"He went for a little walk! You should have seen his face!"

Happy Halloween. The last major Universal horror picture produced in the 1930s and 40s that I have not discussed is The Mummy (1932). It has become the most successful modern franchise as the Brendan Frazier remake and sequels have been huge hits in the late-90s and early-00s.

The Mummy was the first classic horror picture from Universal that was not based on a book, or even a myth for that matter. Egypt and mummies have always fascinated the Western world. For many centuries the tombs have been dug up in the name of science or looted in the name of greed. In 1922 the tomb of King Tut was uncovered. This sparked a new wave of interest in Egyptology.

The interest in Egypt was still strong a decade later when Carl Laemmele Jr. decided to add another monster to the Universal rogues gallery. He commissioned some writers to find a novel about something scary in ancient Egypt. There was no such book in print, so Laemmele had the writers come up with an original story.

Like most things in Hollywood, the writing process was long and took a number of writers to accomplish. But when it was all finished, Laemmele had his mummy story. John L. Balderston was a writer involved with the project. He had also received writing credits on Dracula (1931) and Frankenstein (1931). He also covered the discovery of King Tut’s tomb for the “New York World” in 1922. So he was somewhat familiar with Egypt and its ancient traditions. He was sure familiar with the excitement and tragedy surrounding the opening of a tomb.

Karl Freund was brought in to direct. He had been cinematographer on Dracula. Jack Pierce once again did the make-up. This was a much more challenging role for him, at least during the beginning scenes when Boris Karloff is covered in bandages and his skin is so wrinkled with age. Karloff was the mummy of course and he had to endure more long hours in the make-up chair. He is great in this movie as he was in Frankenstein.

There isn’t much else that can be said about The Mummy that hasn’t been said about the other Universal movies. It is more interesting than scary. Eerie in places, comical in others to today’s audiences. Still, it is worthwhile to watch, especially on Halloween night.

"Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright."

Unlike Frankenstein, Dracula and The Invisible Man, The Wolf Man (1941) was not based on any book. The roots of Curt Siodmak’s screenplay come from folklore. Just like vampires, a person turning into wolves was, and still is, a popular legend in central and Eastern Europe. From these legends, Siodmak wrote the screenplay for The Wolf Man.

To be accurate, it should be noted that The Wolf Man was not the first werewolf movie to make it onto the movie screen. In 1935, Universal made the Werewolf of London. Unlike Nosferatu (1922), the first incarnation of the Dracula myth on the screen, Werewolf of London was not successful at all. So what changed this time?

Typically the tastes of an audience are a big reason why a particular movie fails. But Universal released the first werewolf tale during their first string of classic horror pictures. Dracula and Frankenstein had been made four years before, The Mummy just three and The Invisible Man two. By the time The Wolf Man was released, all of Universal’s major monsters were running out of sequels. Perhaps adding a new monster, the werewolf, to enhance the stale sequels of Universal is a reason for the success of the second foray into werewolf land.

Another major reason for the success of the movie was the inclusion of a star and a well-known, yet less established, name. Claude Rains got the role of Sir John Talbot. He demanded he get top billing and a nice addition to his bank account in return for his services. The people at Universal agreed to Rains’ terms and they were rewarded with a solid performance, but more importantly, a big name.

Another big name in horror movies was Lon Chaney. Chaney was a tremendous talent with make-up during the silent era. His Quasimodo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923) and his Phantom from The Phantom of the Opera (1925) are still capable of sending chills up the spins of audience members. He had a son named Creighton, better known as Lon Chaney Jr. For the most part, Chaney Jr. had an unspectacular film career up to 1941. He was not in the same league as his father.

In 1939 he got the role of Lennie in Of Mice and Men. He was critically acclaimed. He had his big break and Universal didn’t feel as if it was much of a risk to cast him as Larry Talbot in The Wolf Man. Chaney Jr. would go on to play the werewolf role in the sequels Universal made. He also got to play many of the other horror monsters in the long string of sequels.

The supporting cast is stellar in this movie. Bela Lugosi plays Bela, the fortune teller and first werewolf. Evelyn Ankers is good in the female lead. Maria Ouspenskaya is brilliant as a gypsy. It seems odd watching the movie today and seeing gypsies in it. There just aren’t that many gypsies in today’s world.

It would be hard to remake this movie today because of the relative lack of belief today’s audiences have regarding gypsies. But that doesn’t stop Hollywood, because a remake has been announced. The movie is expected to be released in 2009, probably around this time.

Much like the remake of King Kong (1933), I expect this remake to upgrade the special effects of the movie, but completely miss the boat when it comes to the story. That is what typically happens in today’s Hollywood. Jack Pierce was in charge of the special effects on this movie. He did a great job turning Lon Chaney Jr.’s body into a wolf’s. The costume worn by Chaney was made of yak hair. It took him hours of make-up each day to pull off the look. You have to hand it to people like Jack Pierce who were talented enough to make a believable costume without the aide of computers. It is unfortunate that today’s filmmakers are too lazy to figure out creative ways to deal with similar problems. They just hand their problems off to computer geeks who CGI it all.

"The whole world's my hiding place!"

Yesterday I mentioned that I preferred the movie version of Frankenstein to the book because the movie shows me the steps Dr. Frankenstein went through to create his monster. Today’s movie is the exact opposite of this. I prefer the book to the movie.

Motion pictures are aptly named. They rely almost completely on sight for a moviegoer to understand the story. So when your title character happens to be invisible -- things might not be too good for the movie. That is the case with The Invisible Man (1933), another Universal horror movie directed by James Whale.

The book by H.G. Wells is much better than the movie. One of the biggest differences between a book and a movie is that in a book you can get inside a character’s head easily. This has to happen when your character spends the majority of his time being invisible. Even third person narration allows the reader to “see” where the invisible man is going because of the words written by the author. These are not present in the movie. All we see are footprints in the snow or indentions in the carpet. It is hard to see where the invisible man is – obviously.

The movie is good in that it visualizes the fantasy of being invisible. This is a fantasy that everyone has had at some point in their life. Beginning with the innocence of reeking havoc on a small village through bottles being thrown across the room and bicycles being peddled by no apparent person. Then the fantasy turns dangerous as Dr. Jack Griffith, our invisible man, begins plotting a race of super-humans who are invisible and unstoppable by armies or police.

The Invisible Man also stands out because it is the first screen appearance of Claude Rains. The famed character actor got a staring role here. He would also appear in another Universal horror picture, The Wolf Man (1941). He was cast as Dr. Griffith, not because of his ability to act, but because of his voice. He is only clearly seen at the end of the movie when the invisible man becomes visible.

Rains had been injured by mustard gas in World War I. Because of this, he was nearly blind in one eye. His injuries didn’t help him act at first. He had made a screen test that was viewed by the people at Universal. Everyone there agreed that Rains couldn’t act, but James Whale insisted on using him. Rains’ unique voice was the reason Whale citied.

Rains got the part. His voice became the star. The bandages that he wore must have helped his acting because he would go on to have a long and distinguished Hollywood acting career that spanned four decades.

Although the movie is very similar to the book, much to the delight of H.G. Wells, there are some differences. In the novel, Griffith was portrayed as a mad scientist from the beginning with no regrets. He is not completely mad in the movie. It is a decent into madness, as mentioned above, that transcends the innocent scientific reasons for invisibility and turns them into vicious motives for murder. The other major, although certainly acceptable, difference between the book and the movie is the book takes place in the 1890s, while the movie occurs in 1933. Nothing wrong with the modernization of the story.

The Invisible Man is a pretty faithful adaptation of the hit novel. It is also the first starring role for Claude Rains. For these reasons, and the fact that everyone has had the fantasy of being invisible, this movie is well worth watching.

"It's alive, it's moving, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, IT'S ALIVE!"

I haven’t gotten through all the Humphrey Bogart movies yet, but since Friday is Halloween, I thought I’d take a break and discuss some of the classic Universal horror pictures.

I have already discussed Dracula (1931). Another movie was released in 1931 and like Dracula it is more interesting than scary to watch. Frankenstein (1931) redefined the Frankenstein monster created by Mary Shelley in 1818. Today, the monster is called Frankenstein and he is portrayed as a dangerous mute.

Personally, I like the movie much more than the book. I wouldn’t say it is better than the book, it is just that when scientific things are discussed, I’d rather see them to believe them, rather than be told that these processes actually can happen. In the movie I can see the monster being made and the steps taken by Dr. Frankenstein to create him. In the book, this is not really present.

Of course the biggest reason why I prefer the movie to the book is probably because I had seen the movie before reading the book. The movie is so ingrained in our culture that when I read the book, I had a hard time believing the two were the same story. Why is this? Why has the Frankenstein monster, or creature as Boris Karloff liked it to be called, been associated more with the movie than the book? As mentioned in the previous sentence, Boris Karloff might be a big reason.

Karloff is known today for his horror roles. He played characters in horror movies and horror spoofs throughout his career. There are not many well-known movies in which he doesn’t appear in either of these roles, one exception is Scarface (1932). He is masterful here as the creature. Like the previous king of the horror movie, Lon Chaney, Karloff had the perfect bone structure for make-up. He could transform his face easily. This is one of the reasons why his portrayal is so successful. He looks scary. If you can get a monster to look scary, there isn’t much more that needs to be done.

The role was hard on Karloff. He ended up needing a couple back surgeries throughout the rest of his life because of damage done to it during the filming of this movie. He wore all black when the crew was filming outdoors in 90 degree heat. He had to arrive hours early each day to have make-up applied to his face. He then had to wait around after the long shooting day to have the make-up removed. It is all worth it though. His portrayal of the creature has lasted over 75 years and shows no signs of slowing down. His effect on popular culture is the same as Bela Lugosi’s Count Dracula.

Frankenstein was directed by James Whale and starred Colin Clive as Dr. Frankenstein. Whale was a talented director and gave the movie its great atmosphere. The atmosphere is still present in the movie after 75 years. This is another reason why Frankenstein is still a nice movie to watch – the atmosphere is eerie. Whale used some German expressionistic techniques in this movie. It would become a staple of the horror film at Universal. It would also be a staple of film noir in the 1940s. Darkness and long shadows along with rain and nighttime are hallmarks of the German expressionism technique. Whale and Clive are mentioned in the same paragraph because they each met tragic ends. Whale committed suicide. Clive died when he was 37.

Colin Clive and James Whale are probably only remembered because of their work on Frankenstein and The Bride of Frankenstein (1935). Clive was a great Dr. Frankenstein. Unlike the doctor in the book, Clive’s has a sense of madness about him. You know anyone who would attempt to recreate life has something missing upstairs, but you never really felt that in the book. Here we see Clive descend into madness. He is obsessed with finishing his project, that was never the case with Dr. Frankenstein in Miss Shelley’s book. Unfortunately, the actor’s life mirrored the doctor’s. Clive descended into his own sort of madness, becoming an alcoholic and dieing of pneumonia because of his chronic alcoholism in 1937.

Despite what might have happened to its cast and crew members after making it, Frankenstein remains relevant over 75 years after its initial release. It is not scary, but it is still worth watching, just so you can see where all the popular culture references come from. Jack Pierce, who did make-up on the movie, needs to be mentioned. He did a fantastic job on all of the Universal horror movies, but his job with Boris Karloff here is special. Also Dwight Frye and Edward Van Sloan make appearances here. They had been members of the Dracula cast.

"I have a feeling this is going to be the beginning of a beautiful hatred."

Humphrey Bogart and Barbara Stanwyck were two huge movie stars. They also happened to be under contract to Warner Brothers for many years. It is amazing that they only made one movie together. That being The Two Mrs. Carrolls (1947).

The movie has been dismissed by most critics. Bogie plays a painter who lives in England. He doesn’t even try to use an English accent. Neither does his creepy daughter from his first wife or his new wife, played by Barbara Stanwyck. Basically they are act American because that is what their audience expects them to be and the setting was moved to England because the director thought the scenery would go better with the story.

Basically the story involves Bogie painting his wives as the Angel of Death before killing them with a glass of warm milk. Suspicion (1941) this is not. It is not as good as the Hitchcock movie, but for someone who is a fan of Bogie and Stanwyck, this does not matter.

Bogie has a wife in the city. He also has a daughter, but he has fallen for a rich woman from the country played by Stanwyck. So Bogie paints the first Mrs. Carroll as the Angel of Death and then kills her. He takes himself and his daughter to the countryside where they are to live happily ever after. That is, until Bogie gets other ideas about the new Mrs. Carroll. She seems to have the hots for one of her former childhood friends. Bogie doesn’t like this and he doesn’t like him. Unlike in future roles, for instance The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) or The Caine Mutiny (1954), we don’t see the slow decent into madness. This might be why those two movies are superior to this one. But really if the man will kill his first wife -- he is probably already mad, so there would be nothing to descend into.

I have always been a fan of Barbara Stanwyck. She could be tough in movies, Double Indemnity (1944), but she could also be sexy, The Lady Eve (1941). Through it all though, it seemed like she always played a conniving woman. Here she doesn’t do that. She is the loving housewife and is actually pretty stale when you compare her character here to the other ones of her career. It doesn’t matter; it is still Barbara Stanwyck and Humphrey Bogart on the screen together for their only time.

Watching this makes me think of what might have been. Stanwyck and Bogie would have made a great team in a real film noir. Instead of putting murder in the countryside among the rich, they would have been a lot more successful playing characters in the dark alleys of any major American city.

The typical Stanwyck character would have meshed well with the typical Bogie character. Both were smart, witty and pigheaded. We see none of that here. It is a huge disappointment considering the talent of each actor.

Of course it could have been worse. The two might never have made a movie. There were many talented people in Hollywood’s Golden Age who were at the same studio, but were never assigned to the same picture. Alfred Hitchcock is my favorite director. He once remarked that he enjoyed the subtle acting style present in actors like Humphrey Bogart. The two were at Warner Brothers during the same time period. Even if they weren’t, the two could have come together through another studio as each was big enough to dictate some terms of the movies they made. I don’t know if Bogie and Hitch would have gotten along. But I do know that the two had enough box office draw to make whatever they produced a success. Bogie could have been the perfect foil to James Stewart or Cary Grant in a Hitchcock picture. It just was never to be.

At least film fans get to see Bogie and Stanwyck on the screen together, even if they have not been cast to their strengths.

"It's a blue, sick world, Rip."

After finishing the huge hit, The Big Sleep (1946), Humphrey Bogart went to work on an undistinguished pictured called Dead Reckoning (1947). Like many Hollywood Golden Age stars, this would be a common theme of Bogie’s career. Making one outstanding picture, but then following it up with one or two that had stories and directors below his talent level.

With actors not being able to choose which movies they could appear in, the studios controlled an actor’s career. This is one of the main reasons why the studio system was abolished. Today, modern stars have the ability to choose which movies they want to appear in. If they decide to act in a movie that is below their talents, then that is a decision they can make. People like Bogart never had that option.

At this point in his career, Bogie had script approval. He also had a deal where he could movies with other companies outside of Warner Brothers. Now, if Warners gave Bogie a script and he rejected it, he could be suspended without pay. He would be out of a job until Warners came up with a new story for him, or if he decided to make the original movie he was offered. Also Warners had the ability to override any other studios commitment to Bogie. If they wanted him to play a role in their own movie, he couldn’t go to Columbia and make a picture. So the actor had very little power in the days of the studios. Of course there were many advantages to the studio system, but that can be saved for another day.

In Dead Reckoning, Bogie plays Captain Rip Murdock, who is about to be rewarded with the Distinguished Service Cross. He is on a train with Sergeant Johnny Drake, William Prince, who is supposed to receive the Medal of Honor. On their trip to Washington, Drake disappears.

Being the smart military man that he is, Bogie tracks Drake to Gulf City, FL. Here he finds out that Drake has been killed -- incinerated in a car. In Florida we learn that Drake had joined the Army under an assumed name. He had to change his name because he had murdered a rich man. He had been in love with the rich man’s wife, Dusty, played by Lizabeth Scott. When he was set to receive the Medal of Honor, people in Gulf City would know that he was not who he claimed to be and the whole situation would blow up in his face so to speak.

So Bogie teams up with Coral to find out who was behind the Drake murder. A little hint for you all, film noir has an archetypical bad person. We all have The Maltese Falcon (1941) to thank for introducing this archetype into the culture.

This is a standard film noir. It has an interesting twist with the murdered person being a Medal of Honor recipient, but I would think the rise and fall of Drake would make for a better story than having Bogie run around Florida looking for Drake’s killer.

Florida has changed a great deal since this movie was made. There really is no other reason to watch the movie but to see the vast difference in the state. Of course if you are a film noir or Bogie fan, it still might be worth the watch.

"You're not very tall are you?"

One of my favorite authors is Raymond Chandler. His most famous character is Phillip Marlowe. As great as the Chandler novels and stories involving Marlowe are, he is only remembered because of Humphrey Bogart’s characterization in The Big Sleep (1946).

Like The Maltese Falcon, this private eye seems to have been written with Bogie in mind. Marlowe is every bit as tough, shrewd and cynical as Sam Spade. Really the only differences between them are that Marlowe lives in Los Angeles and tackles those in high society, while Spade maneuvers around San Francisco and his cases revolve around less well-off people. Marlowe also carries a gun. Spade does not.

Although the book of The Big Sleep is better than the book, the same can’t be said of The Maltese Falcon, this is still a great movie. It might not have pioneered the genre of film noir or introduced the world to the direction of John Huston or the acting of Sydney Greenstreet, but The Big Sleep has plenty going for it.

It is much funnier than The Maltese Falcon, which is one of the reasons why I prefer Raymond Chandler to Dashiell Hammett, at least in regards to the Marlowe and Spade stories each wrote. The Big Sleep also has an adult plot, albeit one that is convoluted. This one involves sex and drugs; The Maltese Falcon was about jewels. The book is easier to follow than the movie, but that doesn’t seem to matter.

In The Big Sleep, the audience goes on the ride that Bogie and Lauren Bacall take us. All we know is Bogie has been hired by a rich man to figure out why he is being blackmailed by someone because of his daughter doing something wild. From there we meet the two daughters of old Mr. Sternwood. Lauren Bacall is Vivian, Mr. Sternwood’s oldest daughter who has already lost her husband. He ran out some time ago. The movie really doesn’t explore why, but the book does.

The part of Carmen Sternwood fell to Martha Vickers. She was so good in her role that Warner Brothers had to re-shoot some of the movie in order to beef up star Lauren Bacall’s part. The re-shot version is the one that was distributed to everyone in 1946. The original version has only recently been released. Bacall plays a larger role in the 1946 release version and because of this; it has become a film classic. The other version was good, but Warner Brothers made the right call when they released the re-shot version.

So basically Bogie as Marlowe is on a case to figure out why there is blackmail going on. The blackmailer gets shot, so the Sternwood family tells Marlowe to leave the case. He can’t he says, because he has fallen for Vivian. This is about as far as I will take the plot summery because I would hate to ruin the ending. I would also hate trying to figure out all the twists in the plot. Just watch the movie and enjoy the quality acting and chemistry of Bogie and Bacall.

This movie was also directed by Howard Hawks. His touches are present in the movie, as he was an extremely talented slapstick director. He does well with the one-liners that were provided by Raymond Chandler in the book, but he also adds some more of his own.

Arthur C. Clarke said about 2001: A Space Odyssey: to watch the movie and then read the book. Then watch the movie again and read the book again to make sure that you understand everything. That advice would work with The Big Sleep. The movie is great and contains most of the plot of the book, but the book is better and explains more. Everything is tied up into a little bow at the end of each, but, to me, the book does a better job of this. This is also the best movie made from a Raymond Chandler book. Just another reason to watch.

"Was you ever bit by a dead bee?"

To Have and Have Not (1944) is a movie that needs to be watched multiple times. On the first watch it seems like an imitation of Casablanca (1942). Humphrey Bogart is an American in a foreign land. There is a pro-Vichy element in the government that is trying to stop a freedom fighter from starting a revolution. Bogie has to wrestle with the decision of whether he should join the fight of the rebels or remain on the sidelines. Like Rick, Bogie’s Harry ‘Steve’ Morgan makes the jump into the game on the side of the rebels.

Now this story is nice and everything, but what really makes this movie memorable is the chemistry between Bogie and the 19-year-old, Lauren Bacall, who is making her film debut here. The chemistry between them is tremendous. In later years Bogie would remark that the most fun of his life came during the making of this movie because he spent all the time he had off the set trying to impress Bacall, while trying to keep his relationship with her secret from his wife, Mayo Methot.

As much as Methot might object, there is no doubt that the two had a chemistry together. They became the Brad and Angelina of the 1940s. The power of the couple isn’t just something created by Hollywood hype, they were actually very talented actors. It is most prevalent here. In her first scene with Bogie in Bogie’s apartment, Bacall goes toe-to-toe with the veteran actor who had been nominated for an Academy Award two years earlier. Not many rookie actors could have handled it like she did.

The story of how the movie got made and how Bacall was involved and what other big names were involved make this one of the richest movies for film historians. Ernest Hemingway, who created Bogie like characters in his stories, wrote the novel To Have and Have Not in 1937. It is not one of his best, and he admitted that. In fact, when it was announced that the movie was going to be made and Bogie was going to star in it, he was disappointed. He felt there could have been better stories of his turned into movies and that Bogie could have been a better character than his Henry Morgan. Not much was used from Hemingway’s novel though for the film. Howard Hawks made sure only the best elements of the rambling novel were included in the movie. He constructed the rest with a little help from another well known author, William Faulkner.

I have gotten a bit ahead of myself. Warner Brothers was not the first studio to own the rights to To Have and Have Not. Those were bought by Howard Hughes, the eccentric American businessman. He couldn’t get the movie made so he agreed to sell the rights to Howard Hawks. Hawks had a protégée named Betty Bacall, who he wanted to start in movies. He had a property he could build on and just needed a studio. He took the idea to Warner Brothers and they accepted. Bogie was cast as the Hemingway hero Harry Morgan. Hawks changed Bacall's name to Lauren, as she hated the name Betty, and then went to work on the story with various writers including opposites Hemingway and Faulkner.

The end result is a great movie and one of the best first appearances in movies by a new actress in Bacall. The two characters of Bogie and Bacall call each other Steve and Slim. Steve was the nickname Howard Hawks’ wife called him. Hawks called her Slim.

The assortment of talent and big names who were involved in this movie make it a classic. It is a foreshadowing of the three other movies Bogie and Bacall appeared in together. They have a Spencer Tracy-Katherine Hepburn type chemistry here, except it has a deep vein of cynicism under the love. Walter Brennan is tremendous as Bogie's hard-drinking sidekick.

Capitalizing on Casablanca

Flashbacks are considered to be cheap gimmicks in screenwriting. In modern movies there the technique is rarely applied. But in the movies of classic Hollywood, the flashback was an effective storytelling technique. One that some writers and producers fell too much in love with. A movie that employs the flashback to death is Passage to Marseille (1944).

The story begins with Claude Rains showing a group of English reporters around the English countryside. Or at least what looks like the English countryside during the day. At night all the livestock, hay and shrubbery is moved to create a miniature airbase in which Free French fighters fly missions to defeat the Nazis. Of course the reporters want to know how this all started and who is involved. So Rains starts off in flashback.

We are taken to a passenger ship in which Rains is traveling. Another traveler on the ship is the Pro-Vichy Major Duval, played by Sydney Greenstreet. On the way the ship picks up five convicts who have escaped from the French prison colony at Cayenne. Of course everyone knows they are dangerous criminals and Greenstreet is opposed to allowing them on. Rains says they should listen to the stories of the prisoners and if they are alright then they should be kept on.

So we go to another flashback. Each prisoner gets his story told. We learn that all the prisoners have special skills and because of those special skills they were able to escape the colony.

The star of the movie is Humphrey Bogart, so his story is told in the most detail. It is also told in flashback, but not by Bogie himself. It is the Peter Lorre character, Marius, who does the honors. We learn that Bogie ran a small newspaper that was anti-Nazi. When the Nazi’s invaded France the Vichy government cracked down on all opposition. So the paper run by Bogie was shut down and Bogie was framed for murder. He was sent to the prison colony at Cayenne. He had been well known in Paris and was well respected in the colony.

As we return from this flashback we are back on the ship. The ship is raided from the air by German planes. Of course Greenstreet is happy about this, but Bogie and friends come to the rescue of the ship. They shoot down the Nazi plane and Greenstreet. Everything seems great as we return to the present and Rains says the flyers are due to land soon.

When the reporters arrive, every plane has come in except for Bogie’s. The plane has been shot at and labors to the ground. There the pilot gets out, but not Bogie. Bogie has died and everyone becomes sad. The movie ends with Rains giving a patriotic eulogy.

What is more interesting than this movie is the story behind it. Of course having Claude Rains, Humphrey Bogart, Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre in the movie mean that Warner Brothers wanted to capture the chemistry of Casablanca (1942). Hal B. Wallis was brought in to produce. Michael Curtiz was brought in to direct. The costumes and lighting were done by the same people who worked on Casablanca. This movie doesn’t work though because the story is nowhere near as good as that of Casablanca.

Politics at the studio was also involved. Wallis and Jack L. Warner were on bad terms after the Casablanca episode described in one of my earlier posts. Wallis had a deal where he could produce any story he wanted and have full control over that production. He wanted to do Passage to Marseille with Humphrey Bogart. Bogie said alright, but Warner wanted him to do Conflict (1945) before that. Bogie didn’t want to do it. After threatening their biggest star and using him as a pawn in their own political game, it took death for Bogie to accept Warner’s movie.

Leslie Howard was a huge influence on Bogie. Bogie credited him for giving him the chance to break into movies. The two actors had the utmost respect for each other and kept in frequent contact. One day in 1943, on his way home from Lisbon, Howard’s plane was shot down. Everyone aboard died. Through the death of his friend, Bogie learned that movies are just movies and anyone is fine. He accepted his roles in Conflict and Passage to Marseille and did the best he could with those characters.

Stuck in the desert

For me, the movie Sahara (1943) is similar to Lifeboat (1944). The two deal with being stranded in World War II. Obviously one is in the North African desert, while the other is in the Atlantic Ocean. In Sahara the only thing the characters have is a tank. In Lifeboat it is the boat. In both a group of allies: American, English and French are introduced to a German who needs to be rescued. In Sahara the German has been shot down by the tank commanded by Sergeant Joe Gunn, played by Humphrey Bogart. The Allies discuss among themselves about whether or not to accept the German prisoner. Despite Bogie’s wishes, it is decided that the German will be kept. In Lifeboat the characters encounter a German who has been shipwrecked, much like themselves, and decide to bring him on.

Now the two have tensions between the Axis powers and the Allied powers, but they become different near the middle. In Lifeboat, the German actually helps rescue them as he is the only one with capable seamanship. Later on, he is found to be sneaking water when everyone else thought there was none left. Because of this, he is thrown overboard. Alfred Hitchcock was sharply criticized by reviewers for painting what they thought was a sympathetic picture of the Germans. They felt that the murder had made the German officer a martyr.

On the other hand, Sahara descends into something else. Something lesser than that of Lifeboat. In the quest for water, Bogie and Co. are shown to what becomes a miniature Alamo. This oasis provides the company with water and shelter during a sandstorm. When the storm is over they learn that a company of Germans is headed their way, looking for water and shelter. Of course they have their own natives with them, so they know about the oasis.

As I mentioned above, it becomes a bit like the Alamo. The small band of Allies stands up to the German company. In the end, the Allies suffer many losses, but they are successful in driving the German’s away from water and shelter. This is thanks to the great ingenuity of the American spirit, according to the movie.

Sahara is not a particularly great movie. It does however, depict perfectly the amount of propaganda present in American movies of the World War II time period. Because of this it is still worth the watch.

A little side note on the production: this movie was filmed in the desert just outside of San Diego in the winter. The temperatures were in the mid-90s during the time of production. It seems like a believable substitute for the real Sahara.

Also, Bruce Bennett, who played Waco Hoyt, had a college degree from the University of Washington. In Hollywood a college graduate actor was and still is a rarity. To make him even more different than the typical actor, he was also a champion athlete. He won the silver medal in the shot put at the 1928 Olympics. He doesn’t give a bad performance for being someone who is in movies as a second career.

"Here's looking at you, kid."

Perfection. It is what we all strive for. It is what movies want to be. There are only a handful that can claim to have perfected an aspect of the filmmaking process. There has never been a perfect movie that features a perfect cast, a perfect story, perfect cinematography, perfect realism, perfect director and perfect editing. If it were easy, then there would be no point in striving for perfection. Casablanca (1942) has two perfect elements. It has the perfect cast and the perfect story.

The American Film Institute voted in 1999 on the best screenplays ever written. Casablanca, written by the Twins (Julius J. and Philip G. Epstein) and Howard Koch, was voted the best story ever. It is hard to disagree with the Institute. If you want comedy, it is here. If you want romance, Rick and Ilsa have it. Danger: how about a Resistance fighter in the midst of Nazis. Twists: for those who have never seen the movie, the point when Rick pulls the gun is shocking. All these elements are wrapped up in a convincing drama about the struggles of three little people whose problems do add up to more than a hill of beans in this world.

The casting is probably the greatest in the history of movies. There have been rumors that a remake would be in the process, but even if they kept the same story, the acting would not be superior in this new movie. Much like in the remake of Psycho (1998) that followed the story and most of the shots exactly. The acting just isn’t as good in today’s Hollywood as it was during the Golden Age.

Playing the role of the lost soul Rick Blaine is Humphrey Bogart. Bogie could be tough, he played numerous gangster roles, and he could be witty with the one-liners, see Sam Spade. He was perfectly cast as Rick. Being the romantic lead was something new for him. He didn’t have to be the suave lover in this movie though. He just had to play a man who had a broken heart. Nothing we all haven’t gone through.

Ingrid Bergman is the elegant Ilsa Lund. Miss Bergman did not want the role in this movie, but she would not have gotten the role she wanted in For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943) had she not agreed to play in Casablanca. She excels as “the most beautiful woman in Europe.”

In the case of Ingrid Bergman, and many of the others in the cast, the new Hollywood movie would never work because Casablanca featured many actual European actors. It was not a stretch for Bergman to play a beautiful woman from Europe, because that is what she was.

Claude Rains as Louie can not be improved upon. Rains was an accomplished character actor who even starred in some Universal horror pictures. Sydney Greenstreet was great as Senor Farrari, as was Peter Lorre as Ugarte. If there is one criticism of the screenplay, it is that these two actors were not seen more. Greenstreet was an accomplished Shakespearian actor. Lorre had starred as the evil Hans Beckert in Fritz Lang’s M (1931).

Another immigrant from Germany who excels is Conrad Veidt, who plays Major Strasser. Other immigrants who fled from Nazi occupation include S.Z. Sakall, Leonid Kinsky and Madeleine LeBeau. You see this is such a perfect movie because it was made at the perfect time. Those actors who were playing characters trying to flee the Nazis had already gone through the pain of leaving Europe for America. They knew what their characters were feeling. That would not be present in a remake, thank goodness!

Casablanca would not be the same without the wonderful performances from Paul Heinreid as Victor Laszlo and of course Rick’s would never be the same without Dooley Wilson playing Sam.

The movie should be watched by everyone. The story has been imitated many times and the lines have become commonplace in our culture. The stories surrounding the making of the movie are interesting as well and could fill up a whole book. In fact there was a book about the making of Casablanca, ironically called “The Making of Casablanca.”

One thing that might not be known is what happened after the movie was released and became a huge success. On Oscar night the movie won for best picture. Typically the producer of the movie accepted on behalf of the studio they worked for. But in this case Jack L. Warner and Hal B. Wallis were not on the best of terms because Wallis had a deal with Warner Brothers in which he could personally oversee the production of a specific movie. One of those was Casablanca. So when the movie won for best picture, Warner and Wallis each got up to accept the award. Warner was the quicker to the podium though and took all the credit for the picture’s success. This of course finalized the breaking of the relationship between Warner and Wallis. Because this happened, now every best picture award is accepted by the producer only.

"Any of your friends in Tokyo have trouble committing hari-kiri, those boys'd be glad to help them out."

When The Maltese Falcon (1941) became a huge success, Warner Brothers did what every movie studio in the past and present have done after a successful movie – tried to make a sequel. The sequel to The Maltese Falcon was supposed to have Humphrey Bogart return as Sam Spade with Mary Astor and Sydney Greenstreet making appearances as well. Unfortunately, the writers couldn’t come up with a good story for Spade and the idea was dropped.

Instead, it was replaced with a new story involving new characters, but the same actors. This movie would become Across the Pacific (1942). It is a war movie starring Bogie, Astor and Greenstreet. John Huston was signed on to direct and Peter Lorre even made an appearance on the set when the movie was shooting. It was a lot like the mean streets of San Francisco that were explored in the Falcon, except this time the major players were on a boat.

The original idea for the story, thought of in the late fall of 1941, was to involve a Japanese strike the U.S. forces located at Pearl Harbor. Of course Bogart was going to save the day just before the Japanese attack. A thing called history interfered with this storyline when the Japanese in fact attacked the American forces on December 7. Since the story’s location had to be changed, but not much else, the scriptwriters decided on the Panama Canal. Bogie famously remarked that production of the picture should begin as soon as possible “while we still have the Canal.”

With World War II many in Hollywood enlisted in the military. Bogart was not one of them. He had served at the end of World War I and was too old for service. Much like another famous actor who didn’t serve in World War II, John Wayne, this inability to fight for the United States made Bogie feel terrible. But like Wayne, Bogie was encouraged to win the war on film. And Bogie did just that in Across the Pacific.

The movie begins with Bogie being court-martialed because he stole some money from the Navy. In disgrace, Bogie moves out of the United States and tries to get into the Canadian army. They won’t take him. So Bogie figures the only way he can use his skills as an artilleryman is to go to Japan and see if they need him. He books a passage on a boat bound for the orient.

When he gets on he meets Sydney Greenstreet, who is a professor specializing in the Oriental culture. Also on the ship is Mary Astor, who claims to be a girl from Medicine Hat looking for an adventurous vacation in the Orient.

Of course we soon learn that Bogie is secretly working for the U.S. government, that Greenstreet is plotting for the Japanese and that Astor is not as innocent as she claims to be.

Eventually the boat is stopped at the Panama Canal. Since it is unable to go through, the passengers disembark. Ironically, Panama happens to be a place where Bogie was stationed with the Navy. Greenstreet tries his best to destroy the Panama Canal, while Bogie resists his temptations of money and eventually saves the day.

This is a standard World War II war movie. It includes many great actors. But the story behind it is more interesting. The fact that the original location was going to be Pearl Harbor. Also John Huston was signed as the director, but midway through shooting the picture he was called off to join the Army’s Signal Corps. Vincent Sherman finished shooting the movie, but Huston was the only one to get screen credit for being the director.

When I order cheesecake, I don't expect to get mucilage!

The name Humphrey Bogart is not synonymous with comedy. Although Bogie was known for giving some good one-liners, he was no Groucho Marx. This is why All Through the Night (1941) is different from other Bogie movies. It is a comedy that features many actors who were known for their dramatic abilities.

Joining Bogie in the cast is Peter Lorre, who would spoof some of his horror characters later in his career, but was known for his dramatic roles. Conrad Veidt is in the cast as well. Of course he was a famous actor in Germany, known best for The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920). With a cast like this a great drama could have been made, but not a comedy. All Through the Night is a spoof on the gangster film, but it is not one that is well done. The drama in which all three appeared in was much better than this comedy.

The story revolves around Bogie as Gloves Donahue. Gloves is the leader of a smalltime gang, mainly interested in gambling. One day Glove is unable to eat a piece of the cheesecake he so likes because the man who delivers it had not arrived. This gets Gloves mad and he goes on the hunt to find the cheesecake man. Well, he finds the man, but he’s dead. So Gloves and his gang try to find the killer. What they end up finding is a Nazi spy ring here in America. It is headed by Veidt. He is assisted by Lorre, who plays the piano player Pepi. The female lead is played by Kaaren Verne. She begins as a Nazi spy then converts to Bogie’s side.

Comedies aren’t known for their plots, so this weak plot should not be much of a surprise. The lack of laughter this movie draws from an audience should be surprising. It is only a worthwhile watch for those fans of Humphrey Bogart, who would like to see him do something different. He tries, as do the rest of the actors, but he is just not Bogie on the screen here.

The exchanges in German between Lorre and Veidt are great to see. As is Bogie’s attempt to speak German near the end. Overall though, it is better to see the three in Casablanca (1942). Jackie Gleason fans might want to see this as well. This was his second screen appearance.

Peter Lorre might disagree with my assertions that the movie was meaningless. This was the movie in which he would meet his second wife, Kaaren Verne. Verne had immigrated to the United States, like many Germans during Hitler’s rise to power. She would never become a well-known actress, but she was able to meet her future husband here. The happy couple would break-up after five years of marriage.