I right now don't have much hope for this film since its a 1940's film. Now I don't hate 1940's films in general but by the title and the description being on Hulu that "A man has twenty one days of freedom before he must admit to killing his lover's husband or another man will be found guilty." Now I hope it won't be a hardboiled detective crime film since I have seen a few of those and I get rather turned off by a mystery story. Don't know why that is but I do want to put out there for my readers/viewers that I do have a few biases towards the cinematic arts in terms of genre. Though I do have to say that this is a shorter film with it being just about seventy minutes long so it isn't one that you have to sit down and prepare yourself for.Though after searching wikipedia (and yes I do have to say that I use it to get a chance to know who;s in the film and what it took to make some of these films) that it stars some well known or at least known today actor names- Vivian Leigh and Lawrence Olivier. So there I know that it might be a decent story- and a nice tidbit that might be interesting for some of my people here, wikipedia says once again that filming took place in 1937 but the film was released in 1940. Now what you have to recognize in films of the time that there was a definite sense of films being all finished and ready to go for a general audience, but either shelved away to be released later because it was better and might save a career because of a earlier film flop or that reshoots could be added to any moment on a whim and that could push a film back. Realize that film is an ever changing medium and therefore in conversation with other films or the culture abroad. So having a Vivian Leigh film being pushed back to 1940? That was because she was Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With the Wind which is a groundbreaking film in a way because of it still being the most money made in a film ever- though I do have to say that I mean inflation prices. People went crazy over the film and I personally don't enjoy Gone With the Wind because it set a view of the Deep South for decades that was romanticized- but I am going on a tangent here. Though do realize that in these Criterion Films that there might be a few awkward moments racially or sexually or violence wise that might be awkward to wrap your head around.
And it seems to be a British Film in that it has in the title sequence that it is a London Films Production and a shot of Big Ben. And it's based on "The First and the Last", a play by John Galsworthy who was a British author that I have at least heard of- though I do have to say that I have never read a book by him. But I am at least hopeful that it won't be a terrible experience, though I do have to say that sometimes good writers can write okay screenplays. So get ready for the possibility of there being a sense of a strange not quite British/ not quite American Mid-Atlantic/ transatlantic accent. That was a thing in early films it seems that phased out in the forties but it was sort of developed to have a wordly accent accepted by both Americans and British- it fell out of use after World War Two but it is something that was picked up from the stage and became big for a decade or two once the advent of sound in the film industry hit. So historical changes in accents can still be heard in the records of the past- if of course you want to include film as a historical idea though film itself is influenced by a lot of things- the cultural norms of the time, the source material if there is any, and developments around the world changing cinematography and editing techniques therefore have a thought that movies are a changing medium and can look different to the original audience of the time and us in the present- though realize that even some characters actions in films may be exaggerated or on the cusp of bad taste even during the original release of any film. Also another thing that can separate us from them- the film starts out with a credits sequence showing who directed and starred in the film. Sure we still have some holdover from the beginning sections of films sometimes telling who is directing and starring in the film, its usually a little less long than it used to be. Though I do have to say that I rather enjoy some good overture or starting music being rather soothing and getting you ready for a movie experience. Also I do have to say that the use of cursive for the character names and capital letter font for actor names is strange and now its a bit hard to read with the falling out of favor of cursive handwriting. It also doesn't help that I am sitting a comfortable distance away from the tv to protect my eyes from further damage- either way it was a tad hard to read the character names- though that isn't the longest opening credit sequence with it being just over a minute out of the seventy minute film so its not a slog. And rather nice to see that the aspect ration of the film seems to be a nice square- so it looks like a Academy Aspect ration where the screen has those black bars on the sides and its close to a perfect square. Old films like that look I guess and it definitely makes them stand out in terms of them not yet really finding a new or different aspect ratio yet.
This is a highly British film with how it opens into the action in a courtroom and the lawyers and judges are wearing British law attire- the wig that looks goofy to American audiences but that's thanks to a different style of our judges in the judicial system. Nice to see that the film uses dissolves in that it moves into the next scene while fading out of the previous one. Rather oldschool technique but its one of my favorite scene transitions if used in moderation and all that.Now I do have to notice that this film so far is a lot of white people- and one short scene of Lawrence Olivier and Vivian Leigh has a Italian shopkeeper with the accent and selling wine and all that jazz. Rather interesting to see films of this period and later because of the use of nationality to define some characters- German jokes existed before and after World War One but the tone changes, Asian jokes, black jokes, these stereotypes and everything are a part of culture and they do change over time in response to historical events. Sure I am just saying this to show that movies d not work in a vacuum but this is just to yet again hammer in the point that while that Italian guy wasn't a stereotype in the bad sense (it has been by that point only five minutes into the film) but realize that film uses race/ethnicity or the lack thereof to comment on the society. So where I deem that there might be a troublesome or stereotypical portrayal of a character I will not hesitate to say so.
What I also have to say is that the set design is rather nice and the costuming is simple yet effective- Another short thing is that the use of black and white really lets the shadows pop in a way that might not be as pronounced in color. Shadows in this first scene with Lawrence Olivier is pronounced in him wearing a trenchcoat and covered more in shadow. Though that makes sense since right after he meets Henry Wallen- the husband of his lover who definitely sounds Germanic. Why do I say Germanic and not just German? Well I rather like the idea of first and last names and thanks to the internet it is rather simple to find out the root words or language that names are from- Wallen is from my quick search, a Swedish name. So I want to cover myself in vague terms that he might not be from Germany- though he does say that in his country women work for a living- or thereabouts since I am paraphrasing. But remember that the film was made in 1937 and released in 1940. Also known as right around the time that Nazism and Fascism were on the rise and so there could be a sense that the character is a image of a foreign thing of some power and intimidation- though of course that is my reading of Henry Wallen and that is adding to the fact that he's rather a sleazy character- though I do have to say that I have no idea if the original play had this character or if he was added later in adaptation. But the use of closer shots and focusing on Lawrence Olivier creeping closer while Henry is being rather sly about needing to be paid for the use of his legal wife? The shadows are a sense of darkness, turmoil, and violence and is a nice use of lighting to show a character's mood without the use of words. Also I was right in that the hint of violence would go into a full blown fight and I've seen much more anticlimatic battles in the movies during this time so having some kind of violent thing happening is rather nice. Though Vivian Leigh's character is rather useless in this moment- though the use of women in these hardboiled manly films? Rather blase and typical- kind of a sex object that is either a femme fatale or a woman that can't do anything- that in some portrayals might be childish. A reason I don't like films like The Big Sleep (1946)? Primarily that the script was mediocre and I was told it was a critically acclaimed film and that secondly that women in it were limited or sex objects to be won. Now women in these films could be liberated in comparison to the actual reality in that they were hinted at being promiscuous and able to have a sexuality- but I've never personally liked the early portrayal of women as needing a romantic subplot to define themselves. Women can have interesting lives without needing to be defined by a man. Rant over- back to the movie though they hide the body in an alley- which should hopefully be problematic.Good thing Lawrence Olivier's character has an attorney for a brother. Now the idea of Lawrence Olivier playing the down on his luck brother when compared to the Leslie Banks character who is a successful lawyer who is rich enough to have a rather nice study with a mirror on the other wall that shows his study door- which is rather neat since I've always liked the use of mirrors in film and the idea that he can see who entered his study without turning around really shows some form of power dynamic between him and others maybe- he doesn't even have to leave his seat to greet the person. They have to come to him. But realize that even this brother that we expect to help him really wants to be promoted as a judge and therefore actually wants his brother to leave and don't worry about the murder, because having a murderer for a brother could be career suicide.Though I do have to say that it is rather nice to see Leslie Banks play an attorney through and through because he goes through what happened and what could get him incriminated- I guess lawyers breaking the law would be scary because they could be rather good at getting away with it.
Well Lawrence Olivier meets a bum minister named John Evans who is played by Hay Petrie- a Scottish actor who was in both stage and film and he's rather nice seeming. But he gets picked up by the cops in that he accidentally took the bloody gloves and gets framed for being the murderer of Wallen. Its actually rather sad because he has a short monologue about how he had finally lost his self respect and wants to suffer even a little to get some back- he's a rather tragic figure because he's so innocent in a way and truly believes that he could go back to the way he was when he wasn't a bum. I wonder how this film will end but I'm worried that it won't end happily for John Evans.
Also looks like there's a class idea here since Lawrence Olivier doesn't like that he accidentally got a man arrested- but his brother doesn't care because its was just a bum that got arrested and it isn't a major deal. It is around this time that the Great Depression was at kind of an end so there's still some idea of class having a great affect on emotion and how they see the world. Rich people or important ones have their head in the clouds while everyone else are just dealing with their lives. I do have to say that it was nice graphic match to have the Italian innkeeper drink to the health of one of the brothers while the judges have a party for the other to celebrate the other brother. It mirrors the scene in a way and it connects to two similar experiences shared by the brothers, even if a small one and lets us fade into the next scene while seeing something that lets us transition without a disjointed effect. Hilariously enough, the judges are rich and above the law in a way since they share stories when they broke the law themselves.
Lawrence Olivier goes to see the arraignment but he doesn't speak out about his crime.And they see that Wallen had a first wife and she is German/Russian? sounding- seems like the people on the stand are foreign. The nice thing about the London Court System- the Old Bailey which was the central Criminal Court of London and where a lot of trials have been done through the centuries- the most interesting is that there is now a database of records of the Old Bailey now online- is this part of the review of the movie- not really but since I plan on finishing up a BA in History soon and that I have actually searched the Old Bailey database it just stood out to me since I am a history nerd and find that kind of record keeping interesting.
And the 21 Days title is from the idea that Lawrence Olivier's character is going to fit as much life experience in 21 days in Rio because he thinks he's going to be a dead man because he wants to save John Evans. He wants to fit 30 years of fun in three weeks and in that time they also get married- somehow this turned into a romance movie two thirds of the way through between Lawrence Olivier and Vivian Leigh and fantastically enough to save time in the movie it's told through a sort of montage sequence. And John wants to be punished because he sticks to his beliefs that since he robbed Wallen's dead body he lost his self respect. And right after there's some romantic stuff with Lawrence Olivier and Vivian Leigh that I don't really care about.but I do like that they go to sea and the "I Do Like To Go Beside The Seaside" song has a small part in here for some reason. Don't know why but its nice to see it being used because it reminds me of Queen's Seven Seas of Rhye in which it is the ending bit and while that's a strange idea to have while watching a seventy six year old film (as of 2016) its still a thing I think is important since I love the song itself.And there is a nice court scene interspersed with Lawrence Olivier and Vivian Leigh at a carnival for some reason. Lawrence Olivier has a change of heart and rushed back to try and save John Evans but is too late because John Evans has a heart attack and dies. Pretty much Lawrence Olivier's character doesn't learn anything and a nice bum dies without a cause. And they live happily ever after.
Overall I liked this film and had some good fun with it. It deserves the three star rating that Hulu currently has on it but it wasn't terrible and was well acted for the time and had some great character moments- and Lawrence Olivier was one good actor that looked the part of a leading man should.
Overall rating? I've give it a medium seven out of ten- higher than average but the romance plot was rather okay- I've seen much worse romance in old films but it just seemed like it didn't fit as well as it should have.
No comments:
Post a Comment