The first issue I have with this film is Richard Barthelmess. Now I don't usually pay much attention to age in movies, but this was a little ridiculous. Barthelmess' character is just going' ta schule for larnin' ritmetic. Barthelmess was 37 when he made the film. Guess he musta bin a leetel slow.
Beyond that, Barthelmess was considered a good actor??? Really? Here he is wooden, has an almost constant odd stare that actually made me feel uncomfortable. If I were to give an award for the Worst Actor, he'd certainly be a nominee.
Aside from the Barthelmess problem, this was quite an ambitious film in 1932, and I would imagine not very popular down South! The screenplay was written by a Pulitzer Prize winning playwright. The film shows the evil on both sides in the rural South -- the poor sharecroppers, often cotton pickers, some of whom steal with abandon; and the wealthy plantation owners who are ruthless in keeping the poor "in their place". While the film says it doesn't take sides, it clearly does. Chasing one of the thieves through the swamp with dogs, and the resulting lynching, is quite powerful. And the climactic scene in a community meeting is done quite well. It's a good script, too bad the main actor was of questionable talent.
Dorothy Jordan (who?) gets second billing here, and does fine as the poor love interest, but Bette Davis -- the rich love interest -- with third billing is more central to the plot and more interesting to watch. This was Davis' eleventh film...all done in just 2 years! She was learning fast! In the supporting cast, Berton Churchill is quite good as the main plantation owner. You'll notice a number of other familiar faces in the supporting cast. But I was particularly pleased to see a wonderful character actor named Henry B. Walthall, as one of the sharecroppers. Every time I run across him in an old film I am impressed with his talent.
The ending of the film -- so optimistic -- seems a bit unrealistic considering the tenor of emotions in the town, but the screenwriter did set up the things that would need to happen to make such as ending feasible.
If it weren't for Barthelmess' acting, I'd be tempted to give this film an "8", so we'll have to settle for a "7". It's an ambitious and serious film, and they did well...especially for 1932. It won't end up on my DVD shelf, but I'll watch it again sometime when it is on TCM again.
Beyond that, Barthelmess was considered a good actor??? Really? Here he is wooden, has an almost constant odd stare that actually made me feel uncomfortable. If I were to give an award for the Worst Actor, he'd certainly be a nominee.
Aside from the Barthelmess problem, this was quite an ambitious film in 1932, and I would imagine not very popular down South! The screenplay was written by a Pulitzer Prize winning playwright. The film shows the evil on both sides in the rural South -- the poor sharecroppers, often cotton pickers, some of whom steal with abandon; and the wealthy plantation owners who are ruthless in keeping the poor "in their place". While the film says it doesn't take sides, it clearly does. Chasing one of the thieves through the swamp with dogs, and the resulting lynching, is quite powerful. And the climactic scene in a community meeting is done quite well. It's a good script, too bad the main actor was of questionable talent.
Dorothy Jordan (who?) gets second billing here, and does fine as the poor love interest, but Bette Davis -- the rich love interest -- with third billing is more central to the plot and more interesting to watch. This was Davis' eleventh film...all done in just 2 years! She was learning fast! In the supporting cast, Berton Churchill is quite good as the main plantation owner. You'll notice a number of other familiar faces in the supporting cast. But I was particularly pleased to see a wonderful character actor named Henry B. Walthall, as one of the sharecroppers. Every time I run across him in an old film I am impressed with his talent.
The ending of the film -- so optimistic -- seems a bit unrealistic considering the tenor of emotions in the town, but the screenwriter did set up the things that would need to happen to make such as ending feasible.
If it weren't for Barthelmess' acting, I'd be tempted to give this film an "8", so we'll have to settle for a "7". It's an ambitious and serious film, and they did well...especially for 1932. It won't end up on my DVD shelf, but I'll watch it again sometime when it is on TCM again.