TCM Classic Film Festival

A silver lining to this Covid thing resulted in the cancelled Turner Classic Movie Festival placing many of their materials onto the network over a long weekend.  It allowed common folk like me to see a huge number of interviews, commentary and classic films (many of which I had inextricably missed).  Weeks of thoughtful, impactful viewing followed.  Though I knew her story, I was struck by the luminous fragility of Marilyn Monroe in two different films.  I shook my head at the towering vocal gifts of Judy Garland.  I added a third “A Star is Born” to the versions I’ve seen – a timeless tale reflecting three massively different periods of time.  I smiled at the brilliance of Peter Lorre, who could be horrific yet sympathetic in the same instant.  I was transfixed by the massive scope of “Metropolis”, brilliant long before anyone knew the power of this complex film.  I was surprised by “Lawrence of Arabia”, which was massive in scope but ultimately a very personal story.  I also found “Casablanca” to be unexpected – not as “great” of a film as I thought but oh, the cast, the cast, the cast.  I loved how Cary Grant brought humor and charm to a Hitchcock film.  I was awed by the physicality of the silent film era and Gene Kelly, a guy who looked like a boxer but moved like a supple ocean wave.  I giggled at the salacious content of films before a restrictive Hollywood Code took over and laughed again at how subversive sexual themes wiggled into post-code films.  I cringed at the racism, sexism and stereotypes which were considered “normal” in the first half of the 20^th Century.  I was intrigued by the complex, messy realities of “Floyd Norman:  An Animated Life”.  I watched the fall from pinnacles over and over, from “Grey Gardens” to “The Magnificent Ambersons”.  I marveled at how Orson Welles used light, and dark, as characters in his films.  I found myself riveted in front of a screen instead of zoning out, breathless at the scope of film history in the first 50 years or so of the medium.  I gained insights from those who hit it big but found stability in an unstable business (or left it entirely), including Luise Ranier, Eva Marie Saint, Norman Lloyd, Kim Novak and more.  Yes, I watched “Grey Gardens”, “Safety Last!”, “Double Harness”, “Mad Love”, “Some Like it Hot”, “A Star is Born” (1954), “Metropolis”, “Baby Face”, “The Magnificent Ambersons”, “Singin’ in the Rain”, “The Passion of Joan of Arc”, “Red-Headed Woman”,  “Lawrence of Arabia”, “North by Northwest”, “Floyd Norman:  An Animated Life”,  “Night in the City”, “Jezebel”, “Casablanca”, “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes”, “The Lady Vanishes” and finally, with the weirdest opening credits ever, “The Women”.  It was all-encompassing.  And now, onto the very end of “Star Wars” …

"Jezebel"

I’m binging a bunch of classic films, thanks to the now-cancelled TCM Classic Film Festival.  While most are going into a single review this film deserves more comment. 

Imagine:  Politics ripping a country apart while a fast-moving infection destroys a city and closes borders.  No, I’m not talking about now.

Imagine:  Antibellum south.  A fiery, spoiled belle will let nothing stop her from pursuing a decent man who has married someone else.  She destroys a simple minded guy in the process as she uses him for her own gain.  Disaster strikes and she finally sees the light – maybe – and the film ends on an ambiguous note.  No, I’m not talking about “Gone With the Wind”. 

1938, a year before GWTW, a rival studio (Warner) tried to one-up MGM by releasing this remarkably similar film.  It starred Bette Davis, who was miffed that she got passed over for the lead in the “other movie”, a role which went to nobody Vivien Leigh.  This story was a virtual carbon copy but filmed in black and white with a much smaller scope.  The racism and sexism is as prevalent as it is in GWTW but is more heavy-handed with Ms. Davis’ character, who is compared to a child, a harlot and beating is repeatedly recommended (with a smile) as a way of straightening her out.  The title is biblical and makes it clear that she isn’t just being unladylike, she is literally breaking commandments. 

It’s called the greatest role of Bette Davis and had a star-studded cast which included, among others, a very young Henry Fonda.  Ms. Davis and her co-star, Fay Bainter, won Oscars for their work.

However.  I can’t not compare it to GWTW, which is better.  This film is rushed and it shows.  Edits are jerky, the script is thin.  Only the great actors manage to give meaning to a lot which feels meaningless.  And you just can’t compare the 104 minutes of this film to the 238 minutes of GWTW.  The carts of sick people being wheeled through New Orleans is powerful but pales in comparison to the bodies in the street after the fall of Atlanta.  Scarlett O’Hara faces the Civil War.  Julie Marsden (aka Jezebel) faces the ire of rich people when she wears a daring, inappropriate dress to a party.  The most interesting part of GWTW, Scarlett’s ability to fight, is negated in “Jezebel” as the end credits start rolling just as Julie faces a real challenge.  I couldn’t root for her.  Scarlett, for all her many (many, many) flaws, had something admirable.  Julie was just a girl who broke convention and was seeking absolution.  Scarlett never got, nor asked for, forgiveness.

As to Ms. Davis, yes, she is great.  She was always great.  Personally, though, I liked her later roles.  I liked it when she had enough power to stand up to the studios and play women who didn’t simper.  I like the real Bette Davis, not the pretty girl with the cultured tones which starred here.