cinema history class: the pearl of death (1944)

The session: "Give Me My Rondo!"
Four weeks of films starring the unique Rondo Hatton

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 3: The Pearl of Death (1944)
Directed by Roy William Neill

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
After the infamous Borgia Pearl is stolen from a museum, Sherlock Holmes must solve a series of brutal murders—victims found with broken backs amid smashed china—unraveling its connection to a master criminal, Giles Conover, and his sinister accomplice known as the Creeper.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
It's an odd thing to feel disappointment at seeing a Sherlock Holmes movie starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. But this was Rondo Hatton month, and I wanted more Rondo.* Rondo, of course, wasn't a leading man type, so his screentime has been somewhat limited in all the movies Keith has shown us. But that's even more the case here. Clearly, this production was not created for Rondo; Rondo, as the villain, is not the star. His role is pivotal, but he is mostly seen in shadows.

But the team of Rathbone and Bruce were arguably the best Holmes/Watson combination. I do think they would be better if Watson weren't portrayed as a bumbler, but this film was typical of the team's work. The existence (however brief) of Rondo Hatton was a bonus.

*In fairness, Keith did tell us in advance that this was a Sherlock Holmes film starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Ahead of each session, he emails us to let us know what we'll be seeing. Maybe I should pay closer attention to these emails. Don't let him know that I missed that detail.

cinema history class: house of horrors (1946)

The session: "Give Me My Rondo!"
Four weeks of films starring the unique Rondo Hatton

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 2: House of Horrors (1946)
Directed by Jean Yarbrough

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
A misunderstood artist saves a disfigured man from drowning and befriends him. He then proceeds to manipulate the man into murdering art critics.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Again, it's fun to watch Rondo Hatton as a brutish figure. He says very little, and he says it in a monotone, but it works. The Creeper, as portrayed by Hatton is a compelling antagonist -- one who you can simultaneously hate and sympathize with.  The plot is compelling -- almost noirish, though the dialogue lacks the speedy crispness of a film noir. It's efficient; there's no time wasted.

What bothers me most about House of Horrors, though I really shouldn't hold it against the movie, is something Keith told us a week earlier when he showed us The Brute Man. Apparently The Brute Man, though it was made later, was (in part) an attempt at creating an origin story for The Creeper. It doesn't really make sense, given the settings. I'm probably obsessing too much over continuity.

cinema history class: the brute man (1946)

The session: "Give Me My Rondo!"
Four weeks of films starring the unique Rondo Hatton

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: The Brute Man (1946)
Directed by Jean Yarbrough

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
A disfigured athlete seeks retribution against those he blames for his condition. In his quest for revenge, he is aided by a blind woman who sees him for who he truly is.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
As a bit of background, it's important to know (and I didn't know until Keith explained it in his introduction, Rondo Hatton's life began normally enough. But after he was exposed to mustard gas during World War I, he developed acromegaly. As an aside, I didn't know that you could develop the condition as a result of chemical exposure, but I guess it kind of makes sense.

The thing I find most interesting about The Brute Man is the physical appearance of its star, Rondo Hatton. Because of his acromegaly (and, I think, creative lighting), he had a monstrous appearance that other actors would have achieved with makeup and prosthetics. He was not a well-trained actor, often barking very simple lines in a monotone. That fact was actually mentioned in a documentary that Keith showed us after the movie. The thing is, the way he gruffly barked his lines worked perfectly for his character. What's also interesting is the fact that Hatton's character developed acromegaly as a result of chemical exposure. I don't know if it was done on purpose, but the resemblance to Hatton's own life is obvious.

The movie itself is quite good, even if it's not particularly ambitious. It's an interesting and entertaining B movie. And it succeeds very well on that level. I probably would have been able to appreciate it better if I had seen some of the other movies Hatton had been in. Keith explained that this was, in a way, meant as an origin story movie for Hatton's "Creeper" character. Had I been familiar with some of the other movies, I might have been able to appreciate it more.

cinema history class: devil doll (1964)

The session: "Bring Your Own Movie Month"
As in past years, we each take turns bring a movie and presenting it.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 5 (Bobbo): Devil Doll (1964)
Directed by Lindsay Shonteff

My Level of Prior Knowledge
Never heard of it.

Plot:
A sinister ventriloquist uses his eerily lifelike dummy and hypnotic powers to manipulate a wealthy heiress. Meanwhile, a reporter uncovers the ventriloquist's dark secret.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
The Doll immediately reminded me of an episode of Twilight Zone that involved a ventriloquists' dummy come to life. That set my expectation for the direction this film would take. Of course, my expectations were wrong -- in fact, they wdere a complete inversion. Which is fine, since the story itself held up pretty well.

This had a very small-time feel, though it did a very good job of building tension and making the viewer guess. In fact, if you you ignore the nudity, it would have done well has a long Twilight Zone episode.
 

cinema history class: the trial (1962)

The session: "Bring Your Own Movie Month"
As in past years, we each take turns bring a movie and presenting it.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 4 (Ethan): The Trial (1962)
Directed by Ronald Neame

My Level of Prior Knowledge
I'd seen this once before, a year or two ago. So I was reasonably familiar with it.

Plot:
A mild-mannered bank clerk is arrested on charges that are never revealed to him (or to the audience), and finds himself trapped in a nightmarish and insane legal system.

Reaction and Other Folderol:.
The Trial is full of stunningly nightmarish imagery. At times it's intensely claustrophobic, while at other times it's expansive. It's dark and it's light. The dialogue is verbose and concise. The whole thing is an exercise in contradictions, and itkeeps the viewer  on his heals, confused and discombobulated. I'd say that the protagonist, Josef K, is living a Kafka-esque nightmare, except that the movie is based on a Kafka novel. I'd say it's Orwellian, except that that seems trite given the Kafka connection. But it is dizzying, confusing and surreal.

The one problem with this film is director, Orson Welles himself. There are times that it drags, as Welle's couldn't seem to remove extraneous footage. I'm told that that was a thing with him -- that he was too enamored of his own dialogue that his films were too long. And this one could have been 15 minutes or a half hour shorter. Still, however, a really good intense film.