Helloooooooooooo, nurse.

We’re wrapping up our April of Barbara Stanwyck flicks with a look at one of my favorite pre-Codes, the 1931 drama Night Nurse, co-starring Joan Blondell and a villainous, non-mustachioed Clark Gable.

Stanwyck stars as Lora Hart, an aspiring nurse who finagles a probationary training position at a hospital after meeting the chief of staff, Dr. Bell (Charles Winninger), when he inadvertently knocks her purse to the ground. She is partnered with wisecracking, no-nonsense fellow nurse Maloney (Blondell), and the two become fast friends despite their differing views on the nursing profession–Maloney is just working until she can entice a rich patient to marry her, while Lora truly believes in helping people. After being assigned to the night shift as punishment for missing curfew one night, Lora meets a charming bootlegger, Mortie (Ben Lyon), who comes in for treatment for a gunshot wound. Lora agrees not to report the incident to the police, gaining her an instant fan and admirer in Mortie (who calls her “my pal”).

After earning their nursing certification, Lora and Maloney are assigned to private nursing duty for two children, Nanny and Desney Ritchey, who are very sick and don’t seem to be getting any better. Maloney, who works the day shift, voices her suspicions that the children’s recovery is being deliberately impeded by their shady physician, Dr. Ranger (Ralf Harolde), and Lora herself becomes concerned when she realizes that all the children are being fed is milk. When she tries to talk to the children’s mother (Charlotte Merriam), she finds the woman is a perpetual drunk and unconcerned about her children’s well-being. Mrs. Ritchey’s equally drunken paramour, Mack (Walter McGrail), attacks Lora, and he is pulled off by Nick (Gable), Mrs. Ritchey’s animalistic chauffeur. Nick demands that Lora pump Mrs. Ritchey’s stomach, but when she tries to call a doctor to get approval for the procedure, he knocks her out with a sock to the jaw.

The next day, Lora tries to talk to Dr. Ranger about the children’s health and Nick’s brutality, but he brushes off her concerns. An enraged Lora quits; once she leaves his office, Dr. Ranger calls Nick, revealing that he has been conspiring with the chauffeur to kill the children (we later learn that Nick’s plan is to marry the children’s mother after their deaths and thus get access to their trust fund). Lora seeks advice from Dr. Bell, who advises her to get her job back so that she can be in the Ritchey house to better help save the children. She convinces Ranger to hire her back, but by this time, Nanny’s health has deteriorated to the point of near-death. Lora enlists the help of “old pal” Mortie to foil Nick’s plans, but will it be enough to save the children?

Night Nurse was directed by William A. Wellman, marking the first of five collaborations between Stanwyck and Wellman. The actress was inordinately fond of the sometimes temperamental director, and in later years she would remember him as one of the best directors she had worked with throughout her long career. As with much of Wellman’s body of work, Night Nurse is smartly paced from its opening scene (a point-of-view shot from the driver’s seat of a speeding ambulance, careening through the streets before screeching to a halt in front of the emergency room) through its book-ended conclusion of a similar scene (recreated with a body we know in tow). Though the film is rather noticeably split into two definitive sections–beginning with Lora’s training before sliding into the thriller/mystery that marks the second half–it works well as a whole, showing Lora’s progression from wannabe nurse to defiant savior.

At its heart, Night Nurse is an indictment of the excesses of the Jazz Age; in fact, all of the scenes in which Mrs. Ritchey appears are accompanied by loud jazz music in the background, as if to underscore the evils of the period. We never see Mrs. Ritchey sober, nor do we ever see her in the company of her daughters. Liquor is the devil, used to keep Mrs. Ritchey drunk and under Nick’s control, enabling her to forget her motherly duties. In a fit of self-pity, she claims Dr. Ranger told her that she makes the children “too nervous” and has therefore been forbidden from visiting them; whether this is true or not, our frustration with Mrs. Ritchey mirrors that of Lora, whom we cheer when she finally lashes out at the woman for her less-than-maternal behavior.

And yet Lora herself is guilty of less-than-seemly behavior. She readily agrees to forgo reporting Mortie’s gunshot wound to the police, and she appears to have no problem associating with a known bootlegger (so long as they aren’t going too public with their friendship). In the end, she even seems to accept Mortie’s inference about Nick’s “whereabouts” with nary a blink of an eye. She is far from an innocent figure, though the audience is conditioned to support her regardless … making us, thereby, implicit in her morally-questionable behavior. Interesting consideration, to say the least.

Though Stanwyck and Blondell play a pair of seasoned, worldly females and are far from victimized, there is nonetheless a sense that femininity is devalued throughout the film. The women are slapped around, brutalized, cowed, and used. Their opinions and concerns are cast as “hysterical” or ignorant. Lora fights back against this, and largely succeeds because she takes a more aggressive approach to her interactions with most of the other characters–she’s unafraid to raise her voice, use her fists, or get right up in Nick’s face and accuse him of attempted murder. In other words, because she takes on more traditionally “male” characteristics, Lora escapes the same level of treatment that the frightened housekeeper, Mrs. Maxwell (Blanche Frederici) or Mrs. Ritchey are subjected to (for the most part). Despite this, all of the women of the film are, at times, treated as mere objects: stared at and lusted over not only by the men of the film, but by the audience as well, a sleazy note of voyeurism that is unavoidable considering the sheer number of scenes in which Wellman has his two leading ladies strip down to their undergarments. It’s titillation for titillation’s sake–seriously, is there any real reason for so many scenes in which the female characters disrobe?

Stanwyck’s typical film persona is that of the prototypical “tough broad,” and she takes that to new heights in this film. She is a smart-assed, take-no-crap dame who is determined to do what’s right regardless of the rules of “ethical” nursing (which would, in theory, prevent her from telling the full truth about what’s happening in the Ritchey household)–and it’s a shame that, by the end of the film, Lora is forced to choose between doing the right thing and the job that she has come to love and excel at. Lora’s confrontation with Mrs. Ritchey over the welfare of the children is perhaps the best scene in the entire film, a fiery burst of passion from Stanwyck that ends with her standing over Mrs. Ritchey’s prone body, muttering, “You mother.” Stanwyck delivers the line with a mix of sarcasm and derision–it’s an epithet, an ironic label, and an insult, all wrapped into one, and in her tone, you can just hear the implicit ” … fucker” added to the end of the phrase.

Though their scenes together are relatively few, Gable and Stanwyck demonstrate a potent chemistry in their moments of confrontation. Watching the movie now, it’s easy to see how and why Gable simply exploded into popularity in 1931. Night Nurse was released right on the heels of the film that arguably made Gable a star, A Free Soul, in which he appeared opposite Norma Shearer and Lionel Barrymore. Though Gable is mostly remembered for his more heroic or romantic film roles–let’s face it, to many film fans, he will always be the roguish Rhett Butler and nothing more–this movie presents Gable as an effectively chilling psychopath. He plays Nick as a sort of pit bull–always nipping and barking, exerting more muscle than brains, dangerously fueled by testosterone and coldblooded determination as opposed to logic and reason.

A potent mix of sex and violence, marked by strong performances and a relatively solid, entertaining plot, Night Nurse is one of the better melodramas to come out of the pre-Code period, and one I highly recommend.

Feminist Fridays: Madonnas and whores on the China Seas.

Of the six films in which Jean Harlow and Clark Gable appeared together, China Seas is one of the pair’s better outings. By this time in her life, at the tender age of 24, Harlow had come into her own as an actress, demonstrating the combination of sharp-edged femininity and self-assurance that marked the final roles of her too-short career. For his part, Gable was coming off an Oscar win for Best Actor (for the previous year’s It Happened One Night), and the award had brought Gable immense popularity as well as more power at his home studio, MGM. The pair had previously made three films together–1931′s The Secret Six, 1932′s Red Dust, and 1933′s Hold Your Man–and had developed an easy rapport both on and off the screen. By the time China Seas began filming in 1935, they were old pros at playing combative lovers.

China Seas puts bickering former paramours Gable and Harlow in the middle of a love triangle on the other side of the world. Alan Gaskell (Gable) is captain of a ship traveling from Hong Kong to Shanghai with troubles aplenty on board. He has a store of gold below decks; a ferocious storm on the horizon; a former lover, Dolly “China Doll” Portland (Harlow), in his cabin; an English widow and former objet d’amour, Sybil Barclay (Rosalind Russell), among his passengers; and, unbeknownst to Gaskell, a duplicitous old friend, Jamesy McArdle (Wallace Beery), who is plotting to steal the gold. When Gaskell renews his relationship with Sybil and decides to marry her and return to England, China Doll jealously aligns herself with Jamesy, assisting in his plot by stealing the key to the ship’s arsenal so his pirate cohorts can arm themselves and take the ship. With the help of his crew, Gaskell is able to turn the tables on Jamesy and comes to realize that his adventurous and dangerous life on the seas is exactly where he belongs.

The film presents two very different women. Harlow’s character, China Doll, is pure vamp, oozing sex with every step and sideways glance. When Gaskell discover her in his bathroom and asks what she’s doing aboard his ship, she blithely replies, “Nothing alarming. Just showering dewdrops off the body beautiful.” That she thinks nothing of stripping down and jumping in Gaskell’s shower indicates the scope of their relationship–they were previously lovers, and judging by Gaskell’s anger at her unexpected appearance, he has attempted (and obviously failed) to cut her loose. China Doll calls herself “the gal that drives men mad,” and it’s true: from Gaskell to Jamesy (who later claims that loving China Doll was “the only decent thing I ever did in my life, and even that was a mistake”), she leaves a series of frustrated male libidos in her wake.

On the other hand, China Doll’s polar opposite, Russell’s high-class Sybil Barclay, is refinement personified. She views China Doll, a woman of poor breeding and “ill repute,” as nothing short of vulgar, and Sybil manages to convey her utter disdain of the woman while maintaining the regal bearing of the aristocrat. Still, Sybil’s measured personality does not prevent her from making incisive observations about her romantic rival when pushed too far by China Doll’s barely-concealed contempt. During an ill-fated dinner one evening, as China Doll becomes increasingly drunk and belligerent, Sybil finally defines (and implicitly judges) the motivation behind the woman’s uncouth behavior: “You must be very fond of him, to humiliate yourself like this.” It’s interesting to note the difference between the women as exemplified by this scene. While China Doll lets her emotions get away from her and spirals into self-destructiveness, Sybil contains her feelings behind a veneer of civility–it’s passion versus propriety, lust versus genteel sentiment.

In this way, the movie sets up the archetypal (and stereotypical) Madonna-whore complex, with each woman respectively being shunted into the role of “good girl” and “wicked woman.” In his interactions with China Doll, Gaskell is rough and animalistic, exuding wild, untamed lust; she responds in kind, seemingly welcoming the captain’s brutality, at least until it turns to outright rejection. Gaskell’s relationship with Sybil, by contrast, is almost entirely devoid of eroticism; the well-bred Englishwoman is a figure of virtue, one Gaskell intends to marry instead of ravish, and thus is not subject to the same unbridled passion that he shares (however unwillingly) with China Doll.

Gable’s relationship with these two women is like some kind of weird, wonderful Freudian wet dream. He spends the entire film torn between his feelings for each woman, each of whom represents a particular facet of his own personality. China Doll is indicative of the freedom he desires (and has found in the sea): as a woman of “loose morals” (so to speak), she does not require commitment to be enjoyed for what she can offer. As Gaskell tells her, “Now wait a minute, Dolly! You and I are friends. We’ve had a lot of fun together, and, as far as I’m concerned, you’re number-one girl in the archipelago, but I don’t remember making any vows to you, nor do I recall your taking any.” In the same breath, he both belittles her (by pointing out her “popularity” among the men of the area) and indicates approval of their no-strings-attached “friendship.”

Sybil, on the other hand, represents a level of respectability that Gaskell craves–a return to “normalcy” away from pirates and stormy weather and the daily risks of captaining a crew in such a dangerous part of the world. Their connection goes deep into their shared past, as they had loved one another years ago, but had forsaken those feelings out of respect for Sybil’s husband (who dies before the movie begins). Had Gaskell remained in England and forged a life that was not fraught with strife and danger, then settling down with a now-free Sybil would have been the logical choice. In the end, though, Gaskell lets her go, forgoing the promise of civilization in favor of a woman who is much like himself–a rebel bucking the norm.

Harlow and Gable are an indelible film pair–it’s hard to think about a Harlow film without Gable coming to mind. That shouldn’t be too surprising, all things considered–of the almost two dozen feature-length movies for which Harlow received on-screen credit, Gable ultimately co-starred in 25% of them. Gable and Harlow would go on to make two more films together after China SeasWife vs. Secretary in 1936, and Saratoga a year later. The latter film was Harlow’s final project before her untimely death, and was eventually completed using a stand-in and a voice double. That Saratoga was completed at all is a testament to both the actress’ popularity and the potency of the Gable-Harlow pairing–in the end, no one could resist the idea of seeing these two brilliant and beautiful actors play off one another just one more time.

Dear Mr. Gable.

In the 1937 film Broadway Melody of 1938, a young Judy Garland sings “Dear Mr. Gable: You Made Me Love You” to a photograph of the handsome star:

“Dear Mr. Gable,
I am writing this to you
and I hope that you will read it so you’ll know
My heart beats like a hammer
and I stutter and I stammer
every time I see you at the picture show.
I guess I’m just another fan of yours
and I thought I’d write and tell you so.
You made me love you …”

Women have been falling for the charms of Clark Gable for decades, and even those of us who entered this world long after his heyday still find our hearts set aflutter by that cocky grin and rugged countenance. His films, among some of most memorable in Hollywood history, are a staple on TCM; this month alone, he’ll be popping up in six films on the network’s schedule.

Yes, even fifty years after his death, Clark Gable is a ubiquitous presence for the classic movie fan. But sometimes, he shows up in the most unexpected places.

Recently, our very smart and all-around awesome friend Leigh Pourciau discovered this framed and autographed picture of Mr. Gable in her great-grandmother’s old wardrobe!

In the photo, Gable stands in front of a plantation home on the set of the 1957 Civil War film Band of Angels. If you zoom in on the picture, you can make out the faint dedication: “To Lucille, Clark.”

I asked Leigh to tell us a little about the background of this amazing find:

“My great-grandmother, Lucille Browning Pourciau, was the head waitress at a restaurant in The Bellemont Hotel in Baton Rouge, LA in the 1950s (it’s no longer in operation, but you can find photos here). Because she was the head waitress, she always served the VIP’s. Occasionally, this included Hollywood actors and actresses who filmed movies in the area. In the late 1950s, this included Clark Gable, who was starring in Band of Angels (1957) with Yvonne de Carlo and Sidney Poitier. Apparently Clark Gable was kind enough to sign an 8×10 for her. My grandfather, her youngest son, said that she did not, however, have a high opinion of Yvonne de Carlo. Apparently, she was a snob.

She also had the pleasure of serving actor Marion Mitchell Morrison, known to us as John Wayne!

Maw Maw Pourciau and her husband (my great-grandfather) went on to own and operate their own restaurant–Frenchie’s in Baton Rouge.”

You never know what you’ll come across on any given afternoon!

Thank you, Leigh, for sharing this with us!

(Special thanks to commenters on the MovieFanFare blog for helping us correctly identify the setting of the photograph!)

In defense of Scarlett O’Hara.

Ladies and gentlemen, today I present to you the case of the most celebrated and vilified Southern belle to ever grace the silver screen.

I will cut you.

Now, depending upon where you fall in that camp–whether you revere the young woman in question, or cringe at the sound of her name–generally determines your opinion of the film that features her. I have met many a person who cannot bring him/herself to watch Gone With the Wind in full because they so detest the character of Scarlett O’Hara. And this is, to an extent, understandable. I mean, I’m a woman who cannot bring herself to watch a full episode of Seinfeld because I dislike those four characters so much. So I recognize that an alienating character can contribute to one’s perception of the work in which he/she is featured.

But don’t let that stop you from enjoying one of the most entertaining spectacles in all of moviedom.

Insert stirring orchestral theme here.

My personal history with GWTW starts at the age of ten, when I received a copy of the Margaret Mitchell book for Christmas. Yes, I was a precocious child (at least, that’s my word for it … though my mama and daddy would probably term me “the biggest know-it-all smart-ass to ever walk the planet”). I sat down and read it over the course of the next month. I fell head over heels in love with the story, the characters (especially that delicious Rhett Butler), the setting … to me, at the age of ten, it was the romantic thing in the world, to have men falling all over you, declaring their undying love, sharing a secret passion for one another as Scarlett and Ashley do. And as an unrepentant smart-ass, I adored Scarlett and her tart tongue and sarcastic asides.

Now, there were, of course, things that I did not understand at that age. But over the course of the next several years, in which I read the book probably twice a year until I was eighteen (I told you I loved it), I began to understand that Scarlett was not the ideal of womanhood that I had built up in my head. She was not even really an ideal of humanity, if you want to get right down to it. There are things about her that are so morally reprehensible that you wonder why people like to label her a heroine.

And yet, who are we to judge? But I’ll get back to this in a moment.

When I finally saw the movie at the age of fifteen, I was bowled over by the grandeur that the directors (yes, all three of them) and the crew had brought to life on the screen, and I marveled at how almost perfectly cast the film was. Vivien Leigh … she embodied the role in a way I’d never really seen on film before. I knew nothing about her, and I never would have guessed she was British. And I’m particular about my Southern accents. When one is done horribly (I’m looking at you, Con Air‘s Nicolas Cage), I cannot enjoy the film.

In general, at fifteen, I thought everything about the film was perfect. I did not then understand the undercurrents of the “happy slave” motif perpetuated by the film (though I think avoiding the movie simply because of its seeming idealization of antebellum slavery ignores the broader implications of the film), and I did not realize that Scarlett’s happy trilling in bed the morning after Rhett sweeps her up the grand staircase is little more than a disturbing acceptance of her rape at the hands of her husband.

Yeah, this ain't normal.

In these instances, and several others, the perspective brought by the passage of many years has made me realize that there are elements of the film that are far from perfect. But it is still one of my favorite films of all time, and one of the ten best ever put on the big screen. I firmly believe this, and I doubt I will ever change my mind. And to me, Scarlett is one of the most fascinating characters ever conceived.

The thing that I appreciate the most about the film version of GWTW is that the filmmakers did not shy away from putting some of Scarlett’s least venerable characteristics on screen. So many times, a film adaptation falls apart because the characters are whitewashed and made “prettier” (at least from a moral standpoint) so as not to offend the general viewing audience. But not in this case. Scarlett’s jealously, her pettiness, her utter derision for her fellow man, her coquettish determination to claim Ashley for her own … all of it is shown, and rather unapologetically so. And for that, as I stated at the beginning of this post, some celebrate her fight to survive despite its costs to others, and some condemn her for her selfish disregard.

Fiddle-dee-dee.

I lean more toward the first camp myself. I enjoy watching Scarlett toy with the affections of men she does not love; she is, after all, the “belle of the ball,” and that has its privileges. To take the attentions of men who view her as nothing more than a plaything, a beautiful trophy to take to their beds, and become the puppetmaster, dangling those same, ultimately helpless men by their strings … she is, as second-wave American feminists would claim, simply asserting her power. She is, in the end, smarter than those men, and she’s smart enough not to let them know it. And it is interesting to watch this kind of behavior through the concept of the Civil War-era, when women were bound by the rules of society into home-and-hearth roles that became virtually inescapable. Scarlett, determined to enjoy life in the manner in which she sees fit, flouts those society restrictions, which most modern audiences would find admirable, though by the rules of 1860s society, she must be punished.

Yes, Scarlett is a bitch-with-a-capital-B. But she’s just so honest about her overall bitchery. She recognizes her own flaws and agonizes over going to Hell, but in the end is not particularly bothered by the lies she tells or the manipulative behavior in which she engages on a regular basis. Her obstinance leads her to marry her first husband simply out of spite and to inadvertently cause the death of her second husband. And she never ceases her pursuit of Ashley despite the bone-deep frustration she feels toward his passivity, unwilling to admit that she’s in it for the competition more so than actual love. At least when she finally understands this about herself, Scarlett tries to correct her mistakes, rather than allowing pride to continue to thwart her better judgment. There’s growth to her character–though not much, all things considered; the film (much like the book) tries to cram Scarlett’s redemption into the last ten minutes, leaving viewers with the sense that Scarlett has not “grown up” so much as she has finally “wised up” (and yes, there is a difference between the two).

"You should be kissed and often, and by someone who knows how."

In the end, at least in my mind, the fact that she allows the worse parts of her nature to override her one chance at happiness with Rhett is something to be pitied rather than to be celebrated. Who hasn’t lost love or friendship for the sake of pride? Who hasn’t stood in Scarlett’s shoes, staring at someone walking away from you, wondering how things would have been if you (or they) had done things differently? Who doesn’t have regrets? When Scarlett collapses on the staircase, sobbing as Rhett strides away in the mist, I’m taken back to points in my own history when I felt the world crumbling around me, when “resilience” felt like a dirty word. But as Scarlett exclaims, there’s always tomorrow. You know, as the film ends, that Scarlett will redouble her efforts to win Rhett back, and that she will ultimately be successful (and it doesn’t take a long, drawn-out, poorly-conceived sequel–shame on Alexandra Ripley for her deplorable attempt–to know that).

This, I think, is why I identify with Scarlett. She’s only human. She’s not a caricature of Southern gentility, the stereotypical fragile blossom whose bloom fades the moment she dons her wedding gown. As Rhett laughingly tells her, “And you, miss, are no lady!” Instead, she’s a nineteenth-century steel magnolia. The character is, in essence, a flawed, natural, thriving, and searingly honest depiction of a woman who was never meant to fill the mold. She may not cherish life, judging by her somewhat cavalier attitude toward the deaths of her first two husbands, but she sure as hell relishes it.

The most thankless role in the film, and de Havilland knocks it out of the park.

She also protects what’s hers, and that includes the family she does not even particularly like. She detests Melanie (her favorite descriptive term for poor Melanie is “mealy-mouthed”), but she does her duty to her sister-in-law, ensuring her survival and providing a roof over her head and food to eat. She commits murder without flinching, shooting a Yankee deserter who attempts to steal the family’s meager remaining possessions in the final days of the war. She even accepts the possibility that she will have to prostitute herself to Rhett, offering him a place in her bed in exchange for the money to pay the taxes on Tara. For all the supposed “evil” that Scarlett does, she makes certain that her people are provided for and her beloved plantation remains in O’Hara hands. Now, such ruthlessness and self-serving determined would hardly be cause for concern were she not a woman. But because she is, Scarlett is untoward, unladylike, a lesser human being?

I don’t frigging think so.

She’s a survivor; in fact, when Margaret Mitchell was asked to basically define the theme of her novel, she said it was simply about “survival.” And Scarlett is the ultimate survivor. She thrashes against fate to stay alive, and then she sticks it to everyone who doubted her in the most delicious way possible.

So I admit it. I like Scarlett O’Hara Hamilton Kennedy Butler. I really do. I even feel a sort of kinship with her. Does that make me seem odd? [Well, if you've only now figured that out, where have you been?]

The only thing I don’t understand about the character? Why, on God’s green earth, she’d prefer this …

Um ...

… over THIS.

Hellooooooo, handsome.

Are you for real? Leslie Howard as Ashley Wilkes is the very definition of “milquetoast.” Clark Gable as Rhett Butler just radiates sex. I don’t care if rumor has it that Vivien Leigh did not want to kiss him because his dentures smelled bad. If Carole Lombard could kiss that every night and be fine with it, then make room for me.

Overall, I recommend the movie without reservations. Not only is a masterful drama, but it’s a masterwork of cinematography as well, with some of the most beautiful scenes ever captured on film. It overly romanticizes the time period, but so what? That’s what movies do. Film, by nature, is a hyper-extension of reality. If you cannot accept that, and realize that GWTW depicts things like slavery and war through a romanticized lens, then what are you doing watching fiction anyway? Go watch a documentary. With subtitles, if it makes you feel more like an auteur.

This is the epic to beat all epics. If you have never seen it, I urge you to do so. It’s a four-hour time investment, but I truly feel it to be worth it. It’s one of those movies everyone must see at least once, if only to marvel at the spectacle of it all.

Just a brief historical note: Gone With the Wind came out in 1939 amidst a bevy of amazing films–it’s no wonder 1939 is considered a “golden year” in film history, producing such monumental classics as The Wizard of Oz; Mr. Smith Goes to Washington; Dark Victory; Goodbye, Mr. Chips; Ninotchka; Stagecoach; Wuthering Heights; and Love Affair, among many, many others. But GWTW, with its ten Academy Awards and rabid fan base, trumps them all. Its leading actors (except Howard) were nominated in all of the major categories, and two of them won: Vivien Leigh, the first of two Best Actress wins for playing Southern belles (the second would come more than a decade later, in 1951 for A Streetcar Named Desire), and Hattie McDaniel, the first African-American to win an Oscar, for Best Supporting Actress.

I regret that I have never gotten the chance to see this movie on the big screen. I have to settle for my four-disc collector’s edition (well, as soon as I get it back from my mother!), which I’m hoping to upgrade at some point to the 70th Anniversary Ultimate Collector’s Edition (egads at the price tag on that one!). I’ve owned my edition for several years, and it has some great documentary features on the last two discs–of particular interest is “Melanie Remembers: Olivia de Havilland Recalls Gone With the Wind,” a great interview with the last major surviving cast member of the film. But there are less expensive versions of the DVD without all of the extras, if you only desire to see the film.

If you do not have the chance to catch it on DVD, TCM is showing the film on September 14th at 8PM EST, as always uncut and commercial free (God bless ‘em).

Now that I have spoken my piece, tell me: are you a Scarlett fan, or do you wish she would have “accidentally” strangled herself with that green curtain dress?

TCM Spotlight: Frank Capra

Tonight, Turner Classic Movies will show a lineup of some of director Frank Capra’s best.

SET YOUR DVR.

Now that I’ve gotten the warning/mild-threat-of-violence-if-you-don’t-comply out of the way …

If you’ve read my introduction page (in the links to the right), you know that I consider Capra one of my five favorite film directors of all time. His films, considered by some to be overtly corny (evidenced by those “high” critics who would later label his films “Capra-Corn”), reflect an almost idealized view of the American sensibility, for at the heart of every Capra film is the message that humanity, in and of itself, is inherently “good.” Fittingly, many of Capra’s characters tend to find redemption in the seeming mundanity of their lives (a perfect example of this being George Bailey, the erstwhile hero of Capra’s Christmas staple It’s a Wonderful Life), and the films celebrate a kind of “Average Joe American” who triumphs over the forces of cynicism and greed. Not for nothing, Depression-era audiences of the 1930s lauded Capra’s approach, and he was awarded all three of his Best Director Oscars within that decade.

On a side note, for those who may be wondering why Turner Classic Movies has left Capra’s best-known work off its schedule this holiday season, It’s a Wonderful Life does not belong to Turner Entertainment; instead, all broadcast rights in the United States belong to NBC. Thus, if you’re going to catch it on TV this year, you’ll have to endure it with commercials (I know … that sucks. A lot).

Tonight’s lineup does not include my personal favorite Capra film, 1939′s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (sadness). But the five films being shown tonight embody one of the things that made Capra’s work so great: that amazing, seamless blend of screwball comedy and genuine heart. Of these, I’d like to draw your attention to my favorite three: It Happened One Night (showing at 8PM); You Can’t Take It With You (showing at 12AM); and Arsenic and Old Lace (showing at 2:15AM).

It Happened One Night (1934) is a milestone film in that it was the first film ever to win the top five Academy Awards (Best Picture, Actor, Actress, Director, and Screenplay) in a single year, a sweep that is all the more surprising considering that the film’s stars reportedly did not enjoy making the film. In fact, according to the TCM film guide Leading Ladies (a review of which will appear here soon), Claudette Colbert was so frustrated with her experience making the film that, upon completing her role, she reportedly told several friends: “I’m glad I got here; I just finished the worst picture of the year.”

Well, that's one way to hail a cab.

Yet Colbert gives what is arguably the best performance of her career in this film. As a spoiled heiress who runs away from her father when he attempts to annul her marriage to a gold-digging pilot, Colbert flees by bus from Miami to New York, encountering Gable’s rakish reporter on the road and falling under his wing. Ultimately, through their increasingly ludicrous journey, each learns lessons about life and love from the other. From the infamous hitch-hiking scene, wherein she hails a ride by showing off her shapely gams, to the “Wall of Jericho” she insists separate her double bed from that of Gable’s in their shared cabin, Colbert brilliantly portrays the awakening of a pampered princess to the joys of freshly-picked carrots and bargain breakfasts. Gable’s own work here is first-rate; as he deftly straddles the line between pragmatic “everyman” and romantic gallant, it is not hard to believe that Colbert’s dilettante could be attracted to the rough-edged journalist.

Four years later, Capra won his second directing Oscar for 1938′s You Can’t Take It With You, starring his self-proclaimed favorite actress (and one of mine as well), the squeaky-voiced Jean Arthur (in the second of her three collaborations with Capra). The film also features the always-wonderful James Stewart (in the first of his three collaborations with the director) and a very effective supporting cast that includes Lionel Barrymore, Spring Byington, and Ann Miller. Of special note for Alabama natives such as myself, the cast also features character actor Dub Taylor, a former player for the University of Alabama football team, in his first role. And while the performances truly make this a film to remember, the screenplay, based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning play by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart, crackles with wit and heart.

Harmonica solos make everything better.

The story revolves around Arthur’s eccentric family, the Vanderhofs, and its clash with Stewart’s moneyed clan, the Kirbys, which creates difficulties for their star-crossed romance. While the Vanderhofs believe that people should always do what they please in order to live their lives to the fullest, the Kirbys pursue social advancement and the almighty dollar with an unmitigated passion. When Kirby Sr. decides to buy up an entire section of real estate in order to build commercial property, he runs into a roadblock when Grandfather Vanderhof refuses to sell. A proposal, some fireworks, and an unexpected visit by the Kirbys to the unconventional Vanderhof home lead to utter chaos … and utter hilarity.

After a detour into drama in the aforementioned Washington and 1941′s Meet John Doe, Capra revisits his love of screwball comedy in 1944′s Arsenic and Old Lace, one of the ultimate examples of the genre. The film had actually been made in late 1941, but was not released theatrically until the original play had completed its run on Broadway. Cary Grant plays Mortimer Brewster, the sane center of a completely psychotic family, and plays the increasingly crazed straight man brilliantly. Grant is sometimes underrated as a comedic actor, in part because he typically plays urbane, witty types rather than straight screwball characters. But in this movie (as in such previous films such as Holiday and Bringing Up Baby, both with the luminous Katharine Hepburn), Grant lets loose with a wild, unrestrained performance, reminding filmgoers that the suave “Cary Grant” had, in his earliest acting days, been a product of broad comedic training on the burlesque circuit.

Say what??

In this film, he has a great supporting cast of kooks to play off of, including Raymond Massey as his creepy brother, Priscilla Lane as his unwitting new bride, Josephine Hull and Jean Adair as his addled aunts, and Peter Lorre as Massey’s unwilling accomplice. The script, adapted for the screen by playwrights Julius and Philip Epstein, is a great blend of screwball and black comedy, with just enough lightness to take the edge off the darker themes of murder and mayhem. As Mortimer comes home to announce his wedding to the family, he is at first horrified by and then determined to hide his aunts’ “mercy poisonings” of their lonely, elderly male callers. Things are complicated by the antics of his brothers: the delusional “Teddy,” who thinks he is Teddy Roosevelt, and the murderous Jonathan, an escaped criminal. Mortimer scrambles to cover some crimes and expose others, in the process wondering if he’s just as crazy as the rest of them.

And there you have it. If you’re looking for some feel-good, laugh-your-ass-off comedy, check out these films (and more!) as TCM celebrates the amazing Frank Capra tonight!