If it was a joke, I'm not sure the film let me in on it. (I could also have missed it entirely!)zedz wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 4:24 pmIsn't that the joke?soundchaser wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:38 amWithout necessarily commenting on her physical appearance: her singing alone is unbearable.
The one film in this set I've seen lives or dies on her being some kind of goddess (it's the only narrative beat), and the incongruity is probably a tough hurdle for most to overcome.
250-255 Mae West in Hollywood, 1932-1943
Moderator: MichaelB
- soundchaser
- Leave Her to Beaver
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:32 am
Re: 250-255 Mae West in Hollywood, 1932-1943
- Never Cursed
- Such is life on board the Redoutable
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am
Re: 250-255 Mae West in Hollywood, 1932-1943
Assuming you're talking about She Done Him Wrong, I also see no way of reading that film as employing West's performance in some sort of ironic juxtaposition fashion, at least not now. Some of those readings almost strike me as ahistorical, given how successful she was a sincerely-marketed sex symbol. It's not like anyone writing about her at the time, from academics to Kenneth Anger, treated her work from this period as ironic/camp material...
-
- Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:47 am
Re: 250-255 Mae West in Hollywood, 1932-1943
I just realised why straight men are not sought after as commentators on this repertoire.
Mae West was seen at the time to (very effectively) mock the patriarchy and its iron bias against women's sexual and social autonomy. She simply laughed at its hypocrisy, rather than cowered in the face of it.
Many audiences then and since found this attitude tremendously attractive - fresh, bold and entertaining. Mae West had already had a long and controversial career on Broadway, writing and staging plays dealing boldly with straight and gay sex.
It is important for newcomers to these films to understand that the moralistic Production Code had been inactive for years, and it was the response of the Catholic Church, conservative women's groups, and the Legion of Decency (really) which caused the Code to be rigorously enforced. In most studies of the Code era, it was Mae West's I'm No Angel which drove these groups to threaten a ruinous boycott of Hollywood product unless the Code was taken deadly seriously. Faced with a threat of economic consequences, Hollywood buckled at once. There was no rating system, so ALL films had to be fit for children and maiden aunts born in the nineteenth century in the provinces.
It would be thousands of small towns all over the US which would be decisive in the box office returns, and they demonstrated they were not prepared to accept modern, big city ways. And so Hollywood was infantilised for thirty years, unable to treat social change, or social challenges in any frank or daring ways.
Anyone wondering why Mae West seemed to lose her mojo must understand that her scripts were vetted after 1933 to scour every line, every word, every costume, every gesture, every inflection for even the mildest double entendre, which was then removed. Night After Night, She Done Him Wrong, and I'm No Angel were the only films to appear largely as West intended them. All the rest without exception had her lively magic systematically extinguished, and she left Hollywood to pursue a career as a nightclub performer in 1943. The mandarins of the Production Code continue their work today in China, North Korea, and soon in Afghanistan.
To those who think West was a naif, recall that F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote at the time, "The only Hollywood actress with both an ironic edge and a comic spark".
Mae West was seen at the time to (very effectively) mock the patriarchy and its iron bias against women's sexual and social autonomy. She simply laughed at its hypocrisy, rather than cowered in the face of it.
Many audiences then and since found this attitude tremendously attractive - fresh, bold and entertaining. Mae West had already had a long and controversial career on Broadway, writing and staging plays dealing boldly with straight and gay sex.
It is important for newcomers to these films to understand that the moralistic Production Code had been inactive for years, and it was the response of the Catholic Church, conservative women's groups, and the Legion of Decency (really) which caused the Code to be rigorously enforced. In most studies of the Code era, it was Mae West's I'm No Angel which drove these groups to threaten a ruinous boycott of Hollywood product unless the Code was taken deadly seriously. Faced with a threat of economic consequences, Hollywood buckled at once. There was no rating system, so ALL films had to be fit for children and maiden aunts born in the nineteenth century in the provinces.
It would be thousands of small towns all over the US which would be decisive in the box office returns, and they demonstrated they were not prepared to accept modern, big city ways. And so Hollywood was infantilised for thirty years, unable to treat social change, or social challenges in any frank or daring ways.
Anyone wondering why Mae West seemed to lose her mojo must understand that her scripts were vetted after 1933 to scour every line, every word, every costume, every gesture, every inflection for even the mildest double entendre, which was then removed. Night After Night, She Done Him Wrong, and I'm No Angel were the only films to appear largely as West intended them. All the rest without exception had her lively magic systematically extinguished, and she left Hollywood to pursue a career as a nightclub performer in 1943. The mandarins of the Production Code continue their work today in China, North Korea, and soon in Afghanistan.
To those who think West was a naif, recall that F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote at the time, "The only Hollywood actress with both an ironic edge and a comic spark".
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: 250-255 Mae West in Hollywood, 1932-1943
British theatre censorship (a going concern from the 1730s to the 1960s) was also keen on vetting things line by line - and, as with Mae West, its imposition was the direct result of the work of a single artist, in this case Henry Fielding, who was pretty much rendered unemployable in the theatre overnight (as the whole raison d'être of Fielding's satires was that they were outrageously near the knuckle), although at least we got his magnificent novel Tom Jones out of the fallout - he might not have written it otherwise, as he was doing very nicely in the theatre. Even in the 1960s, there was a Lord Chamberlain's report into a John Osborne play which spells out that there must not be any noticeable pause before the final word of the line "she thinks the sun shines out of her face".
Although theatre censorship had more of a challenge in that performers were quite capable of going off-script - I remember they had a particular headache with the original production of The Bed-Sitting Room, where co-author Spike Milligan rarely stuck to the scripted lines, much as the Marx Brothers would do three or four decades earlier. Of course, the Marxes also fell victims to Production Code shenanigans - thankfully, a pre-Code print of Animal Crackers was discovered in the BFI National Archive, but the original 1932 release version of Horse Feathers remains MIA.
Although theatre censorship had more of a challenge in that performers were quite capable of going off-script - I remember they had a particular headache with the original production of The Bed-Sitting Room, where co-author Spike Milligan rarely stuck to the scripted lines, much as the Marx Brothers would do three or four decades earlier. Of course, the Marxes also fell victims to Production Code shenanigans - thankfully, a pre-Code print of Animal Crackers was discovered in the BFI National Archive, but the original 1932 release version of Horse Feathers remains MIA.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: 250-255 Mae West in Hollywood, 1932-1943
Firstly, I appreciate the well-crafted response, even if I don't think you're quite on target with a lot of you points. Almost surely anyone reading this who knows enough to know who Mae West was also knows about the Hays Office et al, so I don't think a reminder is in order. But I have to take umbrage with the claim that the Code "infantalised" Hollywood film for three decades. For all the modern fervor over rediscovering naughty bits in pre-code films, the fact is the restrictions of the code caused filmmakers to find ways around it and this creativity is what makes the studio system output of the era, especially during the height of the system in the forties, so fascinating. I suspect someone who knows as much as you do also knows this isn't a claim that holds up when looking at the evidence.
And stating that West's initial popularity was based on the appeal of her mocking the patriarchy and not, you know, delivering comical innuendos is pure revisionism. I don't doubt much of her later appeal is found in her alleged subversiveness, but sometimes it's a simple as it looks: mass audiences by and large like bawdy humor, and it was no different back in the early 30s when she came on the scene. And I'll let the ghost of Mae West riff on that last line...
- Furstemberg
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:31 pm
Re: 250-255 Mae West in Hollywood, 1932-1943
Your last paragraph is on point but with the above I disagree. It didn't cause all filmmakers to find ways around it, and those who did shouldn't have had to; most ended up coming to unsatisfying conclusions for films that would've been better without the Code.domino harvey wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 11:35 amBut I have to take umbrage with the claim that the Code "infantalised" Hollywood film for three decades. For all the modern fervor over rediscovering naughty bits in pre-code films, the fact is the restrictions of the code caused filmmakers to find ways around it and this creativity is what makes the studio system output of the era, especially during the height of the system in the forties, so fascinating.
-
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am
Re: 250-255 Mae West in Hollywood, 1932-1943
There's a weird irony that MGM no longer owns Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz , Singin' in the Rain or 2001...but they do have Troll 2!
- Finch
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
- Location: Edinburgh, UK
- criterionsnob
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:23 am
- Location: Canada
Re: 250-255 Mae West in Hollywood, 1932-1943
Release date moved to December 13, per latest Indicator newsletter “in order to allow us the time we need to accommodate an exciting new addition to this already expansive set.”
- CSM126
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:22 am
- Location: The Room
- Contact:
Re: 250-255 Mae West in Hollywood, 1932-1943
At long last, Sextette on blu-ray
- yoloswegmaster
- Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:57 pm
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: 250-255 Mae West in Hollywood, 1932-1943
I’d actually pick this up if it had Myra Breckinridge in it, but I’m not holding breath on that one!
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: 250-255 Mae West in Hollywood, 1932-1943
Final specs:
Disc 1: Night After Night/She Done Him Wrong
Disc 2: I'm No Angel/Belle of the Nineties
Disc 3: Goin' To Town/Klondike Annie
Disc 4: Go West Young Man/Every Day's a Holiday
Disc 5: My Little Chickadee
Disc 6: The Heat's On
Disc 1: Night After Night/She Done Him Wrong
Disc 2: I'm No Angel/Belle of the Nineties
Disc 3: Goin' To Town/Klondike Annie
Disc 4: Go West Young Man/Every Day's a Holiday
Disc 5: My Little Chickadee
Disc 6: The Heat's On
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: 250-255 Mae West in Hollywood, 1932-1943
It looks like the main additions are the 1982 TV movie biopic and three Walter Lantz shorts
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
- Finch
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
- Location: Edinburgh, UK
- tenia
- Ask Me About My Bassoon
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Re: 250-255 Mae West in Hollywood, 1932-1943
From a technical standpoint, Indicator mostly make due with what is available but I was surprised in some cases by how limited the results are. Belle of the Nineties borders on SD upscale, many restorations (based on 4k scans) are still extremely limited (Judex and Tih-Minh, silent movies 15 years older, are humpteen times better better) and it's to a point the older obviously-EEd HD masters yield a more pleasing PQ. In particular, they tend to be much more stable and much cleaner, but as a whole and despite part of this possibly coming from the EE, they do look more precise.
Only a couple of 4k-type masters are a bit better looking : My Little Chickadee (which however likely is grain managed) and I'm No Angel.
Only a couple of 4k-type masters are a bit better looking : My Little Chickadee (which however likely is grain managed) and I'm No Angel.
- Finch
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
- Location: Edinburgh, UK
Re: 250-255 Mae West in Hollywood, 1932-1943
Cineoutsider review
This has to be a strong contender for the title of Indicator’s most ambitious release yet, bringing together ten films – eleven if you count the Mae West TV movie in the special features – with a slew of special features, every one of which is relevant and none of which substantially duplicates the others.