Mädchen in Uniform (1931) Review

Left: protagonist, Manuela; Right: supporting character, Ilse

Here it is, one of the only Lesbian films of the black and white era. Perhaps the most Lesbian of them all. Films like Morocco and Borderline do have sprinkles of Homosexuality in them, but this one has an unmissable amount. Due to most countries having Anti-gay laws, Homosexual depictions are few and far between in this time. This is not helped by America’s adoption of the Hays Code and Germany’s adoption of Nazism, both of which were against positive gay depictions. In fact, the Nazis tried to destroy every copy of Mädchen in Uniform, but numerous copies of it had been sent overseas at that time.

My expectation was for this to be a more or less standard romance. There’s romance in this, but the film is not a full-on love piece. The story is mainly about the development and actions of the protagonist, Manuela, played by Hertha Thiele. She is driven, at least somewhat, by her being lovestruck. However, lots of the screen time is unrelated to the main plot. The filmmakers seem more interested in what the numerous other characters are doing. Characters like Ilse get lots of screen time and the time spent on them adds little to the main story. The other girls do partially drive Manuela. They show off how they handle the strict rules, which include things like no writing letters and no pictures of boys. The most interesting part of the scenes with the other characters is that several of them are shown to be Lesbians or Bisexuals. The previously mentioned Ilse has several pictures of a male movie star that she idolizes, but she also openly expresses her love for the Governess, Fräulein von Bernburg. The strict headmistress, Fräulein von Nordeck zur Nidden (‘Fräulein’ refers to an unmarried German woman, numerous characters are referred to as such), doesn’t seem to mind the Homosexuality in and of itself, but instead the girls non-conformity in general. Seeing as this is the 1930s, one would imagine that she would be bothered by them being gay.

It’s not like the Homosexuality is buried under subtext, every night the beloved Governess Fräulein kisses the foreheads of all the girls before they go to bed. Ilse is excited to get a kiss from her. In that scene, there’s numerous close up shots of girls excited for their kiss. Another scene features a girl showing her ability to break a button off her dress with her developed breasts. Ilse proclaims “What a body!” and the other girls seem excited by this talent.

I am a bit of a sucker for movies which focus on showing off the environment and characters by letting us see what’s going on, which this film certainly does. However, this does not usually make good narratives and films, as every scene should add to the main plot. The three characters most relevant to the main plot are Manuela, Governess Fräulein, and the headmistress. There’s often times where those characters are absent for notable portions of the film. The girls are fun characters to watch, but many of their scenes should be cut if the goal is to have the best possible story.

SPOILERS

There are some weird little plot holes in the filler. As an example, the headmistress said she intentionally doesn’t give out a lot of food in order to make the girls more ordered, but she’s upset when one complains about it, as if she thought the girl was ungrateful. The only thing the headmistress does is give the opposite of what everyone wants. That’s not a bad thing, but the movie wants the character to be three-dimensional. The end features all the girls looking down at the headmistress as she walks away saddened for indirectly pushing Manuela to kill herself. As a wooden character, she shouldn’t get this time for a redemption (for lack of a better term) or introspection as the film didn’t care to give her a real character. Most scenes with her focus on how the girls feel in relation to her, not how she feels.

Any scenes with the girls and Manuela work. They emphasize Manuela. She’s uncomfortable in this boarding school and it’s good for the story to see that. In contrast, the girls are more or less content with being there. The girls get some nice payoff at the end when they prevent Manuela from committing suicide by jumping to her death. That scene gets some nice foreshadowing when two girls discuss how high up the stairs are.

Manuela got drunk and loudly proclaimed her love for her Governess. This was a very big deal in the film. Manuela narrowly avoided being expelled, but was told she would be moved to where she would never see her Governess again. This led to her suicide attempt. The romance between the Governess and Manuela is odd. They both show affection for each other, most notably when during the before bed kissing, the Governess kisses Manuela on the lips, which she doesn’t do for any of the other students. However, there is not much screen time for the two and there’s no closure on their relationship. After Manuela is prevented from jumping, the movie is over and we don’t see what happens next. That’s a shame as that seemed to be the main thrust of the movie. Will They or Won’t They? is a big part of the main plot.

What would have been interesting to see is a more straight forward romance story, but it’s gay. The film is in many ways like a typical romance, but it’s incomplete. The protagonist never gets the girl, but the setup is similar to a romance. Two characters want to be together but circumstance keeps them apart. Their kiss is highly stylized and romanticized, as if it’s the first big step in a blossoming romance. It’s the kind of thing I’ve seen in many romance films.

OVERVIEW

Mädchen in Uniform is an engaging and enjoyable watch. I was always eager to see what happened next. One that wants any one genre like a romance, a drama, or a comedy will be let down due to the film’s inability to focus on one thing or flesh out an idea fully. However, even with it’s faults, you could say it’s a gay old time.

The Christmas That Almost Wasn’t (1966) Review

Paul Tripp, the writer and primary actor of the film. Photograph taken in 1961.

I needed a little break from searching for Christmas films. The last two have had a minimal relation to Christmas. December has started, we got to get at least one real Christmas movie going! This movie is super Christmassy. It’s set in December, there’s Santa, elves, his house at the North Pole, however, his wife isn’t there. Maybe she wanted a man who wasn’t paying rent. That’s right, in this film Christmas is threatened as Santa can’t pay his bills. His Credit Score must be terrible. I remember those old, fond memories in May 2017 of watching this movie as part of Mystery Science Theater 3000, a show which hosts generally poor films. It was terrible, but lovely for so many reasons. I had to see it again to know if it was a true masterpiece of stupidity.

The English dubbed version, which is easier to find, is not as bad as one might think. The physical portrayals that the actors give matches up well with how the English voice actors are speaking. The dubbing often doesn’t match the lip movement of the actors. This isn’t too big a deal as it’s easy to not pay attention to that. The acting generally works for what the film’s intention is. The main character, Sam Whipple, is written and performed like everything is lovely and joyful. Is that realistic to a person? No, but that’s what the film is going for. Whenever something unfortunate happens, we see that the character’s actor can give a performance other than pure bliss. Santa Claus’ actors are the best in the film. While it’s not masterful, we do see a real range. It’s weird to see Santa Claus looking depressed, but it’s a developed facial and vocal expression that makes sense. Later on, Santa is at a toy store with some kids and he seems genuinely happy.

The most interesting performance is that of Rossano Brazzi, who plays Phineas T. Prune, the villain. His performance is over the top to an incredible degree. He’s Santa’s landlord who hates Christmas and children. He will do anything to stop Christmas from happening for no other reason than that he hates children that much. He even says that Santa can choose to not pay rent and live in his home for free if he stops doing Christmas. He even shouts about how villainous he is. There is no attempt to have an actual character (except at the end). It’s honestly a site to behold. His performance got me thinking… my thought while watching the film is that the absurdity adds to the production. Other movies like Blazing Saddles are so good because of how the absurdity works and fits in the concept, but does this film’s absurdity add or subtract? There’s nothing in the film that’s enhanced by the absurdities other than how it enhances the entertainment for the audience at home, laughing at how stupid it is. Blazing Saddles winks at the audience and its stupid elements are brilliant in how they add to the narrative. I seem to have had mistaken The Christmas That Almost Wasn’t as a good movie taking advantage of the bad instead of a bad movie that’s enjoyable.

In terms of a so bad it’s good movie, this succeeds by quite a bit. There’s often a lot of fun here and there in the film. One part that was lacking was the songs, which typically weren’t written or performed well, but they don’t subtract too much from the overall film. The villain’s desire an urge to stop Christmas goes to lengths much farther than most would, as if he has nothing better to do. The character’s arc is nonsensical, but hilarious. It serves as a terrible way to finish the story, but it is indeed very Christmassy. The reasons for the start and end of the conflict is supported by a thin piece of thread. In terms of a silly movie filled to the brim with Christmas and joy, this film has got you covered.

The movie’s theme song is also a banger.

Three’s a Crowd (1927) Review

A frame from the film.

When looking into silent films, I’ve heard references to this Harry Langdon guy. In my search for silent Christmas films, this one popped up. It looks interesting enough for a watch. Three’s a Crowd is the directorial debut for Langdon, which is an interesting thing to note about the film. This is the visual idea that Langdon likes. This is how he wants to portray his films. While it’s not very Christmassy, does he succeed in telling a good story?

The acting leaves much to be desired. It’s not particularly noteworthy, the performances are mostly uninteresting. The protagonist, Harry, played by Langdon, has a boring portrayal that has little life or character to it. Characters like his boss are easily forgettable. Forgetting that character is especially easy as he disappears from the film a third of the way through.

Speaking of which, this sixty minute film has an ungodly large amount of filler. The first twenty minutes show Harry dealing with his boss. It adds nothing to the main story. It’s like when an unrelated short film is played before the main feature. What was the editor thinking? This is especially annoying as the start of the second chunk of movie is largely damaged so it’s hard to see what’s going on, not that that’s the fault of the film.

Much of the latter half of Crowd shows Harry with a baby. He’s simply taking care of the child. Scenes like this work very well for a few minutes, but this goes on and on, consuming the run time. These long scenes of nothing pull the audience out of the story, which is the last thing a filmmaker should want to do. Due to the plot shifts and filler, the actual main plot which affects the story and characters happens in the middle and the very end. The rest is nothing.

Some of Crowd looks like any silent film of the time. Keep in mind, the film used then creates scenes that usually are above average in terms of visual attractiveness. In those average scenes, all the film has going for it visually are nice sets. As I watched the film, suddenly this shows up:

That’s a nice looking shot.

I keep watching the film and then…

Man, what a good looking shot. Langdon knows his stuff. Filler with the baby happens, then suddenly…

Three’s a Crowd has numerous beautiful scenes in it. These are masterfully good shots. I don’t know how it was done so well, but they make the film better whenever they blink on the screen. The point and idea of the film is emphasized by the imagery, creating an understanding of what’s going on. How does the plot work with the imagery?..

SPOILERS

Harry finds an unconscious woman in the snow. After a few minutes of him caring for her, he realizes she’s pregnant and in labor. He calls some neighbors, old women, to help in the matter. They eagerly do so. He then calls for some doctors to assist. There’s a funny scene where Harry’s trying to direct them to his apartment. They’re reluctant to for an unknown reason. As Harry becomes more anxious for them to follow, the music intensifies to show his eagerness. This was quite funny. A few seconds later, he enters his apartment and one of the women tell him not to come in. This leads to a rather nice scene of him waiting outside his apartment. He continuously almost opens the door or knocks, but then retreats at the last second. He thinks of if and how to get in. There’s no dream sequences or title cards. All we get are his brilliant facial expressions and body language which all lead to him sitting around waiting in a surprisingly well performed sequence.

Once the baby has been born, the women and doctors mistake Harry for the father. He decides to care for the child and be the dad if the actual dad doesn’t come around. About ten minutes before the end the actual father shows up, acting cartoonishly villainous. The mother asks Harry to fight him for their love. The two fight in a boxing ring. It’s then revealed that it’s a dream and the father’s a nice person. This scene would’ve been better if Harry and the mother showed a bond or connection and if the dream sequence was realistic. What if the dream had the father come in and yell at the mother and maybe hit her? It’s plausible to reality and paints him far more villainous than anything cartoonish could.

While the set up to the ending is poor, the ending itself is very good. Everyone gives a very good performance.

The father and mother collect the mother’s things from the place and prepare to leave with their child. The father gives this crushing line to Harry.

The two drive off as Harry watches, leading to the best looking shot in the film.

Harry wanders around. For no revealed reason, he considers throwing a brick at a window. He doesn’t and goes back home. The film ends.

OVERVIEW

While the ending isn’t perfect, it’s still incredibly, amazingly good. If the whole film was like it, this could’ve been a masterpiece worth coming back to over and over again. Langdon’s acting is so good at the end! Despite these high highs, the low lows plummet this film so deep that I can’t suggest this if you want an enjoyable time. The filler as well as plenty of little stupid moments weigh the picture down. Three’s a Crowd is just not that good.

The Extra Girl (1923) Review

“Man, I’m tired.”

I’ve watched a handful of Mabel Normand films in the past. Now that it’s Christmas time, why not watch a Christmas movie with her? Well, you’ll have to look further. To my misfortune, this has about the most minimum amount of Christmas it can. Just a Christmas tree in the background. There’s also not a compelling story to grab you either.

The acting is average to poor. Admittedly, this kind of film doesn’t often need grand performances. People act naturally, but a few spicy performances always help. An example is some of the parents of the young adult characters. Protagonist, Sue, and her love interest, Dave, want to wed; but their parents don’t want them to. The parents are on autopilot, even in emotional scenes. The acting is still forgivable with the exception of Sue. Mabel Normand has such disinterest on her face. This is especially irritating as her character is supposed to be highly invested in what’s going on. I sometimes saw what looked like her going into boredom.

The movie doesn’t come off like a comedy, more of a drama in that events in the film intend to get emotional responses, however there are gags in the film which very much seem intended to get laughs. Some films that aren’t comedies weave in jokes that make sense for the story, but the jokes here come out of nowhere and then are gone for a while, as if this film was trying to appeal to those that like comedies and those that like dramas. I will admit that some of the gags are good, namely a scene where Sue is in a clothes rack and someone else, not knowing she’s in there, pushes on the end and she falls over in a well performed stunt. Another highlight is people’s comically terrified reaction to a roaming lion. Alright, those performances were good.

The movie shifts drastically halfway through with a new setting. This is fine, but some of what was introduced in the first half of the film, characters and plot points, are dropped. Others are introduced. Some of the previously mentioned parents disappear from the story. An investment seeker is introduced suddenly in the second half of the film out of nowhere.

SPOILERS

One thing that Sue does is run out on her wedding to go to Hollywood. This is never mentioned again. No one brings up the wedding or her fiancé. The plot is now about Hollywood. The man she loves is not too liked by her family, but that also goes away. Close to the end of the film, a man speaks to Sue’s father offering a chance to invest and get a fortune. He does and loses it all. It’s later revealed that the man lied for the money and Sue goes after him. There’s a good scene where she points a gun at him, though it is out of character for her. Eventually, he reveals that the money’s in a couch cushion. Why would the investment seeker tell the truth? More importantly, why introduce this superfluous plot point to the film?!

The Hollywood element is also dropped suddenly. She gets fired from her low-level job and then it’s gone. What’s the point in including her going to Hollywood only for it to go away. The actual meat and potatoes comes from her romance with the male lead, even though there’s not a huge conflict there. She’s told they can’t wed, she runs away, she presumably returns with Dave and they wed. What an out of place conflict!

I bring up that they presumably return to wed as after she gets the money back, there’s a time skip to the two having a son that looks about seven years old. Couldn’t we have seen more? Maybe Dave knows of a way to get money or resources? At least can we see the wedding? This movie skipped its ending to get to the epilogue!

OVERVIEW

This film’s a bit of a wreck. The drama is poor and the characters are two-dimensional. At 67 minutes, it quickly comes and goes without much of an impression. Just like most Mabel Normand films, they feel interchangeable.