Movie Classic Films — Let's Discuss

[CURVE]

Anything post 1960 should not be in a classic film discussion, IMO.

But the line does blur around that 1960 mark.

The 1960's is IMO the best decade for films, so many are among my all time favourites, Belle De Jour, Repulsion, Girl With A Suitcase, Cul-De-Sac, Knife In The Water, Once Upon A Time In The West, The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, Sandra, Wait Until Dark, Theorem, The Professionals, The Leopard, La Viaccia, Jules And Jim, To Kill A Mockingbird. And 100's and 1000's more.

I think the term "Classic" is confusing, because we are saying anything made before 1960 is a classic, when in fact half the films are just old and not classics at all. One persons classic is another persons trash, so as much as I hate to say it, even some of Tom Cruises film qualify as classics.

 

[benji2]

FWIW my cut-off date would be 1970 but happy to go with Asgardian's judgement

 

[Grogg]

Agree with Devo.

It comes down to your interpretation of what classic actually means.

Just because something is old doesn't necessarily mean it's classic, imo.

For me it equals something that is of the highest quality, regardless of age.

 

[CURVE]

FWIW my cut-off date would be 1970 but happy to go with Asgardian's judgement

A lot a classic films in the 70's as well, The French Connection, Alien, The Night Porter, All That Jazz, A Clockwork Orange, The Conformist, The Garden of Finzi-Continis and That Obscure Object Of Desire.

Question regarding the seventies though would a film like Emmanualle or Vampyres qualify as a classic?


Margaret and David included Three Colours Red in the Classic Films segment and it was made in 1994. Some films are classics the moment they are released because they are so well crafted and have a huge emotional impact (such as Three Colours Red) and/or change cinema forever like Pulp Fiction. We shouldn't eliminate films based on age.

 

[spinynorman]

We shouldn't eliminate films based on age.

I kind of agree (although in terms of what's set this off - we should definitely eliminate Top Gun).

That said, I do think films need a few years to settle. American Beauty, for one, seemed like a much bigger deal in 1999 than it does now.

Maybe for the sake of argument we should just limit it to films made under the Hays Code (when in America, anyway).

 

[CURVE]

Maybe for the sake of argument we should just limit it to films made under the Hays Code (when in America, anyway).

OH GOD NO!!!!!!!!!

Terrible idea.

Please do not suggest this to Asgardian.

 

[Asgardian]

OH GOD NO!!!!!!!!!

Terrible idea.

Please do not suggest this to Asgardian.

Don't like the idea either, it would exclude so much great stuff.

Came into existence 1930 to 1968, but was not enforced until 1934, hence the small category of movies known as pre-code, 1930 - 1934.

I could live with this thread being devoted to any movies pre-1970

I am of the opinion there should be a date cut-off used in this thread

 

[Asgardian]

The 1960's is IMO the best decade for films, so many are among my all time favourites, Belle De Jour, Repulsion, Girl With A Suitcase, Cul-De-Sac, Knife In The Water, Once Upon A Time In The West, The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, Sandra, Wait Until Dark, Theorem, The Professionals, The Leopard, La Viaccia, Jules And Jim, To Kill A Mockingbird. And 100's and 1000's more.

I think the term "Classic" is confusing, because we are saying anything made before 1960 is a classic, when in fact half the films are just old and not classics at all. One persons classic is another persons trash, so as much as I hate to say it, even some of Tom Cruises film qualify as classics.

Yes, a myriad of great movies 1960 - 1970, also 1970 - 1980.

There are tons of movies post 1980 that I love, but I do not critique them as they are well known already among the vast percentage of Bigfooty users. My aim is to introduce movies that the vast percentage have never heard of, hence there is no need for me to do To Kill A Mockingbird, The Good, The Bad & The Ugly and others along with that ilk.

My opinion is the term "Classic Movies" is a recognition of the era in which the film was made, not a comment on its quality.

I believe there should be three threads for this type of content

Classic films -- year dot till 1960 (or 1970)

Contemporary films -- 1970 till 1990

Modern films -- 1990 till ~

The mods should be the ones who set the guidelines

 

[CURVE]

My opinion is the term "Classic Movies" is a recognition of the era in which the film was made, not a comment on its quality.

I don't agree, a classic is someone or something of the highest class, either an artist or a work of art.

But...

I believe there should be three threads for this type of content

Classic films -- year dot till 1960 (or 1970)

Contemporary films -- 1970 till 1990

Modern films -- 1990 till ~

The mods should be the ones who set the guidelines

I don't mind that Asgardian but can I make a slight change?

In the late 70's there was a major shift in how films were made and marketed with the arrival of the Blockbusters. Can I suggest that contemporary cinema began then, with the release of Jaws in 1975.
Then around 2000 with the release of the Lord Of The Rings films there was another major change as Technology became more prevalent in the production of films.

My suggestion is:

Up to 1975 - Classics.
1976 - 1999 - Contemporary.
2000 - now - Modern.

 

[Asgardian]

I don't agree, a classic is someone or something of the highest class, either an artist or a work of art.

I was thinking about the categories that comics use, Golden Age, Silver Age, etc. This is not a comment on quality, merely a separation of comics based on published date.

When I talk about movies enthusiastically, I refer to them as great, fantastic, etc, not that's a classic.

Hey, that's me

But...



I don't mind that Asgardian but can I make a slight change?

In the late 70's there was a major shift in how films were made and marketed with the arrival of the Blockbusters. Can I suggest that contemporary cinema began then, with the release of Jaws in 1975.
Then around 2000 with the release of the Lord Of The Rings films there was another major change as Technology became more prevalent in the production of films.

My suggestion is:

Up to 1975 - Classics.
1976 - 1999 - Contemporary.
2000 - now - Modern.

The blockbusters were around long before 1975, Ben Hur, Cleopatra, Gone With the Wind, Spartacus, The Ten Commandments ... hell, Birth of a Nation even.

D.W. Griffith, Cecil B. DeMille, William A. Wellman all made some blockbusters

1975 is regarded as "New Hollywood's" Blockbuster era start

The cut off dates are okay by me, but I don't get to decide these things, the Mods should make the rules ...
.

 

[CURVE]

Why should they make the decision, it's got nothing to with them. This is a decision for movie lovers.

 

[CURVE]

The blockbusters were around long before 1975, Ben Hur, Cleopatra, Gone With the Wind, Spartacus, The Ten Commandments ... hell, Birth of a Nation even.

D.W. Griffith, Cecil B. DeMille, William A. Wellman all made some blockbusters

1975 is regarded as "New Hollywood's" Blockbuster era start

I've never considered them blockbusters, I've always thought of them as Epics, and to me there is a difference.

The Blockbusters that we all know and love/hate today are more style over substance. They are for a more youthful market and therefore are generally reasonably short, around 90-120 minutes. Character development is secondary to action and the plots are very basic. Easy to watch.

The Epics of past generations are generally a lot longer, most are over 150 minutes and were directed more towards an adult audience and are therefore more sophisticated than todays teen blockbusters. Because of the extended running time, the directors had more time to develop the characters, complex plot structures and storylines. Perhaps not as easy to watch, but infinitely more satisfying.

 

[Asgardian]

I've never considered them blockbusters, I've always thought of them as Epics, and to me there is a difference.

It's a definition that is part of the movie community, both within the industry and used by the fans and collector fanatics alike.

Blockbusters have been around since just about year dot

The Birth of a Nation from 1915 is pretty much the first from USA, add in plenty of others from the Silent Age --

Napoléon (1927), The General (1927), Battleship Potemkin (1925), The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1921), Metropolis (1927), Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages (1916), L'Atlantide (1921), The Student of Prague (1913), Ben-Hur (1925), The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923), Nosferatu (1922), The Big Parade (1925), J'accuse! (1919) & Wings (1927)

Pre 1975 they were just Blockbusters

Post 1975 AND Jaws they were New Hollywood Blockbusters

The above is not a matter of interpretation, these are facts within the film industry.

The Blockbusters that we all know and love/hate today are more style over substance. They are for a more youthful market and therefore are generally reasonably short, around 90-120 minutes. Character development is secondary to action and the plots are very basic. Easy to watch.

The Epics of past generations are generally a lot longer, most are over 150 minutes and were directed more towards an adult audience and are therefore more sophisticated than todays teen blockbusters. Because of the extended running time, the directors had more time to develop the characters, complex plot structures and storylines. Perhaps not as easy to watch, but infinitely more satisfying.

Not gonna argue with that, although I will add, how much more style can a movie have over & above Metropolis (1927)?

 

[Dan Moody]

As an old movie enthusiast, I'd also classify classics as pre 1960.
My favourite era is the 30's and 40's, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy anything after the 60's.
Asgardian, we need you to continue with your reviews now that Margaret and David have retired.
On another note, have you seen Mark Cousins, The Story of Film and if so your thoughts?

 

[Asgardian]

As an old movie enthusiast, I'd also classify classics as pre 1960.
My favourite era is the 30's and 40's, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy anything after the 60's.
Asgardian, we need you to continue with your reviews now that Margaret and David have retired.

Dunno about that ...

On another note, have you seen Mark Cousins, The Story of Film and if so your thoughts?

Actually that's on my Xmas wish list ...

Earlier this year I watched "Moguls & Movie Stars: A History of Hollywood", I imagine they both cover pretty much the same ground?

BTW, I thoroughly recommend Moguls & Movie Stars: A History of Hollywood, plus it is in killer packaging.

 

[Asgardian]

Along with the Frost/Nixon Interview I also watched Port of 40 Thieves, made in USA 1944.

Directed by Englishman John English (sic) who went through a career without ever distinguishing himself, stuck mainly in Republic then later Columbia "B's" or even worse, some serials. From about the 1950's he was stuck doing TV episodes of just about any show that came along.





To start off with the title conjures up a style of movie that just is not shown to us. The title refers to a novel written by a character who disappeared 7 years ago and is presumed dead. Actually he is very much required to be and wanted to be very dead by his surviving wife. also before I go any further, and comments to the effect of this being a film-noir are 100% incorrect, there is nothing dark plus it frankly has very little of the required style.

The action (?) begins rather cryptically, an obviously wealthy woman gets into a limo and tells her companion "It wont be long now Freddy", which of course means nothing to us so far. Her departure in the limo is noticed by a young lady who takes down the rego, she is then seen cutting out a newspaper article and posting it off to someone, that someone turns out to be an older lady who promptly gets on a train to New York, I suppose that is where the initial scenes were set (?).

The wealthy woman, Muriel Chaney (played by Stephanie Bachelor who got into movies at age 31 and was finished by age 36, best known for her debut & strip-tease in Barbara Stanwyck's Lady of Burlesque) is seen sunning it up on her penthouse balcony, reading the latest mags and coming across an article for rising lawyer, Scott Barton (played by Tom Keene, best known to me as Colonel Edwards in Plan 9 from Outer Space). She decides to go see this lawyer for reasons soon to be explained.

Barton is taking it easy in his office and not very interested when his secretary tells him of Mrs. Chaney's wish to see him, that is until he recalls something, checks his book shelf, there it is, a novel, Port of 40 Thieves, written by the lady's husband, upon checking further he finds that man has been missing, presumed dead for seven years, to the very day. Interest aroused he sees Mrs Chaney who has turned up wanting him to start proceedings to declare her husband officially dead, now that he has been gone for exactly seven years, she gives him what must be a large retainer and he accepts the case.

Leaping to the next scene Mrs Chaney is contacted by her bank manager with startling news, someone has slipped to his bank a cheque, dated today, signed by her long lost husband, naturally that must be impossible, because he's missing. She contacts Barton who says he will check out what is happening, having done so he arrives at her penthouse where she is entertaining her male friend, Freddy. The lawyer tells her that so far it's a mystery, but he will get a handwriting expert to examine the cheque, then leaves. Mrs Chaney continues her conversation with Freddy, revealing to him that she is in no doubt at all about her husband, because she killed him, naturally nearly flooring Freddy.

Our intrepid lawyer then meets up with the young lady, the same one from the start of the film, who initially found the cheque, the bogus cheque, but gets nowhere. Mrs. Chaney is becoming worried though because the estate settlement will be delayed so she meets up with an elderly gentleman for dinner who she says will give her $50,000, he of course laughs, but Mrs. Chaney is not above blackmail, and it seems the elderly gentleman can be blackmailed, he agrees to the "donation".

When Mrs Chaney arrives home she is startled to find things of her ex-husband are scattered throughout the penthouse, but this murderess is not easily spooked. Thinking to herself he decides that Mexico would be a good place to go, once she has all the money, but now realises that Freddy knows, she spilled the beans, so Freddy must be dealt with, a simple matter, an elevator door opening when the car is not there. He turns up for a date, they stay in, have some drinks, him too much drink, and then takes the wrong step, Freddy's dead.

The next morning another bogus cheque turns up and is given to Barton, the lawyer, plus he is told that the young lady is responsible for those phony cheques. Right then Mrs. Chaney turns up plus the news of Freddy's death by way of a newspaper is seen by her, she conveniently faints, what an actress. Barton then investigates the young lady, we find out she is Nancy Hubbard Chaney, the unknown daughter of the missing man and she has been doing the cheques, her fathers items turning up in the penthouse, all explained to the lawyer, who now becomes business like, and distrusts the girl.

He goes to see Mrs. Chaney and explains what he has found out, she is not happy with him and wants everything expedited, but that just wont happen, she she decides Barton must now die, she is going to push him down the open elevator shaft, but someone else, the blackmailee, has come up in the elevator, so lucky escape for Barton. He goes down with the blackmailee who spills everything that has been going on. In the meantime young Nancy has turned up at the penthouse trying to a spook act, but Mrs. Chaney doesn't scare easily, so she pulls a gun on the spook, suddenly Nancy is the one who is very afraid. Never fear though, because Barton now knows the truth, he and the blackmailee, with his gun, go back up to the penthouse where they see the two ladies on the balcony, with a gun in Mrs. Chaney's hand.

Not able to get into the apartment, Barton climbs out the window and edges along until he reaches the balcony, but before he climbs up the blackmailee shoots, hitting Mrs. Chaney in her gun hand, disarming her, he was probably trying to kill her. The police are on the way, Mrs. Chaney is bandaged up, but now she shows herself to be quite mad, asking if she can shop before the going to be criminal trial, Barton says no, but someone can shop for her, she loves the idea, saying "I want the best looking wardrobe a jury ever saw".

A ruse to claim insanity? dunno, the end brings down the curtain.

All a bit of fun and no way a film-noir, I give it 5.5/10

 

[Dan Moody]

Dunno about that ...



Actually that's on my Xmas wish list ...

Earlier this year I watched "Moguls & Movie Stars: A History of Hollywood", I imagine they both cover pretty much the same ground?

BTW, I thoroughly recommend Moguls & Movie Stars: A History of Hollywood, plus it is in killer packaging.

I haven't seen Moguls & Movie Stars but I will look for it this weekend.
The Story of Film follows film through from the early 20th century, focussing on a fair bit of international film.
Well worth purchasing.

 

[Asgardian]

I haven't seen Moguls & Movie Stars but I will look for it this weekend.
The Story of Film follows film through from the early 20th century, focussing on a fair bit of international film.
Well worth purchasing.

http://www.amazon.com/Moguls-Movie-...=Moguls+&+Movie+Stars:+A+History+of+Hollywood

As the title suggests, it's about American film, starts from about 1889

 

[CURVE]

The Story of Film was reviewed earlier in this thread. I think somewhere around page 16/17.

 

[Asgardian]

Watched a rather good crime/war film from 1940 USA, The Man Who Wouldn't Talk.

Directed by David Burton, who was born in 1877 in Russia, probably best known for 1931's Fighting Caravans with Gary Cooper & Lili Damita. He also did a few with Carole Lombard. The quality of his work, all 16 films, is not really there to have made a great name for him.



The film opens in Chile, a mining operation owned by some American corporation, the workers knock off for lunch and catch up on some newly arrived magazines, one of them states that the mining outfit has been bought by a new owner who the working Joe's seem to like. However one of them, and we automatically know this is important because the films star, Lloyd Nolan, is the chap concerned, hears the name of the new boss, has a look at his picture, then we see his mind racing, a hundred miles an hour. Lloyd Nolan was always just about a major star, but not quite, he did many fine movies and they always benefited by his appearance.

it then transfers to the new owners offices where a party for the boss, Fred Keller, played by Onslow Stevens, is taking place. His secretary interrupts him saying someone from the old days would like to see him, but he doesn't have the time so declines to see him giving him the brush off with a few dollars. The same man, Lloyd Nolan, then leaves the offices.

Another cut, this time is the next morning, Mr Keller's butler gets a phone call for the boss, so he goes to wake him, but finding his bed has not been slept in, he goes to his private office in the next room, but shock horror, Mr Keller is found dead, he's been shot.

The newspapers initially say it's a suicide, but that is corrected by the next edition, it's MURDER. The media is abuzz with speculation, the authorities are in a tizz to find the killer of such a prominent citizen until a breakthrough, Mr Keller's former accountant, who was discharged for dishonesty, is arrested and charged with the murder. He confesses to the embezzlement, but denies any knowledge of the murder. This is of no consequence to a revenge happy law enforcement that rushes the man to trial. Sensation upon sensation, just as the accountant is pleading not guilty, that strange chap, Lloyd Nolan, walks in and confesses to the crime, and produces the murder weapon.

Off he's whisked to police headquarters, ballistics confirms he produced the murder weapon, then arrives the DA, wanting to know why and who he is. It starts to get a little mysterious now, the murderer glances up to the wall calendar & sees the day is Monday, so announces his name is Joe Monday, and will not budge on any further information. His pictures are splashed all over the papers, but the mystery about who he really is and why he did it grows.

His court appointed lawyer, Steve Phillips (played by bit part actor Richard Clarke) admits to the police that he too can get nowhere with his client. He again goes in to see "Joe" with all the usual fan mail that turns up for killers, someone who wrote may know "Joe", he talks about not talking only to find that when he goes to the CHAIR, it will be too late to talk. So the lawyer has a bright idea, "Joe" must be insane, he's going to run with an insanity defence.

Next we cross to the DA's office where he is talking to Alice Stetson (played by Jean Rogers who hopped around the various studios until Louis B. Mayer said she could not get married, she did, she didn't work much after that, she was Flash Gordon's girlfriend not wearing much in a couple of serials) who believes "Joe" is really her brother, Frank Stetson. Frank has been missing for over 20 years since he disappeared when fighting in the trenches in France during World War 1, known then as the Great War. Alice is not certain "Joe" is her brother and he denies it with conviction, but still, she isn't sure, she was only a little girl when Frank went to war. "Joe" goes on to talk about when he was in the war and how so many of the chaps there would never return home nor be identified because they were blown to bits, like a few of his pals over there. One of them he says, a certain Frank Stetson, Alice pops up, that's my brother Frank, "Joe" says, oh, I didn't know your name was Stetson, well anyway, Frank died a hero, he went out to bring back an officer who was in a shell hole wounded too badly to make it back to their lines, only for another shell to land on both of them, blowing them both to bits, hence Frank's body was never found and was recorded as MIA.

Steve, "Joe's" lawyer then speaks to Alice who tells him about the story told to her, the idea of checking the army records pops up, he hopes to find out "Joe's" real identity, but the unit he says he was in suffered a very bad casualty rate, only five survivors were known to arrive back after the war, now 20 years later three of them have died, a fourth is blind and the fifth it seems already knows about the case and is on his way to see the DA.

The trial starts and is already unusual, a lady juror, and the DA mocks the insanity defence, with a witness identifying "Joe" as the man who questioned if Fred Keller was in his office. Paul Gillis, the fifth soldier, takes the stand and tells the story about "Joe". He states that "Joe" is really Frank Stetson, they knew each other well during the war. One action took place when they shot down a German plane and found that the dead pilot had a detailed map of the American positions and ammo dumps, he also discloses that the third soldier with them was Sgt. Fred Keller. They take the map to their commanding officer who tells them to keep it a secret. A few weeks later they are told to report to the CO where Frank is asked to identify his personal effects, he says yes and within is found a copy of that same map. Frank is arrested on suspicion of being a spy and in court Paul Gillis states that there was no doubt that frank was giving information to the Germans. Then at the courts martial Keller tells a story of how Frank was in the CO's office copying something, it seemed strange, but Keller said Frank explained it away, Frank was found guilty. All of this related in the murder trial by Paul Gillis who had thought Stetson had been executed until he saw his picture in the paper re this murder. Alice Stetson is then called to the stand, but she cannot positively identify "Joe" as her brother, Frank.

Skipping to the jury room the jury is badgering one of them to agree to the guilty verdict, finally he caves in, but then the foreman realises that the lady has refused to agree that "Joe"/Frank is guilty, however interrupting them they are told to go back to the court room . A new surprise witness has arrived with vital evidence. Otto Brukner who works with a shipping line arrived home that day and recognised "Joe's" picture, so he contacted his lawyer. He tells of how he was actually one of the German spies, his contact was actually Fred Keller, who devised a plan to plant evidence on Frank and let him be convicted as the spy, letting him get away scot-free.

"Joe"/Frank is then called to the stand, with no need to continue the deception, he admits he is Frank Stetson, he admits he killed Fred Keller saying Keller lied at the court martial, he further explains that during a bombing raid he escaped as it was thought he was actually killed, so he stayed away from America, so he would not be recognised by anyone, living his life anywhere else but there under an assumed name, a life without a country for 20 years, until he saw that picture of Fred Keller in the magazine, so he went to force Keller to admit his guilt. Breaking into Keller's apartment he confronted him, but Keller got out a gun, fired first, missing Frank who fired back to defend himself, killing Keller. With Keller's death Stetson panicked, he now thought there was no way anyone would believe him that Keller must have been the spy, not him, so he took off, but when the other man was put on trial he couldn't let that happen so he came forth.

The jury takes no time to find Stetson not guilty, he killed Keller in self-defence. The picture goes to a family scene with the Stetson family and his lawyer, but Frank still doesn't want to talk to the press, the end. A nice touch was casting Mae Marsh as Mrs. Stetson, Mae was a prolific silent screen star who was wiped out by the Great Depression.

I give it 7/10

 

[Roobs321]

On the Classics debate, I don't think it should be discussed in terms of antiquity. At least, I wouldn't tend to use 'classic' myself. There are certainly instant & recent classics, classics are generally classics due to their interaction with and impact on the medium. Films that tend to participate in discursive debate. i.e. a hidden gem isn't a 'classic'.

In terms of eras, I agree that somewhere in the 1960s is certainly most appropriate, given how highly transitional that decade was.

 

[Dan Moody]

Without checking, wasn't Mae Marsh Henry Frankenstein's bride to be in the 1931 version?
Also I recall Onslow Stevens being prevalent in quite a few B Grade horror films of the 30's and 40's as well. A very unique name, same could be said of Skelton Knaggs who was only destined for horror films with a name like that.

Edit: just checked, it was Mae Clarke that was in Frankenstein.
Mae Marsh had an impressive body of work in the early days of cinema, 2 of the most significant films in history to her name in Intolerance and Birth of a Nation. (I have both in my collection which I am embarrassed to admit I forgot about Mae Marsh).
Asgardian, what are your thoughts on the Val Lewton movies released by RKO during the 40's? E.g The Body Snatcher, Isle of the Dead, I walked With A Zombie etc.

 

[Asgardian]

Also I recall Onslow Stevens being prevalent in quite a few B Grade horror films of the 30's and 40's as well. A very unique name,

Onslow was regarded as a bit of a weirdo, he nagged on that everyone in the cast of a movie should follow his lead as a nudist, it affected the work he was able to get, plus his later alcoholism.

His death remains a controversy.

same could be said of Skelton Knaggs who was only destined for horror films with a name like that.

Skelton played some very nice character roles in a couple of films in my collection, Botany Bay (1953) & Headin' for God's Country (1943)

Mae Marsh had an impressive body of work in the early days of cinema, 2 of the most significant films in history to her name in Intolerance and Birth of a Nation. (I have both in my collection which I am embarrassed to admit I forgot about Mae Marsh).

Mae was very successful, played quite a few quality roles, but in the eyes of the public she was a little lost because of Gish & Pickford. The earliest film I have that Mae is in is The Battle at Elderbush Gulch (1913)

Asgardian, what are your thoughts on the Val Lewton movies released by RKO during the 40's? E.g The Body Snatcher, Isle of the Dead, I walked With A Zombie etc.

For such a small body of Hollywood work, he remains highly influential. My favourites are the Cat People movies along with Isle of the Dead. He was best as a salesman, he could sell projects and create around him a team of talents to finish the project. It cannot be forgotten through he was responsible for some stinkers.

Did you know he wrote some pr0n in his early American days?

 

[benji2]

A very unique name, same could be said of Skelton Knaggs who was only destined for horror films with a name like that.

Also a face like his...


Rondo Hatton had a similar face/name combination, poor guy must have suffered a lot

 

[Asgardian]

Watched an oldie from the early sound days, The Widow from Chicago, made in 1930. Directed by Edward Cline, well known for his Silent film work, many comedies and association with W.C. Fields, directing 1940's My Little Chickadee with Fields & Mae West. He later said, due to the stars always fighting "I wasn't directing. I was referee-ing."

I'll finish this review later