Black Legion (1939) ***1/2

 Release Date: January 17, 1937

Running Time: 83 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Dick Foran, Erin O’Brien Moore, Ann Sheridan, Helen Flint, Joseph Sawyer

Director: Archie Mayo, Michael Curtis (uncredited)

Black Legion is a hard hitting film that fictionalizes a real world vigilante group of the same name that operated primarily in Michigan in the 1930’s. They were an offshoot of the Ku Klux Klan. In 1936 alone, the year this film was beginning development, the Black Legion was believed to have killed nearly fifty people.  If you lived in the mid-western United States during this time you would have undoubtably have heard of this militia group. In modern times they aren’t as notoriously well known as the KKK, at least not outside of their area of influence, so this film may help shed a little light on what they were and what they stood for. It also, as many Hayes Code films of the era did, provides a cautionary tale that is brimming with the consequences of the main character’s actions.

The film begins at a midwestern factory where Frank Taylor (Humphrey Bogart) is certain he will be selected for the recent opening as foreman. He is a hard worker with a young family and in need of an economic boost to help him take care of a few repairs at home as well as replace a car that is starting to wear out. To his dismay the position is given to another worker, an immigrant who had some ideas that helped streamlined manufacturing and saved time and money. Bitter about the situation, Frank accepts an offer to join in on meetings with the Black Legion, an anti-immigration group that at first seems to speak exactly what Frank feels, that immigrants are taking away work from hard working and, in their opinion, more deserving Americans. It isn’t long before Frank has sworn an oath to forever join himself to the Black Legion, an oath that he will come to see as a chain, binding him to acts that will plague him for the rest of his life.

At first all seems to be going his way. The Legion stages a fire that runs off the new foreman and Frank takes over the job. But it doesn’t take long before his extra-curricular lead to troubles at home and a workplace accident that costs him his position. Instead of taking responsibility for his problems, Frank blames everyone else around him leading his wife to take their young son and leave him.  

For the 1930’s, Black Legion doesn’t pull any punches. There are scenes so brutal and despicable, that even when Frank finally sees the true nature of what he has chained himself to, we have a hard time feeling sorry for him. This is doubly so because of Frank’s character who, even after personally committing a heinous crime, attempts to shift the blame from himself. The crime is entirely his fault as was the fire that got him his promotion earlier in the film. 

The satisfaction of the final reel depends entirely on whether you feel any sympathy for Frank. The way Bogart plays Frank, no sympathy should be felt for him. We feel bad for him because he ruined more than just his own life when he joined the Legion. But feeling sorry for him does not mean we feel sympathy for him. If anything, right up to the final scenes, we feel disgusted with him. He has done everything to destroy his own life and he is not remotely able to take responsibility for it. His actions in the final moments come across more as a checklist to satisfy the Hayes Code, where villains were not allowed to get away with their villainy, than true character development on the part of Frank. We are satisfied that justice is handed out, but the way it played out was not very convincing. 

Still, Bogart sells this unlikeable character. He is no gun twirling gangster we’re rooting for to get gunned down in the final reel, but he is detestable for much different reasons. He is a coward who stands for a very real evil in the world that exists to this very day. The message of fascism and racism/anti-immigration spouted by the Black Legion can be heard to this very day and the consequences of indulging in those thoughts and ideas are still reveling today. It is a film that still needs to be seen and pondered because nearly eighty years later it is still relevant.

The Return of Doctor X (1939) *1/2

Release Date: December 2, 1939

Running Length: 62 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Wayne Morris, Dennis Morgan, John Litel, Lya Lys 

In 1939, well after Humphrey Bogart made a name for himself playing thugs and gangsters, He found himself signed on to star in what he would consider his absolute worst film, nearly tied in his esteem with the earlier film Swing Your Lady. In Swing Your Lady Bogart was cast against type in a comedy, something he would later perfect in such films as We’re No Angels and, to a lesser extent, Beat the Devil. In The Return of Doctor X, Bogart tackles a genre that he would never be involved in again, horror. Whether this is from his personal dislike of the picture or studio mandated is unknown. What is known is that it is the only such film in his filmography and is thus an oddity.

The film begins with an apparent murder. Actress Angela Merrova (Lya Lys) is found by reporter Garrett (Wayne Morris), dead on the floor of her apartment, a surgical cut to her torso and her body apparently drained of all blood. When the police arrive at the scene her body has vanished and, without any signs of foul play, Garret’s story of murder isn’t taken seriously. When he publishes the story in the newspaper things become even more puzzling. Angela shows up at the paper intent on suing them for the story. Garrett is promptly fired.

Garrett knows what he saw though and takes his observations to Dr. Rhodes (Dennis Morgan), a friend of his who deals with blood transfusions. Rhodes is skeptical but agrees to consult with a colleague, Dr. Flegg (John Litel), the leading specialist on all things blood related. Upon hearing the story, Dr. Flegg is quick to dismiss it as the delusions on an alcoholic. 

A second body is found with the same sort of surgical cut to the torso and blood loss, Garrett and Rhodes examine the crime scene and discover blood at the scene that doesn’t match the victim. The police identify it as type 4 blood but Rhodes is certain that is incorrect. It has properties that don’t match anything he has ever seen. Furthermore, the victim has the same type of rare blood as Angela Merrova. Rhodes takes a sample of the blood to Dr. Flegg for further analysis but Flegg is once again dismissive, insisting that there is nothing special about the sample. Flegg’s assistant, Marshall Quesne (Bogart) appears to assist in the examination but something seems off with him. For starters he is very pale, almost like the victim drained of his blood. His mannerisms also seem odd but Flegg claims this is just because he has suffered a severe shock and has not yet fully recovered. We immediately know he is involved in the killings in some capacity, directly or indirectly.

All of this is setup to a premise that would blend well in with the myriad of other B-film horror/science fiction films of the day. Many of these have long since been forgotten to all but the genre fans who seek them out. If it weren’t for Humphrey Bogart’s presence in it, this one too would suffer the same fate. There is just nothing otherwise to make it stand out amongst its piers. Worse than being unremarkable though, is that it is boring at times, too. The mystery isn’t really a mystery and the journey to the big reveal is plodding at best. The film is barely an hour long and is fifteen minutes too long at that. It would have worked better as a fifty minute television episode broken up by commercials.

Humphrey Bogart is the sole stand-out amongst the cast. His portrayal of Marshall Quesne (pronounced, a little on-the-nose, as Cane) is odd indeed. He is made up to look pasty faced with a streak of white in his hair. Bogart seems a little at a loss on how to play Quesne, and thus what we get is a little one note but certainly memorable. Everyone else, however, are as generic as you can get. Garrett is the fast talking reporter who knows he is right despite the evidence. His friend, Rhodes, is the loyal friend who stands by Garrett even when the story he is being told seems ludicrous. Flegg, the blood specialist, is one step removed from the doctors in other such films, convinced that what they have done is not wrong.

This film is not horrible. There are plenty of like films that fall into that category. But it is not good in any way. Like Marshall Quesne, it is odd. Watching the story play out it is not hard to see why Bogart would rather forget he was ever in it. He was a bigger star, even then, then this film indicates. You can tell he is trying to elevate it but you can also tell that he didn’t want to be there. It is worth watching to see him in this performance, but not much else about this is worth the time.

Across the Pacific (1942) ***

 Release Date: September 5, 1942

Runtime: 97 minutes

Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Sydney Greenstreet

Directed by: John Huston

1942 was a boom year for films dealing with the many facets of World War II. It was also one of the biggest years for films that championed the USA and it’s allies against the many faces of war. During the previous year the attack on Pearl Harbor had occurred and the United States turned it’s gaze on the Eastern front of the war. The war was no longer just about the Nazi’s. Across the Pacific was being filmed during this time, even getting delayed because of the bombing, and when it arrived on screens the following September viewers couldn’t help but feel the real fear of Japanese terrorism attacks. This gave the film a real world scare that isn’t as sharp nowadays.

The film begins with Captain Rick Leland (Humphrey Bogart, still months away from his star making roll in Casablanca,) being court marshaled for the crime of theft. Disgraced, but still wanting to play a part in the war, he attempts to join the Canadian Light Infantry but is rebuffed when it is discovered who he is. Instead, he boards the Genoa Maru, a Japanese ship, ostensibly to sail to China to fight for Chiang Kai-shek. The vessel is destined for Yokohama via the Panama Canal and Hawaii. 

On board the Genoa Maru Rick becomes acquainted with the beautiful Alberta Marlow (Mary Astor), who claims to be from the small town of Medicine Hat, Alberta Canada. A light hearted romance ensues. Also traveling on the Genoa Maru is Dr. Lorenz (Sydney Greenstreet), a professor of sociology from the Philippians who feels strongly that America needs to withdraw from the country and set it free. He also has a deep love for the Japanese, feelings that make him unpopular in his home country. Dr. Lorenz is traveling with his servant, non English speaking T. Oki. Dr. Lorenz sizes Rick up and ascertains that he is former Army and Rick assures him that he will fight for anyone who is willing to pay him enough.

As is expected with this type of film not all is as it seems. There are plenty of twists along the way, most of which are easy to predict. This film isn’t about holding it’s cards too close to the chest, though. It wants you in on most of the secrets, revealing the majority of them about halfway through the rather slim runtime. Once the big reveals are out of the way it becomes a race to the end involving military secrets, kidnapping, and a plot to cripple the allied forces in Panama through a stealth terrorist attack. It is during these latter moments that the film starts to feel rushed. The first hour takes it’s time providing us with great characters and dolling out tidbits of story but the final act rushes through at a breakneck pace, completely at odds with the rest of the film. One feels like it could have benefitted with another ten minutes of runtime in the final reel.

Bogart is in fine form in this film. He was mere months away from becoming one of the biggest stars in Hollywood but he shows off the charisma here that would propel him to that stardom. Likewise, Mary Astor, who had worked with Bogart the previous year in The Maltese Falcon, is also fantastic. Her character is both strong and tremendously vulnerable. For most of the film we know she is hiding something and when that is finally revealed we understand that vulnerability and can sympathize with it. She pulls it off in such a way as to be completely convincing. We never quite trust her but we want to.

The only real weakness is Sydney Greenstreet. His performance isn’t bad, but it is a little too one note. We have him sized up almost from the start and there is no nuance to it. We may not know right away what his game is but we know where he stands in it. Only in his final scene do we feel anything for his character and by then it is too little too late.

Across the Pacific is a fun, if not remarkable, film to watch. Bogart and Astor elevate it above the more traditional war movies from the period, but it still fails to really soar. The twists are fun to watch unroll but don’t really offer any surprises. Greenstreet does his best to elevate a poorly written character but can only do so much with what is written. It is competently made and doesn’t drag out too long. It also needed just a little bit more to propel it above the B-movie war films of the era. 

The Great O’Malley (1937) **1/2

 Release Date: February 13, 1937

Running Length: 71 minutes

Starring: Pat O’Brien, Sybil Jason, Humphrey Bogart

Directed By: William Dieterle

Pat O’Brien stars in this remake of The Making of O’Malley (1925) about a police officer so determined to uphold the law that he fails to see the human element behind the laws. He has no problems citing people for such minor infractions as a shop awning being 6 inches too low or a boot black having too many stools at their stand. His rigidness has made the citizens, most of them good honest people struggling during the depression, to be weary, or fearful, of him. His commanding officer tries to teach him to temper his judgements with mercy as strict adherence to the law will only lead to the people mistrusting the peace officers. “We need the people on our side,” he admonishes but O’Malley feels that he is just doing his duty.

This leads to an incident where he pulls over John Phillips (Humphrey Bogart) for driving his car with a busted muffler. Despite his pleas that the delay will cause him to be late for his first day at a job he desperately needs, O’Malley cites him causing him to lose that job for being five minutes tardy. This spirals into a crime of opportunity where Phillips steals from a unsympathetic pawn broker and gets arrested leaving his wife and crippled daughter without support of any kind.

O’Malley is chastised for how he handled the situation and, failing to see what he did wrong, is given an assignment designed to motivate him to quit the force and rid the police of his merciless interpretation of the law. From here there are no real surprises where the story goes and anyone who stops to think about this story will have the entirety of it figured out right out the gate. Therein lies this films greatest weakness.

Pat O’Brien is fine in the leading role. He genuinely comes across like a man who feels he is in the right, even when it is obvious he is being too literal in his enforcement of the laws. He gleefully reads through the law book looking for minor infractions to cite those around him, even going so far as to threaten his mother with a citation when she goes to toss some crumbs out the window for the birds as it is illegal to throw anything out into the street. 

Bogart is equally great as the unfortunate John Phillips who starts out happy to have finally found work during the depression only to turn bitter and frustrated to have all that snatched away from him over a simple busted muffler. His theft at the pawn shop is made more sympathetic by being punctuated by a nasty pawn broker who doesn’t hold our sympathies in the slightest. 

A major highlight is child actress Sybil Jason who at one time was considered a real rival to Shirley Temple. She is perfect here as the young daughter to Phillips who suffers from a broken leg that was never properly set and therefore cannot run and play with the other kids in her class. Her scenes late in the film where she must convey the frustrations and sadness of being left out are real highlights to an otherwise rote second act. Watching her act it is easy to see how she could have challenged Miss Temple for America’s little princess. 

As mentioned earlier, this film offers no real surprises and doesn’t try to challenge itself to be more that a simple morality tale. Even so, it is a charming little film that is never boring and is just short enough to not overstay its welcome. It’s breezy and inoffensive , just not very deep and thought provoking.  

Battleship Potemkin (1925) ****

U. S. Release Date: December 5, 1926 (December 21, 1925 in the U.S.S.R.)

Running Length: 1:14

Rated: NR

Cast: Aleksandr Antonov, Vladimir Barsky, Grigori Aleksandrov, Ivan Bobrov, Mikhail Gomorov, Aleksandr Levshin, N. Poltavseva, Konstantin Feldman, Beatrice Vitoldi

Directer: Sergei Eisenstein

Screenplay: Nina Agadzhanova, Nikolai Aseyev, Sergei Eisenstein and Sergei Tretyakov

Battleship Potemkin is one of the greatest propaganda films ever made. It started out its life as an exercise by Director Sergei Eisenstein to test his personal theories about editing and using montage to instill strong emotion in his audience in regards to the Russian Revolution of 1905. While he wasn't entirely successful in this endeavor there is no doubt that the finished product was meant to portray a specific viewpoint and does so with an agenda in mind.

The film begins on the battleship itself as the men serving aboard are protesting the poor living conditions they have to endure. They sleep in cabins crowded with hammocks that crash into each other as the ship rocks with the waves. In one scene an officer clumsily stumbles through the hammocks, then vents his frustrations on the back of an unsuspecting recruit. During the days things are even worse. The meat provided for the recruits is covered in maggots. The ship's doctor examines the meat and says that it is fine, they just need to wash the maggots off with some brine and it's good to go.

Later, after the men have refused to eat the captain orders his officers to open fire of some of the recruits and a mutiny breaks out. During the ensuing battle the leader of the mutiny is killed. Afterwards his body is deposited on the shoreline of the city of Odessa with a note attached proclaiming that he was killed over a matter of food. This incites the citizens of Odessa to rise up and protest the Tsarist regime that was governing them. Tsarist soldiers attack the townspeople on the steps of Odessa and leave behind a massacre.

The scene on the steps of Odessa is arguably the most influential scene in movie history. It has inspired filmmakers to this day with remnants of that moment found in such films as The Godfather, The Untouchables, and even The Naked Gun 33 1/3. It's almost casual depiction of a massacre instilled abhorrence in the audiences of 1925, not just for the massacre itself but for its depiction in grim detail of the violence and brutality of the Tsarist soldiers. They are seen walking down the Odessa stairs in formation, firing their weapons on fleeing people, while remaining faceless themselves. The camera never gives us a glimpse of their faces, only those of the people they kill. And it's not just adults getting killed in this massacre. Much time is dedicated during this scene to a young boy who is trampled by the fleeing people. His mother picks up his broken body, carries it towards the soldiers pleading that they don't fire. Her pleas go ignored and she is killed in cold blood. Another woman is shot while trying to protect her infant in a stroller. As she falls to the ground the stroller goes down the steps, amazingly not overturning as it passes the bodies of the dead on its way down. We are meant to side with the victims against an almost faceless threat and this scene, despite being completely fictional in an otherwise mostly factual film, does exactly that.

This film was considered a failure at the time as it didn't succeed in swaying the intended audience as much as it was supposed to. However, it was considered a dangerous film by certain groups including the Nazis who prohibited SS members from seeing it and banning it in West Germany, France and several other countries for its revolutionary themes. It wasn't until 2004 that it received a proper restoration re-inserting several scenes and getting proper subtitles that were a more accurate translation of the original Russian text.

It has been nearly ninety years since this film was originally released. After all that time the film never fails to be riveting. It is at times exciting and horrifying and it gets its message across clearly. Even though the massacre on the Odessa stairs never happened in real life it is a scene that sticks in the mind so well that may people have come to think of it as a real event that shaped the revolution. There's no doubt that this film has shaped the minds of filmmakers who have incorporated various elements of it into their own work. It stands up as one of the greatest examples of film making in the history of the art and should be viewed by anyone interested in film history.

Winchester '73 (1950) ***

U. S. Release Date: July 12, 1950

Running Time: 1:32

Rated: NR

Cast: James Stewart, Shelley WInters, Dan Duryea, Stephen McNally, Millard Mitchell, Charles Drake

Director: Anthony Mann

Written By: Borden Chase and Robert L. Richards

1950 was right in the midst of America's love affair with the Western. Shows like Rawhide had dominated on radio and made their way onto the small screen with much success. The Lone Ranger with his silver bullet and trusty sidekick was already one season into its run and holding strong in the ratings. John Wayne was making his films and bringing in audiences. America couldn't seem to get enough of this genre. It wasn't much of a gamble to put together a stellar cast and make a western. Winchester '73 was slated to enter into that arena, make a descent amount of money, and then disappear into the slew of other such films. The producers were so convinced of that that they made a deal with lead actor James Stewart for two pictures, this one and Harvey, that gave him a percentage of the profits. This eventually paid out about $600,000.

At first glance the story is relatively simple and straightforward. Lin McAdam (Stewart) rides into Dodge City with his partner Frank Wilson (Millard Mitchell) to compete in a shooting contest for a brand new Winchester '73 known as the one-in-a-thousand because it is considered to be perfect in every way. They are also in pursuit of 'Dutch Henry' Brown (Stephen McNalley), a man who has a past with Lin that isn't revealed until nearly the end of the film. Lin wins the contest but shortly afterwards is robbed of his new gun by 'Dutch Henry'. Henry in turn loses the gun shortly afterwards while trying to win money for more guns by playing cards. From there the gun makes it's way into several other hands, meanwhile Lin pursues Henry, assists a calvary being besieged by Indians, and assists a woman (Shelley Winters) being escorted by a coward.

The story plays out as a series of vignettes following the gun with the through story of Lin and his pursuit of 'Dutch Henry'. This allows for the focus of the film to shift around from Lin to Henry to a group of Indians and then back to Lin again. While James Stewart is definitely the star of the film he is absent from it for long stretches of time. This actually aids this film as he is given very little as a character. His partner is given even less and would have seriously hampered this film were they in it more. Then again more screen time might have given them more time to establish themselves as real characters and not a couple of generic cowboys. Only the sheer magnetism of James Stewart elevates this character over that roadblock. Likewise Stephen McNalley has little more to do than scowl and shoot at people.

This story is a little deceptive, though. It contains threads of a moral throughout the film, rewarding goodness with life and taking the lives of those who do bad things. This is most evident in the section dealing with Lola Manners (Shelley Winters) and her escort and fiance Steve Miller (Charles Drake). When these two travelers are first attacked by a band of Indians Steve abandons Lola and rides off leaving her to her fate. Only the sight of a nearby Calvary gives him the courage to turn around and help her also escape. His cowardice will come back to haunt him later when the Winchester ends up in his hands for a short while. Similar fates await just about everyone else who gains possession of this weapon. This film is about greed and the punishment meted out for said greed. It is a morality tale that is anything but subtle, yet it works and at no time feels preachy or cumbersome.

This film was successful when it was released back in 1950, so much so that James Stewart walked away with three times the salary he had originally asked for at the time. It's not hard to see why this film resonated with audiences of the day. It was short, clocking in at barely 90 minutes, and light in tone. It had a message that anyone could see and understand, and it had charismatic actors that could elevate the material given them and make characters out of one-note written parts. It played well at the time and still does more than sixty years later.