zok9 Reviews

Two Arabian Knights (1927)

Enjoyable and impressive

[9/10 · 29 August 2007]

Turner Classic Movies showed this silent, B&W flick today (Aug 29, 2007) on TV.

Solid classic adventure story, complete with all of the key ingredients: exotic plot locations, a beautiful woman in peril, a pair of dauntless and resourceful heroes (one of them handsome, the other colorful) grossly outnumbered by badguys, sprinkled with comic relief. Great costumes and sets; as good or better than those of current movies. Surprising variety of camera craft and directorship; pans and zooms including overhead angles, and closeups of key characters and objects. In this regard again it seems like a modern movie! Actions convey the story very well; without the benefit of a soundtrack. Of course, this entails a considerable degree of live type acting (similar to that seen in plays), but I did not get a feeling of melodrama like is all too common in most silent films and early sound movies.

The most enjoyable performance is played by Louis Wolheim as the rough edged but colorful Sgt. Peter O'Gaffney, who was *perfectly* casted for the role; considering both appearance and skill.

There were at least a few peculiar facts about Muslim society that I had previously learned over the past several years, which added to my appreciation of the story in the area of historical accuracy.

My favorite scene was when the heroes are fleeing a swarm of dangerous, sword wielding Arabs through the narrow streets of a busy Muslim city. Suddenly though the chase is interrupted by an oblivious imam who pops out onto an exterior balcony to announce that it's time for afternoon prayer. Everyone out on the streets (except for the heroes) religiously obeys Islamic law and momentarily kneels down, which allows the heroes to escape. That scene was just one example of the film's many expressions of originality.

After seeing this movie I better realize how extensively modern movies contain rehashed ideas that were pioneered decades earlier.

Elmer Gantry (1960)

Questionable Acting by Lancaster and Simmons

[2 October 2003]

The supporting roles played by all of the major supporting actors were very realistic. However, the two main characters were played in obsolete, unrealistic styles; albeit powerfully.

Although he was amusing in this picture, Lancaster seems to overemphasize his every line. It seems like he's acting in a playhouse; not like he should be at a movie set. That playhouse style acting was common in pre-1960 movies, but was really well on its way out by the time of this picture.

I've never seen any of Simmons' movies other than Blue Lagoon (which I forgot how she acted while she was still a youngster), but in this flick she comes off as a pompous aristocrat instead of as a gal from poor rural Shantytown (the place that character Sharon Falconer said was where she grew up). I never read the novel by Sinclair Lewis, but is it accurate for Falconer to have such a wealthy sophisticated air when lecturing the rural masses? Regardless though of the accuracy to the book, the character portrayal seems way out of place. And is that pompousness Falconer or is it Simmons? Note that there were a number of popular film stars from the 1930s thru the 1950s who could never shake off that pompous style of speech; Katharine Hepburn being the queen of her ilk. But by 1960 that breed of actors had become largely unpopular.

In short, the contrast in acting styles between the leading and supporting roles in this film indicates a major transition occurring in Hollywood during 1960.