Best Picture 1932

It’s been ages since I wrote my last Best Picture post and the reason for that, other than my own laziness, is that nearly every movie from this year was awful. They were so awful that I had to try multiple times to watch them, and I would use the term “watch” loosely. It was more like they played in front of my face while I wished for death. Before I get into the individual movies, let me briefly discuss the awards themselves. Well… nothing extraordinary happened this year. There were a few more firsts, like the youngest best actor nomination, a movie winning more than 2 awards, movies getting multiple nominations for best actor and so on. The movies themselves, however, left much to be desired and out-shadowed any monumental firsts that may have happened..

Nominees

Cimarron – A western period piece with… questionable characters and plot.

East Lynne – Another melodrama romance.

The Front Page – A “comedy” about some guys running a paper or something.

Skippy – A sweet movie about a boy and his friend and his friend’s dog.

Trader Horn – This guy goes to Africa and some stuff happens.

My Pick

My pick is not Trader Horn as you might have been able to guess by my informative synopsis of the plot. I hated this movie. I hated it so much. I tried maybe 4 times to finish it. For a quarter of it I was on my phone scrolling through Reddit, and for a third I was sleeping. I can’t even tell you which of the main characters was Trader Horn. It was either the guy with the oversized hat or the old guy. I don’t care if it was the first non-documentary movie filmed in Africa, it still has to entertain and it didn’t.

My pick is obviously not The Front Page. Another of the movies that I had trouble sitting through. I think I stayed awake the whole time, but I wasn’t paying attention. I mean it starts with some light comedy about hanging people. Sprinkle in a joke about a woman being hysterical and you’ve got the recipe for the most painful comedy of the year. This movie has aged like milk.

My pick is also not East Lynne. I had a hard time following along, but the biggest issue I had with it is that I wasn’t able to watch the full movie since the only available copy is missing the last 12 minutes. After getting to the “end” of the movie, I tried to find out what happened, but there is an extreme lack of information about this specific version. Although since it was based on a novel, I was able to find some information about the original story. It seems like this iteration deviated substantially from its source material. In the novel, she leaves her husband because she thinks he’s cheating on her. In the movie, she leaves her husband because… her husband thinks she’s cheating on him? In the play, she goes back to him because she finds out he wasn’t actually cheating and wants to be with her kids. In the movie, she goes back to him because… she wants to? In the play, she dies because she’s exhausted and women are weak like that. In the movie she… I don’t know because there’s no ending! Frankly, I was glad it was over and don’t even care to see the ending. Every aspect of this adaptation made it worse and I am sure the ending to the movie was equally as tragic.

My pick is surprisingly not the actual winner, Cimarron. Yes, you heard me folks, the movie about how America stole the land from the Native’s and called it their own did not win my pick for 1932. I expected to hate this movie because it’s a western, but I didn’t hate it because it was a western, I hated it because it was Gone With the Wind, or Breakfast at Tiffany’s levels of cringe. First I’m going to give you my reaction to this movie after I initially watched it, then I’ll give you my reaction to it now.

1932 Best Picture winner, the movie with such classic lines as “Look Isaiah [their black child slave], lot’s of watermelons over there.” and “How many times have I told you not to talk to those dirty, filthy Indians?” All these lines, of course, were said with utmost seriousness. People at the time just lapped this movie up. It got great ratings and made a ton of money. I suppose I can see how this movie could potentially have won back in 1932 since they didn’t exactly think how we think today in terms of human rights. It doesn’t hold up in a single way to a modern viewing though. It starts with white people getting to settle on Native land like it’s a big party and there’s a black slave who has to fan the white family while dangling from a ceiling fan. This kid dies for them and no one even cares. Watching it today is pretty revolting, there’s no question about that. With that said, I think story wise it’s a big step up from last year’s nominees, it’s just the fact that the story it’s trying to tell is gross. The quality is also sub-par, especially compared to the previous year’s winners. I guess they didn’t want to preserve this rotten piece of history.

So I wrote that after seeing the movie for the first time, and that reaction and feeling stuck with me for awhile. As I sat and dwelled on it, I found myself changing my opinion. It’s still a gross movie, but it’s not exactly fair of me to judge it with a modern perspective. I really did get the sense during the movie that it felt like it was being progressive and modern. The main character was trying to stand up for Native rights in a small way and I’m sure they felt like they were taking a step in the right direction for society. Since then we’ve come football fields of steps in that direction which is fantastic and I’m glad that the movie doesn’t hold up or it’d mean that we haven’t progressed at all in 90 years. I’m not going to say this movie is good, or even watchable, but it can have it’s place in history. I can see why it won Best Picture; with its grand scope, the big action scene at the beginning, and its “progressive” story. In either case, it still won’t be my pick.

My pick for Best Picture 1932 is somehow Skippy, the sweet little family film. I had such low hopes for this movie and was blown away. It even made me reflect heavily on what Best Picture really means. Before that though, let me say this movie is about a rich boy who likes to spend time on the wrong side of the tracks with his poor friend and his dog. It stars Jackie Cooper as Skippy and he carries the entire movie on his back. This kid is incredible. He’s such a joy to watch that it’s easy to look past some of the dated references and still have a great time. It made me laugh, made me cry, made me question Best Picture altogether.

Let me ask you, how can you even classify something as the best? Movies are art and art is subjective, therefore how do you determine the best movie of the year? I would say Cimarron had a grander scope and better production values than a little movie like Skippy, although Skippy was infinitely more enjoyable to me. Skippy made me cry and Cimarron made me cringe. Can I then say that Skippy is the best movie of the year? Objectively I can’t because there are people that will absolutely find it boring. Some people enjoy action movies, or comedies, or documentaries. It’s like if you had a yearly award for best fruit. Honey-crisp dominated the apple category, but this year it was time for an orange to win so this year the best fruit award goes to mandarin orange. Well not everybody likes oranges, some people just like apples. I think you get where my little analogy here is going… I don’t think Skippy is the best movie of the 1932, but of the 5 nominees it was my favorite. This year I liked the apple instead of the orange and maybe next year I’ll prefer the banana. If you also like apples then this is a great apple even 90 years later and I would recommend giving it a try.

---

So this took me almost 3 months to write. I’m well aware of the fact that I’ve gone back to my old habits and I’m not going to make any promises this time. Getting this post out at all was a miracle because I hated 80% of the movies this year. It was a real bummer to say the least. I’m not sure what my next post will be about. It could be another Best Picture post, or maybe TSDPDT, or I might not be back at all until October for my annual horror movie binge. I want this to keep being fun, so I’ll see what inspires me the most.

The Champ (1931) vs The Champ (1979)

Surprise! Hope you’re having a good Sunday. This is a post I wasn’t expecting to write and it’s not going to be about any TSPDT movies. I recently watched 1931s The Champ for the first time and was blown away by how good it was. I remember watching the 1979 version when I was a kid because of the memorably sad ending. Obviously after watching the original, I had to watch the remake to compare and it made my blood boil so much that I had to get it out of my system. Not since Martyrs have I been so angered by a remake.

Let’s start with the 1931 version and I’ll tell you all the things I loved about it. The kid, Dink, was played by Jackie Cooper and he completely steals the show. He’s hilarious, emotive and a thoroughly fleshed out character. I would go so far as to say that the movie is more about him and how he handles the situations around him. There are scenes where we just follow him around as he “helps himself” to some candy and cigarettes for his dad, and plays around on railings and rooftops. You can see that he loves his dad and really looks up to him because he is a spitting image of him. Not only that, but his interactions with other adults shows him off as a mature smooth talker. It’s just great character work throughout the whole movie and it makes the ending more emotional than it otherwise would’ve been. I have to talk about the specifics of the ending so if you don’t want spoilers to a 1931 movie, go watch it now then come back. When the champ dies at the end and Dink is crying over his body, I cried my eyes out because I felt sorry for the both of them. It was a tragic situations and I felt every bit of it. It’s made even better by the fact that throughout the movie we’re shown a strained relationship between Dink and his mother who recently came back into his life. He always makes such a big show of being able to do things on his own and he doesn’t need his mom. Then when he loses his dad he’s just looking for someone to hold him and comfort him and he leaps into her arms. It’s such a heartwarming moment. I didn’t expect an early 30s movie to get so much out of me, but I completely loved it. There were parts that were dated, but it never ruined my enjoyment so I just moved past it.

How about the 70s version? It was made over 40 years later and must’ve been able to improve upon the movie by modernizing some of those dated moments. Obviously not if I’m writing this post! This movie makes few changes to the plot, but I feel like every change they made was for the worse. In this one, Dink is name changed to TJ, but I’ll just keep calling him Dink because it’s a great name. Dink is not a character in this movie, he is a plot device, he is a thing. The actor does a really good job with all the crying he has to do, and for the most part I have no problem with his acting. It’s the dialogue that is just terrible. Dink barely has any scenes alone, it’s always accompanied by one of the parents. The movie is more focused around the champ and mother. I don’t believe any of the motivations for the characters. The first one did so much setup and character work that all the events felt like the logical next step in the movie. Why does the champ buy Dink a horse? In the original, Dink always wanted a horse and the dad feels guilty for being such a drunk, gambling jerk which you notice after some effective setups. In the remake he gets him the horse out of nowhere, but I guess you’re supposed to know Dink wants a horse because they’re at a horse track. In the original, Dink names the horse Little Champ to further emphasize how much he idolizes his father, in the remake he names it… She’s A Lady. What the hell kind of name is that? What does that tell us about the character? Nothing at all, it’s a wasted moment… I don’t get why Little Champ had to be changed at all.

I could go on and on about these little changes that angered me… and I will. When does the mother reveal to Dink who she is? In the original, it’s right in the beginning and it feels so natural that she doesn’t try to hide it. In the remake, she accidentally blurts it out only after Dink goes to live with her and Dink freaks out, screaming that he wants his father. What a cheap reveal, it totally ruins the moment. Every change they make with the mother and how her relationship is revealed to Dink was so much worse. I get the sense they tried to expand the role because they hired Faye Dunaway and wanted her to have more material to work with. You know what? The movie isn’t about her! I don’t want to see the champ sad and crying over losing her, the movie is about his relationship with his son and what he’s willing to do to give him a good life. In the original, the motive for champ’s comeback is to send Dink to school, which is something brought up earlier in the movie and one of the reasons he tries to get Dink to live with his wealthier mother. In the remake, he does it after a fight with the mother and it feels like he is doing it because of that fight. They mention later that he wants money to send the kid to school, but where did that idea even come from? What does all this mean for the ending? The remake made me cry, but not because I was sad for the characters, but because I cry when I see someone else cry. That is literally the only reason. I didn’t feel it at all. If you make a movie where a dad dies trying to provide for his son and it doesn’t make me feel anything, than you’ve really screwed up.

Nothing at all in the remake feels natural. It’s like they took the original, competently written script and put it through a shredder. They took out all the character building and setups and added cheap, generic, cliche dialogue between characters that don’t need it. They ripped the heart out of this movie. I think the original is TSPDT worthy, while the remake isn’t even in my top 5,000. Do yourself a favor and watch the original with some Kleenex, then do yourself a favor and toss out the remake with your used, snotty tissues.