Bad Girl – Best Director Award (1931)

by Laura Lai/Review

James Dunn

Sally Eilers

Minna Gombell

Film director: Frank Borzage

Fox Film Corporation, 1931

The movie the ‘Bad Girl’ is, to my understanding, a fabulous essay-movie that asks the question ‘what marriage is like’. The film is the unfolding of the quickly (and right at the beginning provided answer): ‘it’s like diving over the board. You don’t know how water will be until you dive into it.’ That’s fantastic. And that’s not all! Although the film is called ‘Bad Girl’ the unfolding of the answer is provided by focusing on the male character, not on the female one. It means that, from my point of view, the main character is not the girl, but Eddie Collins (James Dunn). A fascinatingly artistic trick!

Eddie Collins is a lovely young man dreaming, hoping with all his heart and saving all his money, in order to have a radio store. Although he’s advised by his boss – an older and, most probably, married man – not to get married, he falls in love and gets married to the ‘Bad Girl’, who is not bad at all, but a lovely woman, but always having with a her cynical replies particularly for men. Eddie Collins is himself full of cynical replies, too. The lines amused me a lot. The movie is based on a play, inspired by a novel of Viña Delmar and Brian Marlowe.

            As a responsible husband, he takes his ‘husbandship’ seriously and spends all his dream savings to buy an apartment, new furniture and a new kitchen for his wife. She was surprised and thrilled. To me, it was one of those scenes that invites to reflection about what would I have done if I were in her shoes. Most probably, with so many guests around and in the middle of the party he organized, I most probably would not make any scene either, which does not mean at all that I would be thrilled about a party he organized and I’m supposed to enjoy or about a furniture he chose alone. I would not be either happy or thrilled about because I would still feel like a tenant in a landlord’s house. Besides, I think in 2020 the supply of everything (of furniture, clothing, trips, etc.) is so abundant, that two people can go together and choose that bed or that kitchen that they both like, if they are equal partners, rather than tenant-landlord, somebody’s company for a trip I may not be interested to make etc. etc. In 1930s it’s obvious that a brother is the boss, the husband is the boss.

            As a loving husband, Eddie Collins is then pictured washing clothing by hand, while his wife enjoys a coffee with a friend in the saloon. As expected, the wife gets pregnant and she needs the best doctor. But dr. Burgess is such an expensive doctor that only queens and kings can afford. At work, he’s cutting off lunches to save money, works late, goes boxing, in order to get to the best doctor. And when he finally gets to him, Eddie Collins is not anymore a proud young man and husband, but humiliating, crying and begging dr. Burgess to help his wife, who was afraid of the pregnancy because her mother died when she was born.

The movie shows that a man thinks about a woman in terms of a ‘kid’, ‘a sister’, ‘stupid’, ‘unconscious’ and ‘kid’ again when she marries. But also a ‘tramp’. Although in 2020 and at my age, I have not yet seen the man, who seems to have fully understood that no woman, but absolutely none on this planet can be a ‘tramp’ by herself. There is always a man involved that makes her a ‘tramp’ (While that man is a saint, of course! J).The dialogue between women shows the woman being a mother, smart, mature and pragmatic. And there is also men dialogue mainly about being a father, but also a husband. I loved also the irony about being a parent: a 7-month old child holds tide Eddie’s finger and his parents consider this thing as a sign for their child for being very smart. When Eddie becomes a parent he tells the taxi driver that he is looking at the future president of the United States. Gorgeous observation of life and of people!

            The most symbolic scene of the movie was, from my point of view, the marriage proposal scene. It happens at the bottom of the stairs of the block of flats where she was living. It is a simple scene with a simple and spontaneous proposal contrasting with a powerful and well chosen ‘stairs’ symbol. There are many scenes I love in this movie for their art, such as the one in the kitchen in which one woman is crying and another one is laughing on the same tone. To my understanding, this is one of the many scenes that help unfolding this essay-movie about what marriage is about. I found particularly interesting, absolutely great actually, the boxing scene, in which the two fathers where boxing and talking about their children. And in terms of English language, it was great to come across a lovely English idiom: ‘it’s raining cats and dogs’.

I am an animal lover, as many other people. A pet lover, like cats and dogs, although I do not have any. It is a lovely spring weather, but we are – people and pets – quarantined at home. I personally love being ‘quarantined at home’ with good films. Enjoy the movie!

The Sin of Madelon Claudet (1931) – Best Actress Award

by Laura Lai/Review

Director: Edgar Selwyn

Helen Hayes (Madelon Claudet) – The Best Actress Award

Lewis Stone (Carlo Borretti)

Neil Hamilton (Lawrence Claudet – Madelon’s son)

MGM, 1931

‘The Sin of Madelon Claudet’ was adapted from a play (‘The Lullaby’ by Edward Knoblock) and it tells the story of a young woman, Madelon, who leaves her father following her love for an American young man that she met in Paris, who left and had never returned. From this love story, a boy was born – Lawrence Claudet, called Larry. Madelon – magnificently interpreted by Helen Hayes – left him at some friends, as a certain Hubert did not want to marry her and raise her child and Carlo Borretti (Lewis Stone), who actually married her, did not want to intrude with her personal life, knowing all the time that she had a son, visiting and supporting him. Madelon had always thought that she married a prosperous businessman, but actually all the jewelries that she was worrying proved to be stolen, Carlo got caught, his real name revealed, committed suicide and she went in prison for ten years completely not guilty. Twelve days after her released, settled on July 18^th, 1909 she went to visit her son in the orphanage he was taken care of and she decided to tell him that his mother was dead. So, Edgar Selwyn presents the story of both the mother and the son, as their destinies are intertwined. The son proved to be a very good pupil and was noticed to be able to become a promising doctor. From this point on, Madelon did everything possible – including stealing, and not being caught – to support her son’s dream of becoming a doctor. The money was reaching her son through a truly honest mentor that he had.

Given the fact that the whole life story is presented as a flash back, starting with Larry’s wife wanting to leave him and the mentor telling the whole story, I wondered here and there which life story I was actually following: that of the mother or that of the son? I think it’s both. Larry became a doctor and although he had never met his father or his mother, he became a very fine young man. The movie does not tell, but I believe that the director wanted to suggest that Larry was seeing his mother in all old ladies left by their sons that were also his patients. The most beautiful scene to me, was the one in which Madelon – old and ill – went to the house of her son, cleaned the shining golden plate at his door saying ‘Dr. Larry Claudet’ – lovely and emotional! – and sneaking into his studying office. The scene in which she touched all the books her son studied from and she struggled hard to buy them for him is very emotional to me. It is the outcome of all her struggle, the climax of the whole movie and it reminded me of my parents’ struggle to buy all my books to study from. Unfortunately, it also reminded me of all ‘non-quality people’ I met during my PhD studies and my struggle to get a ‘doctor degree’.

            My parents’ struggle is every responsible parent’s struggle. I can easily understand that. But it is impossible for me to understand these ‘non-quality people’s’ constant years-long struggle so that I have not financial means, no job and no scholarship to finish it. These ‘non-quality’ people’s struggle against a doctorate degree makes absolutely no logical sense to me. I guess ‘evil’ is to be recognized, not to be understood or accepted. And, of course, to stay away from it. Indeed I summarize the whole experience to the word ‘evil’, but the film director summarizes the whole struggle to one name ‘Madelon’.

            As a fluently French-speaker, I did not find the name ‘Madelon’ chosen by Edgar Selwyn as being accidental. As a matter of fact, I do not find accidental anything that a film director chooses to use or to express in the movie s/he makes. And I cannot tell you the pleasure I have to discover what that is and why, and what else can tell, etc, etc. A true great fascination for my cinephile mind!!! I worked with French names and the ‘Madelon’ name is either rare, old or it doesn’t exit. Instead, it exists as a noun. The ‘madelon’ is a type song – and this movie is inspired by a play called ‘Lullaby’ – that was created by French soldiers and sang during the WWI. And war is a great human struggle. What a better name than ‘Madelon’ for this struggling lovely young woman? Furthermore, in the movie there is a scene in which she painted. I would not be surprised that a French impressionist painter might have inspired the name ‘Claudet’. Fascinating details!

This Hollywood movie ‘The Sin of Madelon Claudet’ made in 1931 reminded me of a Bollywood movie that I watched in the late 1980s, when I was a child. It is more than thirty years ago, but back then the cinemas were state owned and I could see many movies free of charge – in the morning, it’s true, but it didn’t matter to me. And it does not matter to me now either. To me, movies are like the butter that goes on bread anytime anywhere. It was enough to present my pupil notebook and I was entering free of charge as a pupil. There was no other way that a child (from a family in which only my father worked) to see so many movies. Edgar Selwyn’s black and white movie reminded me the Indian colorful movie ‘Vandana’. It is the story of a woman who also ends up in jail – for a crime she did not commit and then she is released – but in the end, she got reunited with her son. In comparison to Larry, Vandana’s son knew about her mother. The most emotional scene in ‘Vandana’ Indian movie is when the son separated from the mother for a long time and long pretending to be his nanny (she took that job at the family raising her son, just to be around her son) told her: ‘Mother, blood never turns into water.’

Great stories! Great movies! The role of Madelon Claudet fitted Helen Hayes like a glove. Magnificent role!

‘I Accuse/J’accuse’ – Letter to the President by Emile Zola

by Laura Lai/Review

On March 2^nd, 2020 I posted on this blog a comment on the César Prix for the Best Director Award for the movie ‘An Officer and a Spy’, a historical movie on the longest and most known judicial error in the history of France – the Dreyfus Affair. This affair became public when the French naturalist writer, Emile Zola (1840-1902), wrote a public letter to the French President, Felix Faure denouncing this injustice. I used the opportunity raised by this movie, to make a review to the letter written by Zola to the President of the Republic (you can read the letter in French, here).

In order to understand the letter, here is a bit of the political and historical context. Alfred Dreyfus was a person born in a rich family, in Alsace, a region that he left when it was taken by the Germans. He went to Paris and served as an officer in the French army. He was accused by the army of traison/spying for the Germans and convicted to a life sentence (deportation). The first trial splitted the society into ‘dreyfusists’, who were definding the truth and the justice and the ‘anti-dreyfusists’, definding the army, the Republic and gathering right extremists. Other acting forces were the Catholic Church, most often said to have been on the army and the Republic side and a royalist group ‘Action Française’ fighting against the republicans. A colononel Picquard was sure of Dreyfus’s innocence, but he had difficulities in reopening the case for a second trial. It is in this context, when in 1898, Emile Zola wrote his letter to the President and this affair became public. The detail, which most probably counted the most in the affair and in the trail, was the fact that Alfred Dreyfus was a Jew.

The letter of Emile Zola to the President Felix Faure is a typical letter written by a writer. I mean, long. By the use of the words ‘justice’ and ‘truth’ all along the letter, Zola is placing himself and his oppion on the ‘dreyfusists’ side. However, it is by the end of the letter that he explained more at length the reasons that pushed him to this moral action:

‘I don’t have but one passion that of light, in the name of humanity, that suffered so much and that has the right to happiness. My enthusiastic protest is the scream of my soul.’[1] (my translation)

Emile Zola was here in the same line of ideas with the Founding Fathers of the U.S. Constitution declaring that every person is endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, amongh which the pursuit to happiness. Anyway, the second reason that pushed him to this civic duty and moral action was ‘to hasten the explosion of truth and justice’[2] (my translation) – most probably very much aware of the public impact his letter will have.

            This letter speaks of ‘injustice’, ‘crazyness’, of ‘civic crime’, ‘judicial error’, ‘lack of motif’ and it speaks of a ‘villain enquiry that makes guilty people innocent and innocent people guilty’[3] (my translation). He reminds that the ‘truth is simple’: on the one side, are those guilty, meaning a series of generals and commenders of the French army that Zola publicly accused of being the main responsible and complice to this ‘civic crime’; and on the other side, those unguilty – those who would give their lives for truth and justice. To these, Zola added two more people: Dreyfus and Picquard that he describes as ‘two victims, two courageous men, two simple hearts, that left others play God, while it was actually the devil acting’[4] (my translation). Zola refused to believe in any of the forteen accusations brought to Dreyfus and he explained at length the reasons why he did not believe, he also did not believe in the existence of a ‘secret paper’ that the accusation said to have against Dreyfus ‘a secret paper, an overwhelming one, a paper that can be shown, that legitimizes everything, to which we all should take a bow to…’ (my translation).[5] And he described the crimes he thought Dreyfus was guilty of, as found by the court (that Zola calls a ‘nid of low intrigues, gossips and delapidation’[6]) as follows:

‘Dreyfus knows several languages, it’s a crime; no compromising paper was found at his place, it’s a crime; sometimes he goes to his country of origin, it’s a crime; he’s hard working and he’s preoccupied to know everything, it’s a crime; he’s not confused, it’s a crime; he’s confused, it’s a crime.’[7] (my translation)

Therefore, Alfred Dreyfus was an officer and an intellectual, or an officer with intellectual preoccupations! Somehow – but don’t ask me how, because I cannot understand myself logically and I cannot explain logically – that’s a crime in front of a ‘mediocre’ society or among ‘mediocre’ people. Those accusing him and sentencing him to life sentence were generals and commanders, but this does not mean intellectuals. It may ultimately mean ‘professionals’ but not ‘intellectuals’. Dreyfus himself was a professional officer, but in comparison to the others, he was also an intellectual. This was something he worked for, was passionate about that the others might have wanted, but they were aware they would never have. This something could not be taken away from Dreyfus, so his life had to be taken away by the mediocre through a life sentence.

However, in which concerns the ‘professionals’, all along history the possibilities for a person to become a general, a commander or high-ranking professional have been very diverse, sometimes subjective and not necessarily intellectual. Thefore, a group of ‘professionals’ – it does not matter how they got there – knew and fealt the intellectual superiority of Dreyfus. And on top of it, he was a Jew. It means – but don’t ask me how because I don’t understand myself logically, but the mediocre do and act accordingly – Alfred Dreyfus did not deserve anything, but to be sentenced and deported for life. In plain English, some ‘professionals’ wanted Dreyfus to be a traitor and they all acted in complicity so that he looks like a traitor, made a trail and sentenced him because – as Zola said – they were playing God, when actually the devil was acting. Some mediocre like to play God. It seems to compensate for their lack of intellectual power.

The mediocre were not able to acknowledge the contribution of an intellectual officer to the French society, they were afraid for their own social position and general/commender jobs. I believe the progress of any society comes with the free circulation of ideas and from open competition rather than from pre-selelcted mediocre belonging to a cast or another thinking that this belonging justifies them to think that they are more deserving than others, although in their mediocrity they are scared of free competition and they prefer to sentence and deport somebody for life, in order to put aside any intellectual threat to their status and jobs. Emile Zola denounced at that time the consequences such injustice may have on the French society[8] and he defined what he thought a true ‘crime’ was:

‘It’s a crime to have accused of agitating France, those who want it generous and a leader among free and just nations (…). It’s a crime to manipulate the public opinion (…). It’s a crime to poison the ordinary and the humble people (…). It’s a crime to exploit patriotism for hate purposes, and finally it’s a crime to make from a sabre a modern god, while all human science is at the work of the next achievement of truth and justice’ (my translation). [9]

To sum up, Emile Zola brought a numbers of pointed accusations to a series of top generals and commenders of the French army, he also pointed that the wrong persons were held responsible, he accused of manipulation, of misuse of partriotism and put all his faith in truth and justice. He also accused the President of the Republic for ignoring the case, for ‘being a prisoner of the Constitution and of his entourage’, although Zola addressed his letter to the ‘first magistrate of the country’. He denounced the judicial errors and the consequences on France and rethorically asked the President ‘do you understand that?’

            Emile Zola reached his purpose of ‘outspeaking, in order not to be a complice’ to this injustice. The case was reopened. Unfortunately, Emile Zola died in 1902 and did not live to see the end of the trail and the rehabilitation of Alfred Dreyfus. He knew he would be judged of defamation according to a 1881 French law and he exiled himself. I belive that one year of exile in exchange of the working out of a several years-long judicial error, and the giving back of the life and the freedom of an innocent man is a bargain I would have done, too, if I were such a writer, with such a public impact. It’s worth it as the taste of truth and justice is equal to nothing better!

---

[1] ‘Je n’ai qu’une passion, celle de la lumière, au nom de l’humanité qui a tant souffert et qui a droit au bonheur. Ma protestation enflammée n’est que le cri de mon âme’.

[2] ‘…pour hâter l’explosion de la vérité et de la justice.’

[3] ‘une enquête scélérate d’où les coquins sortent transfigurés et les honnêtes gens salis.’

[4] ‘Il y a deux victimes, deux braves gens, deux coeurs simples, qui ont laissé faire Dieu, tandis que le diable agissait.’

[5] ‘…d’une pièce secrète, accablante, la pièce qu’on ne peut montrer, qui légitime tout, devant laquelle nous devons nous incliner, le bon Dieu invisible et inconnaissable ! Je la nie, cette pièce, je la nie de toute ma puissance!

[6] ‘Et quel nid de basses intrigues, de commérages et de dilapidations, est devenu cet asile sacré, où se décide le sort de la patrie!’

[7] ‘Dreyfus sait plusieurs langues, crime ; on n’a trouvé chez lui aucun papier compromettant, crime ; il va parfois dans son pays d’origine, crime ; il est laborieux, il a le souci de tout savoir, crime ; il ne se trouble pas, crime ; il se trouble, crime.’

[8] He was warning that with this kind of attitude the French society can die and decompose itself (‘When a society reaches this point, it falls in a decomposition stage’ (my translation of ‘Quand une société en est là, elle tombe en décomposition’).

[9] ‘C’est un crime d’avoir accusé de troubler la France ceux qui la veulent généreuse, à la tête des nations libres et justes (…). C’est un crime d’égarer l’opinion (…). C’est un crime d’empoisonner les petits et les humbles (…). C’est un crime que d’exploiter le patriotisme pour des oeuvres de haine, et c’est un crime, enfin, que de faire du sabre le dieu moderne, lorsque toute la science humaine est au travail pour l’oeuvre prochaine de vérité et de justice.’

The American Film Academy Awards – Creative Writing Exercise #13

by Laura Lai/Uncategorized

Every month the Australian Writers’ Centre organizes a creative writing competition called ‘Furious Fiction’. It is a 55-hour, 500-word and 500-dollar win competition based on some precise requirements. Last month’s requirements were:

• Your story must include a character who’s a GUARD.
• Your story must include the words NARROW, GOLDEN, LEATHERY and GLOSSY.
• Your story’s first and last sentences must each contain just TWO WORDS.

 This is the text I submitted. Enjoy!

THE AMERICAN FILM ACADEMY AWARDS

‘Oh, lala! Tonight is the big night. I’m nervous. Some may say that I’m nervous about since my golden and glossy conception. They wouldn’t be too wrong. I’m always brought in in a safe box. And I never see the flashes. I’m actually hold tied and taken pictures later in the night. The organizers treat me nice every year. Only if I could tell you how gently they put me on this table, where it seems that I’m not alone…’

‘Hi, there! I’m ‘Joker’! Who are you?’

‘The Irishman!’

‘Nice… . And you?’

‘I’m ‘JoJo Rabbit’. Nice to meet you!’

‘Nice to meet you, too’, I replied happily.

‘We are the ‘Little Women’.

‘And you must be…’

‘The Two Popes!’

‘No kidding! We’ll get a tattoo tonight!’ I told them, although they didn’t look too scared.

‘So what?’ they replied to me. ‘This will not stop us to enjoy afterwards ‘A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.’

‘Right! Like old times in Hollywood!’ The truth is that I didn’t really know what to say. ‘And who are you?’ I asked a similarly golden little thing, but less glossy than all of us.

‘I’m ‘Parasite’. Nice to meet you all.’

‘What’s that dust on you?’

‘Oh, that’s from ‘1917’.

‘Don’t worry!’ I said. ‘I also live in ‘Pain & Glory’ myself, at ‘The Edge of Democracy’, have learned to write ‘Toy Stories’, ‘I Lost My Body’ in an ‘American Factory’ and I’ll probably end up in a narrow ‘Cave’ or in a darken basement after tonight like ‘Les Miserables’.’

‘Why tonight?!’ I’ve been asked by an unknown. ‘I’m sorry. I forgot to introduce myself. I’m ‘Klaus’. Why tonight? That guard sitting on a leathery quilted chair and armed with a Kalashnikov seem to keep a good eye on us?’

‘Tonight is the night when each of us will be taken by somebody. Some of them take two of us. And we will remember our little chat as ‘Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood’.

‘Very funny!’ said ‘Jojo Rabbit’.

‘Come on! It starts. It was very nice meeting you all. The Film Academy Awards begins. The Oscars!!!

César Award 2020 – The Best Film Director

The Cesar Award. Source: en.wikipedia.org

by Laura Lai/ Comment

‘And the César Award for 2020 for the best director goes to….’

‘The coronavirus!’ I would informally say, because it tells the whole world how to dress, how to move, where and when not to move, what to wear (masks!), etc. If life is a stage, as Shakespeare might have said, the coronavirus is telling the whole world – each of us actor on its life stage – how to play best. But the French Film Academy considered that the best film director award for 2020 should go to Roman Polanski for his movie ‘An Officer and A Spy’ – a movie on the Dreyfus Affair from the mid-19^th century.

The ‘Affaire Dreyfus’ is quite a long history page very familiar to those who studied the History of France – Me, too! It is the story of a French officer born in Alsace, Alfred Dreyfus (1859-1935). The first trial started in 1894. He was wrongly accused of spying, was prosecuted and convicted a life sentence (deportation). It was a trail that polarized the French society in those who used to call themselves ‘dreyfusists’ and were defending the truth and the justice, and the ‘antidreyfusists’, who were defending honor of the army and the country. The ‘antidreyfusists’ were right extremists groups (anti-Semitic) and they were in favor of convicting Dreyfus more based on his Jewish belief. This judicial and political mess got public in 1898 when the writer Emile Zola (1840-1902) exercised his civic duty and wrote the famous letter ‘J’Accuse’ to the President of France (Félix Faure – who died when the second trial of Dreyfus started). For his civic and moral duty of defending an innocent person, Zola got exiled for one year. In 1899, started the second trial of Dreyfus and in 1906 he was rehabilitated. Following this ‘Affaire Dreyfus’ – a long judicial and political mess – the left won more votes and the Catholic Church lost some of its political influence.

This is the historical story that Roman Polanski brought back to the public attention. I have not seen the movie, but I hope it stays as close as possible to the historical truth. I know that both the cinema and the theatre are art, but I, personally, share the opinion of those theoreticians, who believe that the cinema, as well as the theatre, must entertain and teach. I think the challenge is greater when an author, or a film/theater director wants to produce something that fulfills both targets. It is not only about the excitement of a double challenge, but also about precise data on great disinterest of the masses in general for culture (then the number of those abandoning schools, or not having been to school, etc). Therefore, I view the cinema and the theatre as places in which people can also learn something. Indeed, I see (script) writings, movies and plays as great actors themselves with a great and positive impact on the stage of life.

The French Film Academy awarded the ‘Prix César’ for the best film director to Roman Polanski. Some people were intrigued that a controversial man got this prize, some others were happy for this professional achievement. I perfectly understand all women protesting outside. The ‘affair’ with the 13-year old child is disgusting. And it speaks for his ‘quality’ as a person. But with all objectivity, it does not say anything about his quality as film director. I understood that he was convicted and that he still escapes responsibility.

            Women protests are very legitimate. But is the French Academy the right place to protest against what Roman did? The French Film Academy is judging only Polanski’s work, not what Roman did. Therefore, to my understanding even if Polanski were in jail and would have done the movie ‘An Officer and A Spy’ while in jail or on permission (days off from jail, according to jail’s rules), the French Film Academy would still had to judge the movie, not the convicted man or the prisoner.

Focusing on judging the movie and under a great street pressure, the French Film Academy played objectively. I agree with the women protesting – their protest is legitimized. I understand and I share their disgust for such disgusting stories (hopefully, Roman is disgusted, too), but they were protesting so that the French Film Academy to do what? To judge Roman? To sentence him? Not to give him any award?

The French Film Academy seems to have tried to be as objective as possible. Subjectively, each of us can think whatever about Polanski’s movie. Then it’s an issue of personal choice whether or not we watch his movie(s) for whatever objective or subjective reasons we may have. Democracy gives this right, too: we are free to choose. And so is the French Film Academy. Democracy gives the right to protest. And a Film Festival is the right place to protest against a movie or its topic, but I am not convinced that it is the right place to protest against the film director as a man, as there are institutions in charge with that. Therefore, I am not persuaded that protests at a French Film Festival would solve a judicial matter.