8/13/23
Newsletter #426
The Crack of Dawn
In the mid-1930s movies began taking solid steps forward to tell intelligent, adult stories. This was achieved by moving beyond pure sensationalism, like slapstick comedy, grand romances, or simpleminded westerns, and trying to explore the inner workings of the complex human character.
Of course, Europeans got there first. The earliest example that I can think of is Fritz Lang’s M (1930) with Peter Lorre. The lead character is not only not likable, he’s a child murderer who is so detested that the criminal underworld catches and tries him. Testifying before a panel of murderous thugs, Peter Lorre’s character actually makes a decent defense for his abominable acts, which makes everybody feel bad. The movie is a grueling, slow, though painfully brilliant, depiction of human depravity, and is as serious of a work of art as any book, play or opera. With the addition of sound in the late-1920s movies were now able to transcend their broad, pantomime, burlesque beginnings and enter the realm of serious art.
The earliest famous American example of this was John Ford’s The Informer (1935). In this story the audience is presented with a lead character, Gypo Nolan (Victor McLaglen, in his Oscar-winning role) who wantonly commits such an awful act of betrayal that he is now irredeemable, particularly to the criminal underworld that admire loyalty. The movie was so important, and different, that it was befuddling to Hollywood and the Oscars show it. The Informer won Best Director, Screenplay, Actor and Score, but not Best Picture, which went to Mutiny on the Bounty, which is a movie that I personally like much better than The Informer. Mutiny on the Bounty also has an extremely bright, intelligent – adult, if you will – tone, particularly for a big, expensive movie. As a note, of the three versions of Bounty – 1935 with Clark Gable and Charles Laughton; 1962 with Marlon Brando and Trevor Howard; and 1984 with Anthony Hopkins and Mel Gibson – the Clark Gable, Charles Laughton version is the best by far. Nobody makes a better Captain Bligh than Charles Laughton. Clark Gable, without his trademark mustache, simply could not be a better Fletcher Christian.
The next year, 1936, my man William Wyler made two films for Sam Goldwyn that continued this movement into mature storytelling: These Three, with Merle Oberon and Joel McCrea, and Dodsworth with Walter Huston and Mary Astor. These Three is based on Lillian Hellman’s play, The Children’s Hour, which was rather racy for Broadway the year before with its references to a lesbian relationship. These references were all removed from the movie — yet are somehow still there. William Wyler felt so trifled with and censored that he remade the film in 1961 as The Children’s Hour with Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine. The remake returned to the original Lillian Hellman play from the early 1930s, which by 1961 was severely dated. The 1936 version is much better with the idea being intimated, but not said. Personally, I’m a big fan of intimation, and implication, too.
However, the movie that started this whole train of thought, whatever it might be, was Dodsworth (1936) starring Walter Huston. Dodsworth began as a novel by Sinclair Lewis in 1929, that then became a hit Broadway play starring Walter Huston. Sam Goldwyn bought the rights to the book and play and bringing Walter Huston along.
With Walter came his 30-year-old, roustabout son, John, who, after traveling the world and getting into many misadventures, found himself visiting his dad in Hollywood. John Huston and William Wyler were about the same age — Wyler was 4 years older — and became best friends. Wyler got John Huston his first big writing credit on Jezebel (1938) which really started his Hollywood career.
So, William Wyler and John Huston were BFFs for 45 years. John Huston is interviewed extensively in one of my very favorite movies, which is actually a one-hour episode of the PBS series, American Masters, but as a movie called, Directed by William Wyler (1986). I think it’s a crime that this movie is only an hour long, and I’ll just bet you there’s at least another hour of great outtakes. Anyway, John Huston has the nicest things to say about Wyler that is humanly possible, and he and I are in complete agreement. I believe that John Huston is being totally sincere. He’s also honestly confused in that he thinks that Wyler’s movies contain an intelligence and refinement that he’s never been able to locate in the man, whom he finds inarticulate. Nor had Wyler ever been able to explain it to him what he did that made his movies so good.
OK, so stick with me here. I saw an interview with William Wyler many years ago, and I don’t know what it was on, or part of, or anything. Wyler, BTW, spoke English perfectly, with a slightly odd accent – he was from an area in Alsace that didn’t know if it was part of France, Switzerland, or Austria – and in this old interview he was being questioned about other directors. When it got to John Huston – and when I saw this, I didn’t know they were friends – Wyler didn’t shrug him off with a couple of words, like “A master” or “A true artist,” or some shit, he said something along the lines of, “All of his characters are too big to be believable. He works in stereotypes. None of his drama ever rings true to me because he’s too broad.”
I found out later about their close friendship. So, I think John Huston honestly more than liked Wyler’s movies, he loved them, as I do, and Wyler wasn’t overwhelmed with Huston’s films. I’d say that I like John Huston’s films much more than Willy Wyler did. In any case they were great friends for most of their lives.
And that’s the silly horseshit I think about.
The dawn appears beautiful.