Watching a talking picture back in 1929 must have been as novel as watching a 1929 talking picture today. They're unique and so different to what followed just a year later. You feel like you're there with them learning by trial and error how the technology works.
There's a handful of talkies from '29 which were brilliant but most are like this - compared with what was produced just a couple of years later, they could be described as verging on terrible but they're nevertheless fascinating to see. Because technology, techniques and experience progressed so much in just a year films like this were probably unwatchable to a 1930 audience. For us however today it's a lovely snapshot of the evolution of modern filmmaking and indeed of 1929.
GENTLEMEN OF THE PRESS isn't a FRONT PAGE type comedy, it's more of a melodrama for men and it's actually not that bad and reasonably entertaining. Although based on a successful stage play this is not at all stagey or static. The story is about someone whose work-life balance is very much out of kilter, something still resonant today. Keep with it because the very last ten minutes are honestly one of the most genuinely emotionally shocking experiences you'll have. Nearly a hundred years later, that it feels like you've been punched in the stomach shows that despite its shortcomings, it's still worthy of watching.
And so to the shortcomings.....
1. Direction! If ever there was a good example of a making a talking picture for the first time without any experience whatsoever then this is it. Neither the director Millard Webb or his cast had made one of these before and it clearly didn't come naturally to Mr Webb. You can actually see some of the cast leaning over tables to slowly enunciate their lines into the hidden microphone; if you've seen BABYLON or SINGIN' IN THE RAIN you'll laugh when you hear the deafening sound of the doctor's shoes walking across the floor drowning out everything else. You have to view the one with a forgiving heart.
2. Kay Francis! She'd truly terrible. Kay had no film experience before this so you might wonder how she landed a leading role. She was infamous as being THE party girl and when spotted late one night at a club doing her thing by the writer he thought she'd be perfect as his vamp. When Millard Webb was assigned to make this film, she decided that she would sleep with him. She knew the system and played it brilliantly.....unlike her acting. When considering how good she was just a couple of years later, she must have looked back on this with utter embarrassment. Her acting style is a combination of abject fear and staring out into the audience to speak her lines. She looks like she's in one of those videos kidnap victims are forced to make by gunpoint. (And that's not to mention that awful haircut!)
3. Walter Huston! Yes, one of early Hollywood's best actors ever doesn't seem to have a clue how to act in his first talking picture. It's so surprising to see the great man being less than fabulous but I suppose we all have to start somewhere. His theatre experience does however shine through at the film's memorable climax.
There are much more professionally made or artistically innovative movies from 1929 but if you want to see one which they were figuring out how to do it as they went along whilst still being entertaining enough to hold your attention, give this a go.
There's a handful of talkies from '29 which were brilliant but most are like this - compared with what was produced just a couple of years later, they could be described as verging on terrible but they're nevertheless fascinating to see. Because technology, techniques and experience progressed so much in just a year films like this were probably unwatchable to a 1930 audience. For us however today it's a lovely snapshot of the evolution of modern filmmaking and indeed of 1929.
GENTLEMEN OF THE PRESS isn't a FRONT PAGE type comedy, it's more of a melodrama for men and it's actually not that bad and reasonably entertaining. Although based on a successful stage play this is not at all stagey or static. The story is about someone whose work-life balance is very much out of kilter, something still resonant today. Keep with it because the very last ten minutes are honestly one of the most genuinely emotionally shocking experiences you'll have. Nearly a hundred years later, that it feels like you've been punched in the stomach shows that despite its shortcomings, it's still worthy of watching.
And so to the shortcomings.....
1. Direction! If ever there was a good example of a making a talking picture for the first time without any experience whatsoever then this is it. Neither the director Millard Webb or his cast had made one of these before and it clearly didn't come naturally to Mr Webb. You can actually see some of the cast leaning over tables to slowly enunciate their lines into the hidden microphone; if you've seen BABYLON or SINGIN' IN THE RAIN you'll laugh when you hear the deafening sound of the doctor's shoes walking across the floor drowning out everything else. You have to view the one with a forgiving heart.
2. Kay Francis! She'd truly terrible. Kay had no film experience before this so you might wonder how she landed a leading role. She was infamous as being THE party girl and when spotted late one night at a club doing her thing by the writer he thought she'd be perfect as his vamp. When Millard Webb was assigned to make this film, she decided that she would sleep with him. She knew the system and played it brilliantly.....unlike her acting. When considering how good she was just a couple of years later, she must have looked back on this with utter embarrassment. Her acting style is a combination of abject fear and staring out into the audience to speak her lines. She looks like she's in one of those videos kidnap victims are forced to make by gunpoint. (And that's not to mention that awful haircut!)
3. Walter Huston! Yes, one of early Hollywood's best actors ever doesn't seem to have a clue how to act in his first talking picture. It's so surprising to see the great man being less than fabulous but I suppose we all have to start somewhere. His theatre experience does however shine through at the film's memorable climax.
There are much more professionally made or artistically innovative movies from 1929 but if you want to see one which they were figuring out how to do it as they went along whilst still being entertaining enough to hold your attention, give this a go.