1935 - Captain Blood

I've managed to squeak in one more review before the end of the year, which is somewhat surprising since we're well and truly in the midst of the school holidays here in Australia. It's also usually about the time of year that awards season would be heating up, but with the delay of the Oscars ceremony by a couple of months, there's a strange feeling of limbo. Still, lots of Oscar bait movies have already been released with more to come, so I'll try to cover some of that in the coming weeks.

For now, here's the next Best Picture contender from 1935...

Captain Blood
Director:
Michael Curtiz
Screenplay:
Casey Robinson
(based on the novel by Rafael Sabatini)
Starring:
Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Lionel Atwill, Basil Rathbone, Ross Alexander, Guy Kibbee, Henry Stephenson
Academy Awards:
2 nominations
0 wins

17th-century physician Peter Blood (Flynn) is arrested for treating an enemy of the crown, bundled up with other rebels, and shipped to the Caribbean colonies to become a slave. In Jamaica, a colonel's niece, Arabella Bishop (de Havilland), purchases Blood and assists in getting him the coveted role of doctor to the governor. Blood is understandably restless, though, and soon organises an escape with his fellow captives, where they plan to sail the seas as a pirate crew.

As a classic swashbuckling adventure, Captain Blood certainly doesn't disappoint. There's a lot of adventure with plenty of swashes being buckled, including an excitingly tense sword fight on a rocky beach and a spectacularly epic pirate ship battle. Granted, you have to wait a while for most of this excitement to begin since the first half of the picture is mostly straight drama, but the anticipation holds our attention well in preparation for the exhilarating second half.

Carrying the film is Aussie star Errol Flynn in his star-making role as the titular character. He's quite the steely-eyed charmer, which ironically ends up causing some disbelief at the thought of him becoming a pirate. Frankly, he comes across as too pleasant to all of a sudden embrace stealing and pillaging as a way of life, let alone become known as the "Terror of the Caribbean." In all fairness, though, there are later moments where Flynn displays appropriate ferocity, and he sells that well, but it's not a smooth transition getting there and ultimately his friendly demeanour returns (or perhaps it never really left). In any case, his on-screen persona obviously struck a chord with audiences as this was the first of many swashbuckling roles for Flynn, including arguably his most famous role in The Adventures of Robin Hood (to be reviewed on this blog at some point).

Also making a star turn was ingenue (at the time) Olivia de Havilland. This wasn't quite de Havilland's film debut - that came earlier in the same year with fellow Best Picture nominee A Midsummer Night's Dream - but it was the beginning of her on-screen pairing with Flynn. The duo (pictured) shared the screen seven more times in as many years, most notably with the aforementioned Robin Hood. Despite being a newcomer to cinema and having to portray such an underwritten stereotypical damsel, de Havilland holds her own in Captain Blood, launching a lengthy and auspicious career, in which she eventually won two Best Actress Oscars.

Of the large supporting cast, all are excellent, with standout performances from Basil Rathbone as the rival French pirate captain and Henry Stephenson as the diplomatic Lord Willoughby. Officially, the film only received two Oscar nominations - for Best Picture and Best Sound Recording - but Academy rules at the time allowed for write-in candidates and, since they also announced runners-up, we're able to see how popular Captain Blood was among voters. Along with its two official nods, the film scored second place for its director Michael Curtiz, as well as third place for its screenplay and score (and a rousing score it is). As for Best Picture, it wound up garnering yet another third place.

1935 - David Copperfield

2020 is almost over and, boy, has it been a doozy. Australia is handling the pandemic considerably well at this moment in time, though I realise that's not the case in a lot of other places around the world, so it really gives new meaning to the phrase "the lucky country". It's all the more poignant considering the fact that up until just a few months prior to the outbreak, I was a resident of California, a region that sadly does not seem to be faring as well. But with vaccines beginning to be rolled out in a few countries, let's hope that 2021 will allow us to return to some semblance of normal.

In the meantime, I've checked out another nominee from the 1935 Best Picture contest...


David Copperfield
Director:
George Cukor
Screenplay:
Hugh Walpole, Howard Estabrook, Lenore J. Coffee
(based on the novel by Charles Dickens)
Starring:
Frank Lawton, Freddie Bartholomew, W.C. Fields, Lionel Barrymore, Madge Evans, Maureen O'Sullivan, Edna May Oliver, Lewis Stone, Elizabeth Allan, Roland Young, Basil Rathbone 
Academy Awards:
3 nominations
0 wins

Born after his father's death, young David Copperfield (Bartholomew) lives with his flighty mother (Allan) until she decides to get remarried to the less-than-friendly Mr. Murdstone (Rathbone). Soon, David's mother passes away, too, so Murdstone sends the newly orphaned boy away to London, but his adventures don't stop there. He travels from place to place, meeting various characters and, as an adult (Lawton), continues his exploits, experiencing love, loss and laughter.

Perhaps shamefully, I've never read Dickens' book so was mostly unfamiliar with the story. Ironically, I still don't feel all that clear on the story even after watching this adaptation. I mean, it's not that it's hard to follow at all, but the plot moves so quickly that it feels like we're just getting highlights. David moves from one period in his life to another, meeting new people and then saying goodbye to them just as quickly. I know, I know, this has become a common critique of mine about novel adaptations, particularly in early Hollywood, where it seems screenwriters were afraid to leave anything out when adapting a long piece of literature, resulting in relationships and scenarios not given the time they need for growth in order to feel genuine. With that in mind, it seems there has been no shortage of film and TV adaptations of varying lengths of Dickens' classic (including a mini-series with a pre-Harry Potter Daniel Radcliffe as the young David). I would think, however, in these days of peak television, this story would make a fine limited series, allowing an entire episode to explore each plot point, instead of the fifteen minutes or so that this version affords. But I digress...

There is no doubt this is melodrama. Not just the performances, but a lot of the craft feels overly theatrical, too. For instance, after walking through a fierce storm, young David's clothes are suddenly and strategically ripped in a very aesthetic fashion. Shortly after that sequence, in place of smelling salts, David is offered two nondescript bottles, each with a large novelty label: Salad Dressing and, somewhat inexplicably, Anchovy Sauce.

It's not all hopeless, though. In fact, many of the short snippets of story are indeed entertaining, a testament to George Cukor's direction. Though, I suppose if I'm going to credit the director for the captivating segments, I must also hold him at least partially accountable for the broad caricatures that are most of the performances. Frank Lawton as the adult David is eternally happy and kind in a stereotypical way, which I suppose helps create a feel-good film, but his character just comes off as uninteresting. On the other end of the interesting spectrum are two actors worth mentioning: Roland Young (pictured on the right, with Lawton and W.C. Fields) is just the right amount of conniving as Uriah Heep, and Lennox Pawle is a breath of fresh comedy as the not-quite-all-there Mr. Dick. Pawle's performance is delightfully affable in its absurdity with an uncanny resemblance to both the appearance and slapstick style of Chris Farley, only slightly less erratic. Ultimately, the picture received only two other nominations beside its Best Picture nod - one for Editing and another in the now-defunct Assistant Director category. But on Oscar night, it finished empty-handed.