Enchantment (1921) Review

Marion looking stylish

Catching this film is a bit funny. I had wanted to review every Taming of the Shrew movie around 2018 and now a TotS film has found me! Enchantment is an adaptation of the Shakespeare classic, though it takes quite a few very large liberties. It does have the shared element of “Taming a Shrew” and there’s even a scene where the main family watches a production of the thing. The film starts strong with Marion Davies as Ethel Hoyt being very selfish and inconsiderate to her family. Davies plays these scenes with confidence and a comedic wink to the audience. She digs into the character and seems to be having fun being so ridiculous. She steals screen time from everyone else and rightfully so. This opening promises a lot of comedic potential as to how she’ll be removed from her high horse.

Featured here is one of the most tragic examples of a problem that plagues many Davies films. A character is introduced to a new situation and instead of taking the time to familiarize the protagonist in the environment with many scenes of development, we time jump to after that, where the characters are just in a different dynamic without ever seeing how. The rest of the film is very shaky because of the time jump. Ethel has certain relationships with characters that feel like the aftermath of development and thus it’s all baseless. It could almost be believed that the film had lost scenes, though that’s not the case. It also has a problem essentially the opposite of a time jump. Like in Buried Treasure, there’s a decent portion of the film focused on something irrelevant to the plot. Treasure’s tangent was more entertaining than the rest, but Enchantment’s isn’t, dragging the pace to a halt.

The other actors are serviceable though not exceptional. Ethel’s parents aren’t even named, to show how cared for they are. One highlight of the secondary cast was when Ethel’s mother had a look of shock on her face. It initially seemed like this would be the best Marion film of the eleven I’ve seen so far thanks to its slightly madcap energy; Ethel having an army of Harvard gentlemen to carry her things; her father asking, “How long since Ethel has been spanked?”, outdated as that is, it gave me a laugh; and two characters making a cruel deal, with cigarettes appearing in their hands between shots, as if to exemplify the unruliness of their actions, though that was probably just a continuity error.

SPOILERS

The film doesn’t care for subtlety. Ethel writes in her diary about how she could get any man very directly. It feels like a description of how she feels about herself, not being written in a way someone would actually write if they were in this situation. Perhaps Davies could deliver them as lines better, but they seem poorly thought out as written text. One moment of Ethel being inconsiderate is when she brings a few of her suitors with her family to see The Taming of the Shrew. Ethel’s dad apparently knows one of the actors in the play, Ernie, and persuades him to make Ethel fall in love with him, only for him to break her heart. Before their conversation ends, the dad reminds Ernie that their plan is just acting and makes him promise he’ll walk out on her… I wonder what’s going to happen?

Another highlight is when Ernie meets Ethel. She acts like she’s too good for him and one ups his attempts to get her interested. Both have amusing facial expressions and body language. This scene is in tandem with being a character moment for Ernie and Ethel, who is trying so hard to seem interesting and uninterested in Ernie. Despite this, she touched up her makeup in preparation of his arrival and doesn’t really act pompous in the way she does here during the rest of the film, being slightly more down to Earth usually. Ernie is shocked that she isn’t already infatuated with him and gets progressively more desperate, giving remarks to try to collapse her fort. Ethel seems honestly disinterested in Ernie. She defeats him so hard that he tells her father that he is giving up. The competition of one-upping each other is ultimately won by Ethel’s father. He tells Ethel she is forbidden from seeing him, and thus she starts dating him.

Ernie and Ethel dating is mostly skipped over. Many moments of the film don’t land at all because the audience doesn’t know much about these two together. One scene features Ethel being loud and inconsiderate at rehearsals for a play, having her friends over and talking to them as others rehearse. Ernie snaps at her. His frustration would come across stronger if there were scenes of Ethel acting like this and him just putting up with it. Admittedly, there was a scene or two of this before they started dating, but not after. More egregiously, Ernie says he’s in love with Ethel in the second-next scene they appear in. There were no moments where they seemed to love each other. It could’ve been so funny and powerful to include them. Ethel is initially pompous, but softens overtime, but will remind herself to be rude. Ernie puts up with it, at first because he agreed to, and then because of those moments when she is genuinely kind. To demonstrate her independence, Ethel brings her friends to the rehearsal to prove a point. Queue the aforementioned scene.

After the rehearsal, the next scene is a lengthy sequence of the play featuring Ethel and Ernie playing out. Nothing of consequence happens until the moment he “breaks her heart”. When they are on-stage and Ethel is playing an unconscious woman, he kisses her without consent. This depresses her and also accomplishes her father’s goal of “taming her”. How did that “tame” her? You’d think that would make her more rowdy, because she was taken advantage of. Ernie returns and reveals her father’s plan to Ethel, who is understandably furious at everyone involved. There’s a nice moment of her yelling at everyone for pulling this whole ploy on her. Having rightfully expressed anger at the injustices that happened to her, Ethel falls to tears. However, when she witnesses Ernie trying to leave, she goes up to him and says he and her father did the right thing and it’s better she was tamed, thus is the “happy ending”. The End. 

Not only is this ridiculously unrealistic, but it plays into the sexism of the time. Thank God that woman is now wife material! Who cares she was emotionally abused and kissed without consent? The Taming of the Shrew ends with Kate comically proclaiming that women should be submissive. If that was intended to be shown here, this film fails. The ending of Shrew could be read as Kate pretending and/or to highlight the absurdity of the perception of women, or any number of things. Here, there’s no wink to the audience or comedy. The movie has to sand off her edges and get her to be “tame” no matter how suddenly it has to happen or how unfortunately its implications are for how one should treat real life women. Ethel tamed over basically nothing and with almost no gradual transition. Also, Ernie sexually assaulted Ethel. That is not a recipe for a likable relationship. If given the ability to change the ending, Ethel would realize that this manipulative behavior is unhealthy and not be part of it. Leave!

OVERVIEW

While the first half of the film can be commended for giving good comedic material to Marion, the poorly landed second half makes the affair unsatisfying, though with some good moments here and there. Those who like silent comedies should give it a watch, despite its flaws. The positives are solid enough to make Enchantment worth your time. Fixing the ending alone would make the film better, so perhaps ignore the tail end. Perhaps a fan editor could scruff up the whole thing.

Beronica Bunko Presents: Odd-Balls

I was off in the Atlantic sailing for buried treasure and little did I know I’d find it. While diving ‘round the water and scavenging nearby caves, I accumulated quite the collection hiding in strange places, possibly by someone’s intention. Thirty-six unloved numbers by a variety of artists, now lovingly compiled for you in this hundred-minute collection. The mix of emotions, to dance, to scream, to cry, to laugh are so overwhelming that many may not be able to handle it, but for those that can… I’ll see you on the other side. And if you enjoy it, and I mean really do, maybe I’ll go back to the Atlantic, or maybe the Pacific.

Getting Mary Married (1919) Review

One of Mary’s dresses

Getting Mary Married is a 1910s romantic comedy and the earliest surviving film starring Marion Davies, unless you count the mostly incomplete The Belle of New York. The film follows various check-boxes of rom-coms of the time. The characters and plot are very basic and predictable, it satisfies what those wanting a romance will want, but without giving much more. Most egregiously, this film is light on comedy to the point that you could get away with just calling it “a romance”. Many rom-coms of the time were more rom than com.

Marion Davies usually delights in her movies, even when the film itself is bad. Here she is phoning it in. She stands around looking pretty, letting other people give stronger and more emotional performances. There’s a certain life a good actor can add, throwing creases on your face and putting your body in your performance. Davies is just there, performing her lines without a sense of who her character is or life behind the eyes. While there’s no diamond in the ruff, there are some pretty rocks that can make the experience more bearable. Davies’ character Mary plays with her dog and lightly picks on some people who are mean to her. These are just a few small moments, but they’re still nice.

Most of the acting here is a little more fleshed out. Mary’s step-relatives are one note, having more or less one trait, being self-centered and villainous. One moment of her uncle, Amos, being distraught shows him amusingly overacting. Glad to know his actor is more invested here. He and the other antagonists serviceably are what they need to be. Norman Kerry as James Winthrop is the handsome leading man type. The best performance in the film is by Matt Moore as Ted Barnacle. You know he’s the highlight when his name is “Mr. Barnacle”. He runs around with a smile on his face, aiding James while also being obnoxious and unlikeable to him for no reason. He says inappropriate comments in dramatic situations with the presence to suggest he’s trying to steal the movie, not that that’s particularly difficult.

Some funny lines of dialogue come when one character trying to sound smart says, “They destroy the precious carbon dioxide, which we need for cerebral stimulation.” At another point, a character compliments another, but finishes the line as an insult in their head, “You’ve a lovely voice… for selling fish.”, which is honestly a great insult that should be adopted in the 2020s vernacular.

There’s a lot of intertitles which tell instead of show. You can’t get invested because we don’t see much characterization. As an example, the intertitles tell us that Mary’s lonely. Instead of telling us this, what if we saw her look at a group of people being happy and she looks away sad or she asks for mail and is told there’s none for her? Her father, John Bussard, is said to be unkind. The intertitles for that weren’t even needed because we could see that he’s unkind.

SPOILERS

John Bussard amusingly dies by falling down an elevator shaft. His death comes out of nowhere; he just walks to the elevator without paying attention to his surroundings and that’s it. No one even cares that he’s dead. Do what Brewster’s Millions does and start the movie with the protagonist learning of a relative’s death instead of wasting time introducing us to him. John’s will reveals that Mary can have his fortune if she lives with his brother for a year and also not marry in that time. If she fails this, Amos gets the money. If John Bussard is so bad, why did he write Mary in the will in the first place? Davies playing kind and honest people is demonstrated in this movie when she says she doesn’t care about the money by a man giving her that information. When a helpless-looking woman reveals to her that John swindled money from her and is now broke, Mary accepts the money so she can help the woman.

Here, Mary could’ve just said, “I will live with my uncle” and move on, but the scene is drawn out. She asks if her father really did this, she’s told yes, she says she will repay them, she’s told with what money, “With my money”, “You can’t do that, Miss Mary. You have nothing unless you fulfill the conditions of the will”, [We already know that], she consoles the woman, is asked what she’s going to do, and replies, “I am going to go through with the conditions of that will.” Who knows why this simple scene was dragged out with excessive and long dialogue? Did the editor go on strike?

The will stipulating Mary won’t get the money if she marries is only for the plot. There’s no reason for this in-universe. Why would her step-father care? Mary and James fall for each other but can’t marry due to the will. They haven’t known each other very long. So many older movies feature characters who don’t know each other well rushing to the altar. Was this actually common at the time or was it made up for movies? Its lack of realism, at least by modern standards, make the romance more absurd and less believable. 1940’s The Philadelphia Story parodies this trope to great effect, so at least someone thought it was odd.

Throughout the film, Mary had been going out with Ted, though in actuality he was taking her to meet James. Amos manipulates her by saying she has given herself a bad reputation by going out with a man she’s not married to without a chaperone and thus she must marry Ted to redeem herself. To a modern eye, this is absolutely ridiculous, but odds are that sort of thing might have happened back then. It’s unnerving how regressive people can be. If Mary did marry Ted, she’d probably have a miserable and unhappy marriage just so Amos can get money. Ted even jumps at the opportunity to marry a woman he knows doesn’t love him and wasn’t even going out with. James for no reason is invited to the wedding, stopping it once he arrives. Why was he invited in the first place? Even if no one knew he was dating Mary, when he visited the household he would ask about her, thus showing an interest. When Amos goes broke, he amusingly shouts, “Work! Work!!” Capitalism strikes again.

OVERVIEW

This film is so minor and inconsequential that it’s hard to dislike. It shows up for sixty-five minutes and then it’s over. Nothing is offensive and nothing is stellar. It can only be recommended for people who like very typical 1910s romance films or Marion Davies, as long as they can forgive her underwhelming performance. At least her dress at the end kills.

Just a nice picture