Film Forum screened a 35mm print of
The Crowd today with live piano accompaniment. I think Andrew Sarris said he was a master of “great moments” rather than of great films, and I can't say he's wrong because I seem to forget then remember what Sarris said every time I catch up with another Vidor film. They all seem uneven in some way, at least the narrative ones, but there can still be real greatness to them.
I was knocked out by some of the virtuoso moves in
The Crowd, particularly the way he establishes the first New York scene, taking us into the office building (via some pretty amazing use of miniatures) then going from that incredible wide shot of the humongous room of desks and landing right where he needs to be. It's executed perfectly as well - we don't actually see the lead character, John Sims, until the final second, and Vidor doesn't cheat to accomplish this as the camera never feels like it's awkwardly frame during that dramatic swoop towards his desk. He calls back to this in the film's wonderful final shot as well.
Beyond that, my favorite trick is the dolly (or tracking?) shot where the camera follows John into a room, keeping him in the same part of the frame even though he's still walking, and as we pass through the doorway (which may very well be a set piece that's eventually pulled away), the room seems to open up into this gigantic new world. This happens twice - when we first see him at work and he goes into the men's locker room, and again when he goes into the maternity ward. He doesn't sustain this kind of virtuosity across the entire film the way Murnau does with his most impressive work, but it's still impressive nonetheless.
Even with those technical accomplishments, the greatest element of the film has to be Eleanor Boardman as Mary. I can't believe I forgot about her performance, but perhaps I needed to see it projected because her close-ups are amazing, and there are a lot of them. After a while I couldn't help but notice that the pictorial quality of her close-ups were noticeably different from James Murray's. It's subtle, but Murray's close-ups are clean and clear enough that he appears to be wearing stage make-up of some kind, particularly around the eyebrows. However, when the camera cuts to Boardman, there's a softness to the lighting that's startling when combined with the crisp detail of the image - I'm guessing the OCN still exists and the print was made from it because it looks that good. Beyond that, her acting is just so good and it's really no comparison to Murray's - she seems like she's acting in a league of her own and in a manner that's perfect for the cinema. Where Murray's facial reactions are broad and tend to exaggerate, her reactions are marvelously subtle.
What's kind of great about the film is that usually when you have a story like this, you're rooting for the guy with the idea that everyone's too hard on him. Instead, you see that everyone who talks shit about him is actually right. Her family clearly thinks she's too good for him, and there's not a moment where I'd argue against that. It really becomes a matter of "is this guy going to get his act together or is she going to wise up and leave him?"
Looking up the actors, I was surprised to find out that Boardman was actually married to Vidor when she made this. They eventually split - it looks like they had quite a few problems during their marriage, particularly the charges of tax evasion both faced - but knowing they were together brings to mind something that's been said of Vincente Minnelli's
Meet Me In St. Louis and Jean-Luc Godard's
Le petit soldat. In those films, it's known that the directors met their future wives and fell in love with them during the production, and it's also been suggested that all of this comes through in the filmmaking in the way those women are filmed. I'm not sure if Vidor was swooning over his wife or if he was simply trying to do what's best for her in a more calculated manner, but over the course of the movie, I think a similar effect plays out. She eventually retired, married another director at 40, and seems to have lived a long and comfortable (and wealthy) life.
Murray on the other hand is a sad story. Working odd jobs and getting mostly minor parts for films, Vidor spotted him and picked him out because he didn't want a familiar movie star or anyone glamorous - he wanted someone who can project ordinariness. Despite the film's great success, Murray's career was eventually ruined by alcoholism:
Wikipedia wrote:By 1934, Murray was unable to secure acting work due to his alcoholism and began panhandling. Director King Vidor...then casting his upcoming film Our Daily Bread (1934), immediately thought of Murray for the lead role. Vidor had heard about Murray's plight and set about finding him. Vidor found a much heavier and unkempt Murray panhandling on the street and offered to buy him a drink. Vidor then offered Murray the lead role in Our Daily Bread, provided Murray pull himself together. Murray rejected the offer and reportedly stated, "Just because I stop you on the street and try to borrow a buck you think you can tell me what to do. As far as I am concerned, you know what you can do with your lousy part."
About two years later, Murray was found dead in the Hudson River. It's not clear if it was accidental or suicide, but regardless, he's now buried in Queens out in Woodside.