conveniences to make it a believable story. That, coupled with the jarringly way the first third is filmed (Not to mention a full recovery from plastic surgery in just seven days), makes this film just so unbelievable that it’s hard to take it seriously. It really is a shame too as Bogart and Bacall are in fine form in a film that lets them down at nearly every turn. 

China Clipper (1936) **1/2

Release Date: August 22, 1936

Running time: 85 minutes

Cast: Pat O’Brien, Ross Alexander, Beverly Roberts, Humphrey Bogart

Director: Ray Enright

Watching China Clipper may seem at times like homework for anyone who doesn’t have a active interest in the history of Pan Am and aviation in general. While the film is a thinly vailed bio of Juan Trippe and the founding of Pan Am, it plays out like a legitimate bio pic complete with all the trappings that come with that territory.

Pat O’Brien plays Dave Logan, a man with an obsession. He wants to leave his desk job and run his own aviation business. His boss at the time believes the aviation industry is going nowhere and at first it seems like he is right. Dave’s first attempt fails losing almost a hundred thousand dollars. This doesn’t stop Dave as he has a new idea. A revolutionary new aircraft dubbed a flying boat. He also sets up shop in the Florida Keys where his planes will provide mail service throughout the Caribbean. Hal (Humphrey Bogart), a pilot and old friend of Dave’s shows up out of the blue and is hired on the spot as one of the mail pilots. Meanwhile, Dave’s father is struggling not only to get the flying boat designed, built and air-worthy, but is also dealing with a heart condition his doctor warns him will kill him if he doesn’t retire. 

Dave’s obsession and drive push away everyone around him including his wife. He keeps pushing his father harder and harder, unaware of the physical toll all this work and stress is having on him. This drive, and a lack of compassion for the hardships his workers are also going through, rankles the pilots and engineers including Hap who quits after punching Dave in the face. Work comes first for Dave always, so much so that when his wife comes back seeking to reconcile with him he coldly shuts her out even though he is glad to see her. 

What makes this film so hard to watch at times is that Dave Logan is completely unlikeable. We see his drive but can’t empathize with it because he has no compassion for anyone around him including his wife. On more than one occasion he is called out for this but it just makes him angry and more determined. For equally driven people this may seem an attribute but for the rest of us it is a tragedy as we see a man give up his humanity for his vision. 

We see many of the consequences for his actions, too. This isn’t just a tale about perseverance against the odds. Late in the film The China Clipper, the name of the flying boat, once again fails stress tests making it unworthy of flight. Dave puts a ton on pressure on his father to get it working and this leads to one of the major tragedies of the film. The plane is eventually completed but at a steep cost. 

Pat O’Brien gives a strong performance in an unlikeable character. We get his drive and determination from that performance but what we don’t get is any real humanity. We don’t see any chinks in the armor until after the death of his father. Only then do we see through the facade to the man behind it all. It is hard to be on his side which the film asks of us for most of the duration. The film asks this yet keeps us at arms length from him, never really letting us get inside. The only character we can really emphasize with is the father. We see he is willing to sacrifice everything to make his son’s dream a reality, yet aside from the familial relationship, we never really understand why. It makes for some hard, yet compelling viewing at times. Some of the best stuff comes from some truly fantastic aerial views including one of an incomplete Golden Gate Bridge. Ultimately this film is best viewed by those who have a passion for aviation and a curiosity about the early years of the industry. Most other people will find it just a trifle bit too cold.

It All Came True (1940) **1/2

Release Date: April 6, 1940

Running Time: 97 minutes

Cast: Ann Sheridan, Jeffrey Lynn, Humphrey Bogart

Director: Lewis Seiler

Right out the gate we can tell from watching It All Came True that it suffers from clashing tones and inconsistency. The film opens up with a stark look at a boarding house on the verge of bankruptcy, its tenants a bunch of elderly washed up performers. The sole exception to this is Sarah-Jane Ryan (Ann Sheridan), a talented singer who seems to be unable to hold down a gig. Her introduction shows off her brassy personality as a man is offering her a nightclub singing position and she not only refuses but pushes the man down the steps of the boarding house. It’s comical and over the top, in stark contrast to the previous scene. Shortly afterwards we are “treated” to a murder, a moment too dark for the tone of the rest of the picture.

Meanwhile, Tommy (Jeffrey Lynn), a piano player and composer works for gangster “Chips” Maguire has found himself in a predicament. A sudden raid on the establishment by the police has lead to the two men fleeing, a man murdered, and the murder weapon being conveniently registered to Tommy by Chips as a form of insurance against betrayal. Chips needs a place to hide out and using his leverage on Tommy, forces him to return home to his mother (Jessie Busley) whom he hasn’t seen in years, and hide him in a room under the name Grasselli, claiming he is ill and needing a lot of rest and privacy. His mother, along with another Sarah-Jane’s mother (Una O’Connor), owns and manages the afore mentioned boarding house and are excited to have Tommy back home since this means Tommy and Sarah-Jane, raised together like siblings, can rekindle their romance. Naturally, neither is all that interested in that prospect, at least outwardly, squabbling whenever they run into each other. Sarah-Jane is also suspicious of Grasselli having only heard about the mysterious boarder without actually getting to see him. She previously sang in one of Chip’s nightclubs so he has deliberately avoided being seen by her lest she recognize him. But Sarah-Jane is smart enough to figure a way to meet the elusive Grasselli despite all of his precautions.

Eventually it comes to light that the boarding house is in danger of being repossessed over back taxes. Sarah-Jane appeals to Chips for assistance and he comes up with a plan to convert the house to a nightclub with her and Tommy as the headliners. By his admission he is getting bored hiding out and needs something to occupy his time. This will solve both of their problems as well as provide a stage for the many residents to perform before an audience once again. 

This film was advertised as a musical comedy and for the most part this is a misnomer. There are plenty of humorous moments but nothing that would peg this as a comedy. The musical aspect of it really doesn’t play out until the final act when the nightclub gets up and running. Then it overloads the screen with musical number after musical number bringing the pacing to a screeching halt. Chip’s change of motive in the final act is not exactly on a dime but it still doesn’t feel earned. There is some lip service given to him possibly growing up with a real mother figure in his life. This is played up for laughs as Tommy and Sarah-Jane’s mothers practically baby him in their attempts to help “cure” him of the illness he is purportedly there for in the first place. It’s never in doubt that he is a mobster on the lam but through his exposure to these two women as well as the other residents he softens up a little losing his tough edges. However his sacrifice in the final acts still comes across a little false and unearned, like it was written into the script to ensure it ended on a sweet note but wasn’t developed throughout the rest of the picture. 

There is a lot of things to like about this film. Bogart seems to be enjoying himself in a role that, while not too far removed from his many other gangster roles in the past, allows him to stretch a little and show a lighter side to his persona. Ann Sheridan is scene stealing as the brassy, no nonsense Sarah-Jane who isn’t intimidated by anyone, not even a gangster. Each of the boarding house residents have their own little quirks that help them stand out from the scenery. The only weak point is Jeffrey Lynn as Tommy. All he seems to do is scowl and look put upon by those around him. He isn’t much of a character and Jeffrey does nothing to elevate it. Overall it is a shallow film with an obvious message that it doesn’t quite know how to get across without spelling it out. It’s light and frothy but not a whole lot of substance. 

The Oklahoma Kid (1939] ***

Release date: March 3, 1939

Running time: 85 minutes

Starring: James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, Rosemary Lane

Director: Lloyd Bacon

The Oklahoma Kid is an interesting sort for a number of reasons but the most obvious one is its star. James Cagney didn’t do westerns. He was a gangster, a New York type who always seemed to be destined to be gunned down in a hail of bullets on the streets of the city. In his career he would only tackle westerns a coup,e more times and never again during his youth. Whether it is his inexperience in the genre or a personal choice on his part, Cagney plays the role of The Oklahoma Kid the same way he would were he driving a car through Hell’s Kitchen instead of riding a horse out in the barren country of unsettled farmland in eastern Oklahoma. It could almost play as satire but the other stars of the film keep it more grounded. 

The story takes place just as President Cleveland signs a bill allowing the sale of the Cherokee strip of Oklahoma territory. The money for the sale is loaded onto a stagecoach that is subsequently robbed by Whip McCord (Humphrey Bogart) and his gang. Jim Kincaid, The Oklahoma Kid (James Cagney) overhears the plans for the robbery and ambushes the gang, making off with the money himself. 

Meanwhile, would be farmers and settlers have gathered to stake their claims on the soon to be open land for what would be the Land Run of 1893. This entails a set time where the settlers can race off to the area they wish to farm or build a city and claim it before anyone else can. Before the set time a dance and celebration is taking place. There, The Kid meets Jane Hardwick (Rosemary Lane), the daughter of Judge Hardwick (Donald Crisp), and dances with her. 

Prior to the set time for opening the new land, McCord sneaks in and stakes an illegal “Sooner” claim in an area he knows John Kincaid (Hugh Sothern) and his son Ned (Harvey Stephens) have their eyes on to build a city, Tulsa. When John and Ned arrive once the land officially opens they know McCord had to have cheated but cannot afford to waste time and resources battling it out with him in the courts and instead accept a deal that will allow them to build Tulsa but give McCord prominent land in the city to build a saloon and gambling den. When this proves to bring in the least desirable types of people and promote violence and disorder Judge Hardwick and Ned campaign to elect John Kincaid to be mayor in an attempt to curtail it. But when a rival candidate is murdered, the evidence pointing to John as the culprit and he is arrested. News of the arrest reaches The Kid, who is son to John and brother to Ned, and he saddles up for Tulsa to rescue his father.

This could have been another in a long line of cookie cutter western films from the era. Only a decade later we would be seeing similar stories on a daily basis on shows like The Lone Ranger. Eight years before The Oklahoma Kid, Cimmaron tackled The Oklahoma Land Rush with footage of the rush that could almost have been lifted and dropped straight into this one. There is nothing in the story that is particularly unique here. Yet it never plays out like something we’ve seen time and time again. Cagney’s portrayal of The Kid is chiefly to blame here. He brings an energy to the screen that shows why he was such a big star at the time. There is a tongue and cheek quality to scenes he is in that border or parody. For instance, there is a scene early on when he rides into Tulsa and asks for directions to the jailhouse from a man who is hanging up a wanted poster with The Kid’s face on it. The man looks at him and says, “Seems like I’ve seen your face someplace.” Unruffled, Cagney just responds, “Well, I wouldn’t know that,” and rides away. A moment later the man looks back at the poster he just hung and realizes who it was he was just talking to. This type of humor surrounds Cagney throughout most of the film.

Rosemary Lane is here primarily to be the love interest. She is being wooed by Ned but has inexplicably fallen for The Kid after just her brief encounter at the dance. It is a little far fetched that she would be so enamored so quickly and it feels like some shortcuts were taken for the sake of the film. It creates some tension between her and Ned but doesn’t really go anywhere. Rosemary was part of a quartet of sisters all of whom were actresses. Her sister, Priscilla also starred with Bogart and Cagney in The Roaring Twenties the same year.

Things play out exactly as expected. There are no surprises to be found here. But that doesn’t mean the film isn’t enjoyable to watch play out. Fans of the genre are used to the same types of dramas played out with little changes to differentiate them. They can live or die on whether we enjoy seeing it done again and again. For The Oklahoma Kid we do enjoy it. Cagney is a blast to watch. Bogart is sufficiently chewing up the scenery whenever he is on screen. And the final brawl between the two leads is visceral and exciting, featuring some great stunt work and a heart break or two. 

But this film won’t dwell on the sadness and it also won’t allow it to end on a bitter note. The ending wraps things up a little too neatly and feels like it is trying too hard to make the audience smile and laugh. It succeeds but we never are unaware that it is manipulating that response. There were other, better ways it could have ended that would have made the film stronger as a whole. Yet the sentimental viewers will appreciate the easier, safer route it takes. It is a fun, inoffensive little western that is a delight to watch just to enjoy Cagney who seems to be having the time of his life in his first oat opera. It is really too bad be didn’t make more of them during this era.