Project 1939

Project 1945: Materials

Films: 

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn 

The Picture of Dorian Gray 

Without Love 

A Royal Scandal 

It’s in the Bag 

Valley of Decision 

Thrill of a Romance 

The Clock 

Conflict 

The Story of G.I. Joe 

Anchors Aweigh 

Lady on a Train 

Christmas in Connecticut 

State Fair 

Our Vines Have Tender Grapes 

Mildred Pierce 

And Then There Were None 

Fallen Angel 

She Wouldn’t Say Yes 

Lost Weekend 

Detour 

The Bells of St. Mary’s 

Leave Her to Heaven 

Spellbound 

Scarlett Street 

Why We Fight: War Comes to America 

Brenda Starr, Reporter (Serial) 

** Yes, technically there are more than 25 here. I added two more films because one is a “serial” broken up into short sections, and the other is part of a propaganda documentary series made by the U.S. government to show to enlisted men before they were sent off to war. Neither of them are conventional narrative films.

Radio Shows: 

Suspense 

Lux Radio Theater 

Jack Benny 

Fibber McGee and Molly 

Vic and Sade 

Bergen and McCarthy 

Fred Allen 

Mr. and Mrs. North 

Duffy’s Tavern 

Burns and Allen 

Baby Snooks 

The Shadow 

Magazines: 

Good Housekeeping, August 1945 

Modern Screen, August 1945 

Front Page Detective, October 1945 

Paperbacks: 

Claudia and David, Rose Franken, Pocket Books 

Atomic Energy in the Coming Era, David Dietz, Avon 

Cookbook:

Just for Two: A handbook of cookery for the small household, Lily Haworth Wallace, 9th printing, 1945

78 rpm Record: 

Gene Krupa (Anita O’ Day) Chickery Chick/A Little Fond Affection, Columbia 36877 

Music Streaming Playlist:

Project 1945: Rules 

“Rules” has a more relaxed meaning here, because this is not going to be anything like my 1939 or 1952 projects. For those, I used continuous comprehensive daily immersion for weeks, structuring each day around a specific variety of chronological media- films, radio shows, television, magazines, books, and music- writing daily about my general experience and all the media I consumed. This is going to be a kiddie pool version, by contrast! 

With that out of the way... the “rules” are: 

I do not have to totally immerse myself in the media of 1945. I can also read, watch, or listen to anything from any other year I fancy. 

I do not have to watch a film every single day or post something every single day. I will watch 27 films, in chronological order, and I will write about each one as I go along, but I will pace myself whatever way works best for life balance. 

I will write about each film the way I did with the 1952 films- a general summary, the good, the bad, and any other insights. 

I will listen to radio shows in chronological order as I go along. I have a list of a dozen different shows. I'll aim for 27 episodes- pairing at least one episode with each film.

I will read three magazines, in chronological order as well. I will post some interesting ads or articles if I feel so inclined. 

I will read two paperbacks. 

I will listen to one 78 rpm record. 

I will listen to every song on my 1945 playlist at least once and add more if I come across it. 

Recipes! I can't forget the recipes! With a Good Housekeeping magazine and a 1945 cookbook, I will try making several vintage recipes. Maybe even a crazy Jello Mold? Or five? Those things are so weirdly addicting!

I will probably do a “best and worst” type of thing at the end. 

"Oh for Pete’s Sake! Are you about to start another project now? Before I can even get this cigarette rolled?"

Yes! It's time, Gloria! (Are you a Gloria? You look like a Gloria.) Let’s grab our Lucky Strikes and our "Victory Red" lipstick, and we’ll listen to Harry James and do the Jitterbug! Cause we’re headed for 1945, baby!

Project 1945 Begins!

Why 1945? 

I previously covered 1939 and 1952, and guess what year is smack dab in the middle? 1945. Easy-peasy.

So what’s the deal here? Is this going to be like the other two projects? That insane? That immersive? That long?

No. This one will be on a much smaller scale and not fully immersive. The length will be variable, because I’m not going to hold myself to a strict daily schedule. I plan to make it somewhat like the final 100 films I watched after the official Project 1952 ended. I'll watch and write about films as time allows. It’s a mini-project! (At least relative to my last two gargantuan endeavors.)

Why do this, then? What's the point?

Because I have something even more immense planned for the future, and this is kind of a litmus test. I want to see if watching 25 films from one year in Hollywood history will give me a solid enough idea of what the year was like overall. How much of a flavor will it give me of 1945? Will 25 films be enough, or will I want something more comprehensive? One can only find out by trying! 

Adieu, films of 1952!

200 Films of 1952: Best and Worst

My Top 25 Films of 1952: 

Ikiru, (Akira Kurosawa) ***** 

Singin' in the Rain (Stanley Donen/Gene Kelly) ***** 

High Noon (Fred Zinnemann) ***** 

Umberto D. (Vittorio Di Sica) ***** 

The White Sheik (Federico Fellini) ****¾  

5 Fingers (Joseph L. Mankiewicz) ****½  

The Lusty Men (Nicholas Ray) ****½ 

The Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice (Yasujiro Ozu) ****½  

Lightning (Mikio Naruse) ****½  

Nights on the Road (Rudolf Jugert) ****½ 

Come Back Little Sheba (Daniel Mann) ****½ 

Europa 51 (Roberto Rossellini) ****½ 

Phone Call from a Stranger (Jean Negulesco) ****½ 

Secrets of Women (Ingmar Bergman) ****¼  

The Narrow Margin (Richard Fleischer) **** 

Sudden Fear (David Miller) **** 

The Bad and the Beautiful (Vincente Minnelli) **** 

Scandal Sheet (Phil Karlson) **** 

Pat and Mike (George Cukor) **** 

The Girl in White (John Sturges) **** 

Room for One More (Norman Taurog) **** 

The Sniper (Edward Dmytryk) **** 

The Importance of Being Earnest (Anthony Asquith) **** 

Paula (Rudolph Mate) ***¾ 

Park Row (Samuel Fuller) ***¾  

My Top 10 Hollywood Films of 1952: 

Singin’ in the Rain 

High Noon  

5 Fingers    

The Lusty Men   

Come Back, Little Sheba  

Phone Call from a Stranger 

The Narrow Margin    

Sudden Fear    

The Bad and the Beautiful 

Scandal Sheet  

I used a ranking scale from 1-5, where 5= classic/nearly perfect, 4= great, 3= good/average, 2= bad, 1= awful. Of course, all opinions are entirely my own, as a film scholar, and as someone who just loves old movies. 

Best Films in Each Genre: 

Comedy: Romantic comedy- Pat and Mike, straight comedy- Dreamboat (Claude Binyon)

Drama: Come Back, Little Sheba 

Noir: The Narrow Margin or Sudden Fear 

Adventure: Scaramouche (George Sidney)

Musical: Singin’ in the Rain 

Western: High Noon 

Foreign Language: Ikiru 

War: Red Ball Express (Budd Boetticher)

Suspense/Thriller: 5 Fingers 

Sci-Fi: Red Planet Mars? (Harry Horner) This was the most slickly made of the bunch, but it was insufferably preachy and ridiculous. 1952 was not a good year for Sci-Fi film!

Anthology: We're Not Married! (Edmund Goulding)

Documentary: This is Cinerama (Mike Todd, Jr., Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Schoedsack)

Exploitation: B Girl Rhapsody (James R. Connell, Lillian Hunt)

Horror: The Black Castle (Nathan Juran) This was the only horror film on my list, but it’s a decent and enjoyable B flick.

Best Performances and Direction:

Best performance by an actor: Takashi Shimura in Ikiru  

Best performance by an actress: Shirley Booth in Come Back, Little Sheba 

Best performance by a child actor: I had to add this to give Tommy Retting some love. He starred in Paula with Loretta Young and gave a remarkable performance for a 10-year-old.

Best direction overall: Akira Kurosawa for Ikiru 

Best direction in a Hollywood film: Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly for Singin’ in the Rain 

The Worst 5... (Watch any, if you dare) 

Captive Women (Stuart Gillmore) * 

Untamed Women (W. Merle Connell) *½  

The Jungle (William Berke) *½  

Invasion, USA (Alfred E. Green) *½  

200 Films of 1952: The Statistics

Total minutes of all films watched: 18,420 minutes! That’s 307 hours, or about 13 days of continuous watch time! 

Average film run-time: 92 minutes (I excluded the 8-minute short film and the 167-minute serial from the data.) 

Average rating I gave: 3.1 stars on a 1-5 scale. (5= classic/nearly perfect, 4= great, 3= good/average, 2= bad, 1= awful. I'll delve more into ratings in a future post.) 

Color vs Black and White: 

Black and White- 130 films 

Color- 70 films 

That's 65% black and white, 35% color.

Aspect Ratio: 

Standard Academy Ratio (1.37:1)- 199 

Widescreen (2.65:1 Cinerama)- 1

Male vs female protagonists: (excluding 4 documentaries) 

Male protagonist- 156 films 

Female protagonist- 33 films  

Joint male/female protagonists- 7 

Of the 33 female led films, 7 were made abroad. A total of only 25 US films had a female protagonist. 

That means 80% of films starred men, which raises to 84% if you include the joint/split films.  

Only 16% of films featured a female protagonist alone.  

Number of female protagonists in a Hollywood studio film: 24 (out of 170, which is 14%)

Number of films directed by a woman: One (Her name was Lillian Hunt, and she co-directed the burlesque film B Girl Rhapsody. She actually directed several burlesque films!) That means that .05% of films were directed by women. But Lillian Hunt, you rock!

White vs non-white protagonists: 

White protagonists- 194 

Non-white protagonists- 6 

Three of the six were Japanese leads starring in Japanese films. The other three were in American films. Of those, one protagonist was black (Ethel Waters in The Member of the Wedding), and 2 were Hispanic (Ricardo Montalban in My Man and I, and Lalo Rios in The Ring).  

That means that just 3% of the films starred a person of color. If you exclude the Japanese films from the statistics, the number falls to only 1.5%.

Number of non-white protagonists in a Hollywood studio film: 2 (out of 170, which is 1%)

Number of films directed by a person of color: 3

All three were Japanese directors directing in Japan. (Kurosawa, Ozu, and Mikio Naruse)  

Number of American films directed by a person of color: zero

Number of films in each genre: (in descending order)

Comedy: 39  

Drama: 35 

Noir: 33 

Adventure: 23 

Musical: 20 

Westerns: 19 

Foreign Language: 9 

War: 6 

Suspense/Thriller: 6 

Sci-Fi: 3 

Documentary: 3 

Exploitation: 2 

Horror: 1 

Serial: 1 

Number of "Red Scare" films (as a sub-genre): 14... but I'll give an honorable mention to California Conquest because it turns Russians into the biggest enemy of settlers in 1840s California?! So 15 maybe?

Films made by Hollywood studios (majors and minors): 170

Films made by US independent production companies: 12

Films made abroad (both foreign language and English): 18

Eight were British. One was Canadian. Nine were foreign language. Of the foreign language films 3 were Japanese, 3 were Italian, 1 was German, 1 was Swedish, and 1 was Norwegian. 

It should be emphasized, however, that my focus for this project was Hollywood Film in 1952. I added some non-Hollywood films to at least get a flavor of what was going on in other parts of the world at the time. 

Breakdown of the film studios:

Mainstream Hollywood studios: 

20th Century Fox: 34 films 

MGM: 27

RKO: 19 

Universal: 18 

Paramount: 15

Columbia: 15

Warner Brothers: 15

United Artists: 11

Republic: 7

Lippert: 7

Monogram: 2 

Smaller independent American studios/distributers: 

Realart

Roland Reed Productions 

All American Film Corp 

Jewell Enterprises 

Mutual 

Broadway Roadshow Productions 

Katzman Corp 

Allert Productions 

Spera Pics/Classic Pics, Inc. 

Cinerama Productions 

Foreign studios: 

National Film Board of Canada (Canada) 

Ealing Studios (Great Britain) 

Conquest Productions (Great Britain) 

Javelin Films (Great Britain) 

Independent Artists (Great Britain) 

Fernwood Productions/ Renown Productions (Great Britain) 

London Film/British Lion (Great Britain) 

Romulus (Great Britain) 

Shochiku (Japan) 

Daiei Film (Japan) 

Toho (Japan) 

Lux Film (Italy) 

Dear Films (Italy) 

PDC (Italy) 

Bavaria Film (Germany) 

AB Svensk Filmindustri (Sweden) 

Hello again, 1952!

I’m getting back to work! Well, I’m trying to wrap up my 200 Films of 1952 project, at least. Like a child polishing a floor with a 1950's power tool!

Anyway, it’s been 15 months since I finished watching and logging all 200 films, and since then... I’ve been just a teensy bit distracted by the @#$%^ of 2025. I have a new project coming up, though! Before I can start it, however, there are a few loose ends to tie up from the last one. In the next couple of days, I will be posting about ratings, statistics, and general observations of the 1952 films I watched.  

I Did It! 200 Films!

I actually watched 200 films from 1952! (And let's be real, it was a very mid year in Hollywood history.)

It took 10½ months, 3 packages of pens, 8 notebooks, and hundreds of hours of research, watching, writing, and posting about each film. I'm getting exhausted just thinking about it!

Right now, I’m going to recuperate a bit, but I’ll be back with an overview of stats, ratings, what I learned, and my thoughts in general. Stay tuned! 

Until then... OMFG, I CANNOT WAIT TO WATCH A MOVIE WITHOUT HAVING TO TAKE NOTES!!! I haven’t watched a film without a notebook in front of me for almost an entire year! 

200 Films of 1952

Film number 200!!!!: This is Cinerama

Release date: September 30th, 1952 

Studio: Cinerama Productions 

Genre: documentary 

Director: Mike Todd, Michael Todd, Jr, Walter A. Thompson, Fred Rickey 

Producer: Robert L. Bendick, Merian C. Cooper 

Actors: Lowell Thomas 

Plot Summary: This is a documentary that introduces the moviegoing public to the Cinerama film process and the stereo sound that came along with it. We see many famous sites and performances from around the world, followed by an aerial tour of the United States from coast to coast. 

My Rating (out of five stars): ***½  

I wanted to save this film for last, because it was the beginning of the major shift to widescreen films and stereo sound in Hollywood. In 1952, movies still used mono audio and had the almost square aspect ratio of 1.375:1. Cinerama was 2.65:1. Needing to compete with television, movies literally became bigger, longer, more colorful, and more sonically complex. This film was an epic illustration of the future, using sound and spectacle that must have been mind-blowing at the time. 

The Good: 

The curved screen still looked impressive on a flat screen today, due to the “Smilebox” framing. Sitting close to my screen, it felt like it wrapped around me, using my peripheral vision to make it feel almost like real life. 

The immersive stereo sound they used was super cool. I listened with headphones, hoping to hear the difference better, and boy was it noticeable! It was much like modern films, where if a character was speaking on the left side of the screen, the sound was more on the left side. My favorite trick was the way sound moved from back to front as well. When a church choir or a parade of bagpipers was moving past you, the sound imitated the real life feeling of sound coming and going. 

The color looked very nice. It was apparently shot in Eastmancolor (think Kodak Film), and then printed in Technicolor. It didn’t look as nice as a film shot in Technicolor, but it was still vivid and lovely. 

Starting the film with a black and white section with mono sound and a regular width was a smart idea. It amped you up for the change and made the juxtaposition even stronger. 

That black and white beginning was an entertaining journey through film history via 1952 eyes. It felt like a Film 101 class, which I enjoyed. But shockingly (and NOT shockingly), it gave absolutely no mention of the vital contributions of the French in early film history! 

The score was excellent- it was epic sounding without overdoing it.  

The sequence in Venice on the canals was my favorite. I want to go back and watch it again. 

The views of the Grand Canyon were stunning as well. 

The sequence showing off tricks with sound using a church choir was another highlight. I loved hearing the sound travel all around, from being almost whisper quiet behind you, to completely filling a room. 

Watching all of the people in the crowds was as exciting for me as anything else. The color made it especially fun to have that time machine feeling as you watch what “normal” people looked like 72 years ago. 

I got a kick out of imagining the experience through 1952 eyes. Having seen 199 standard films from the year, I can definitely get a taste of how overwhelming it must have felt to see and hear such futuristic things! 

The Bad: 

The novelty wore off after about an hour or so, and things sometimes got boring, especially because there was no plot or characters. The novelty would probably last longer in a real theater, though. 

It was very Eurocentric when it “traveled around the world.” The only countries we saw were Scotland, Italy, Austria, and Spain. I was hoping they’d show some East Asian countries, South American countries, African, etc... There were so many great sites all over the world they could have shot. 

My least favorite sequences were the theatrical ones featuring operas. There were only chorus scenes and chorus music- we never got to hear any arias! The scenes also went on waaay too long.  

The section with Dick Pope’s water-skiing show also ran much too long. It tried to introduce a minor character, but that just padded the time and made it go on even longer. It was fun at first, but that died down well before the section ended. 

200 Films of 1952

Film number 199: The Stooge

Release date: Dec 31st, 1952 

Studio: Paramount 

Genre: comedy 

Director: Norman Taurog 

Producer: Hal B. Wallis 

Actors: Dean Martin, Jerry Lewis, Polly Bergen, Marion Marshall 

Plot Summary: Singer/comedian Bill struggles as a solo vaudevillian, but when his manager suggests adding a stooge named Ted to his act, they become a big hit. Ted is happy just to be a part of it all, but Bill’s growing ego refuses to give Ted any billing in the act. Bill’s wife and manager become increasingly horrified at his behavior. 

My Rating (out of five stars): ***¼  

The last Martin and Lewis film I saw was Sailor Beware, 189 films ago! (It was number 10 on my list.) I thought that was all I could take, given the fact that Jerry Lewis is an acquired taste for me. But I decided to watch one more film, because Martin and Lewis were simply everywhere in 1952. They were two of the biggest stars in the country- they had a television show, a radio show, and they released three films in just that year alone! Thankfully I liked The Stooge better than Sailor Beware- it portrayed the camaraderie and bond between the two more effectively and movingly. It made me understand why they were so famous and beloved. (some spoilers)

The Good: 

The chemistry and affection between the two was palpable in this. It was hard not to fall in love with them as a team. Dean Martin isn’t your typical cold and annoyed “straight man” in the act. He shows such warmth toward Lewis, it makes me a little verklempt!  

Dean Martin’s singing.

Both men are very natural on screen. They’re good actors with a kind of unaffected ease- to use the old phrase, “the camera loves them.” 

The film especially highlighted why each of them just wasn’t as good alone as they were when they were together. Even the scenes they were in separately lacked the same sparkle. That was exactly the point of the movie, which made the fact that they later split up even sadder. 

The final performance scene was nearly perfect. When Lewis snuggles into Martin, my heart melted, I’m not gonna lie. 

This film had more of an actual plot than Sailor Beware- it wasn’t just a string of gags loosely tied together.  

Aunt Bee! Frances Bavier played Lewis’ mom in this, eight years before her stint on The Andy Griffith Show. 

I wanna ride on an old train! Travel scenes in old movies where characters are in compartments like mini hotel rooms always seems so cool to me. Plus, I love the sound of trains going over the tracks. 

The Bad: 

Some of the schtick Lewis did was pretty predictable. The scenes that were basically just set ups for his gags were probably my least favorite part of the film. 

The first part was also too heavily weighted with these scenes. It felt like it got more balanced as things progressed. 

Bill’s character was not fleshed out enough. It was hard to understand both him and his choices, and the film spent virtually no time explaining or examining it. 

The first drunk scene with Bill just came out of nowhere. I don’t remember it ever even being mentioned that he liked to drink.  

Bill’s wife Mary got a bit annoying after a while- purely because of the way her character was written, not because of the actress. I liked Polly Bergen, but her character basically had a case of Classical Hollywood Good Wife Syndrome. It was a somewhat lighter case, though, because she was going to leave Bill before his change of heart- she wasn’t just a “suffering but loyal” wife. 

200 Films of 1952

Film number 198: Against All Flags

Release date: Dec 24th, 1952 

Studio: Universal 

Genre: adventure 

Director: George Sherman, Douglas Sirk 

Producer: Joseph Hoffman, Aeneas MacKenzie  

Actors: Errol Flynn, Maureen O’Hara, Anthony Quinn 

Plot Summary: A British naval officer goes undercover on the coast of Madagascar to break up an infamous colony of pirates. Claiming to be a deserter, he works to win their trust. Things take an unusual turn when he meets a very unexpected pirate- a gorgeous, strong-willed, sword fighting woman! 

My Rating (out of five stars): ***¼  

I can tell you why I enjoyed this film in two words: Maureen O’Hara. Wait! Make it three words: Maureen O’Hara’s outfits! Put O’Hara in trousers and high boots, and I am lost. Lost! She was so dazzlingly beautiful, I had trouble focusing on much else. Thankfully, the rest of the film was just bright high-energy fun. It wasn’t particularly remarkable, but it breezed by quickly and never got tiresome. It may even be one of my favorite pirate movies from 1952. (minor spoilers)

The Good: 

Maureen O’Hara! Normally I’m not a big fan of hers; although undeniably striking, she’s such a man’s woman type. Here she was swaggering around in pirate garb, taking no shyte from nobody, and I fell in love. Amid so much sexually harassing behavior by men in the media in 1952, I wanted to jump for joy when her character pushed Flynn away and said- “I kiss when I feel like kissing, and see that you remember that!” 

Prudence “Spitfire” Stevens, the character O’Hara played, was one of my favorites of this project. She was sexually in charge, she could handle her own with men, she was good with a sword... everything about her was the opposite of a wilting little damsel. This lady would never let John Wayne drag her across the ground by her arms and hair! 

My favorite quote, spoken by O’Hara: “I was a fool to think that you might be different from the others- swaggering, misbegotten bullies who think that a girl is without pride of her own- just something to satisfy their selfish lusts and vanities because she’s weaker! Well, I’m not weaker! I go after what I want, just like they do. I can defend my own self-respect, and if any man dares to damage it, I’ll shoot the eyes out of his head- both of them!!” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

The Technicolor looked amazing. It especially made the costumes look good. 

The plot was briskly paced, entertaining, and lively. You might even say it was buoyant? Ha! Couldn’t resist the pun. 

Most of it was clearly filmed on sets, even the scenes at sea, but it looked noticeably better than Blackbeard the Pirate, which I watched only a couple of days ago. 

The scene where all the sabotaged cannons fire was also one of my favorites. 

The Bad: 

Errol Flynn was a bit too old for the role, in my opinion. He looked quite weathered and a little paunchy, making his swashbuckling scenes less convincing. It was kind of a sad reminder of the prowess and agility he used to have. In his younger days, he made my knees weak, but he didn’t age as gracefully as someone like Cary Grant. (Who does?!) Flynn was also severely alcoholic by this time, and he wasn’t sober during filming, which definitely didn’t help. He could still be charming and appealing, though. 

Anthony Quinn didn’t have enough to do! I love Quinn, but all his character really got to do here was snarl. 

Flynn and O’Hara didn't have much chemistry. O’Hara told stories later of how Flynn would be so drunk in the afternoon, she had to do her love scene close-ups across from a flag with an X marked on it, while a script girl read Flynn’s lines! So the lack of chemistry shouldn’t be surprising, I guess! 

The sword fighting, while not bad, was a little underwhelming sometimes. 

A white girl playing the role of a Southeast Asian princess? Of course, this is Hollywood! (Hey! It was Alice Kelley- I was kind of mean about her acting ability in Francis Goes to West Point. She was much improved here.) 

So the pirates raid a ship with the sign of Islam on the flag, yet the ruling princess inside is surrounded by Hindu statues? 

Do harems have Irish governesses? 

It was definitely gross to see a teenage girl and a man who looked 50 kiss each other. 

200 Films of 1952

Film number 197: The Member of the Wedding

Release date: December 25th, 1952 

Studio: Columbia 

Genre: drama 

Director: Fred Zinnemann 

Producer: Stanley Kramer 

Actors: Ethel Waters, Julie Harris, Brandon De Wilde 

Plot Summary: (Based on the play by Carson McCullers.) Twelve-year-old Frankie is a sensitive and wildly emotional girl who feels left out and alone. When her older brother Jarvis arrives home with his pretty fiancée Janice, Frankie irrationally falls in love with them and the idea of their marriage. Her housekeeper/mother figure Berenice tries to gently talk sense into her, while her 6-year-old neighbor John Henry just wants to be her friend. 

My Rating (out of five stars): ****

Films based directly on plays in 1952 are emphatically different than typical screenplay-based ones! Like Come Back, Little Sheba (film number 85), this was very dark, stark, and realistic. Both deal with subtler and more mature themes, and happy endings are eschewed for something painfully ambiguous. Each film has the hallmarks of theatrical adaptations: Dialogue and acting are front and center. They take place in only one or two settings, limiting the cinematography. The scenes tend to be much much longer, and the score is sparser. They are definitely not films the average Joe would like. (minor spoilers)

The Good: 

Ethel Waters. She was the highlight. Her acting was incredibly moving, and her character felt like the actual protagonist of the film, not Frankie. She played Berenice as a fully realized motherly character- there was none of that demeaning and racist “I sho’ does love servin’ white folks!” vibe. She felt like a real woman in her own right, with her own complex life.

Julie Harris. She played Frankie in the stage version, and although her performance is divisive today, for the most part I liked it. Yes, she threw loud obnoxious tantrums, but Frankie was clearly a highly highly sensitive girl experiencing the emotional hurricane of puberty. She acted externally the way I did internally at that age, so I could very much relate! Her “overacting” mostly worked for me because of that. 

Brandon deWilde. He played a really cute oddball well. His lackadaisical attitude, desire to hang out with a 12-year-old girl, and ease at which he tried on women’s clothing made me smile. 

The writing was good- it was smart, nothing was overly explained, and it was a pretty masterful character study of both Frankie and Berenice. 

I liked that the cast for the film was the same cast used in the acclaimed Broadway run. Most movies change some of the cast to add Hollywood star power. (Think Lancaster in Come Back, Little Sheba or Hepburn in My Fair Lady.) Ethel Waters was definitely famous, but she wasn’t a big movie star per se. Harris and deWilde both made their film debuts in this. 

I appreciated the unusual “plot” and theme. This isn’t really a coming-of-age film, although it’s advertised as such. Frankie goes from one obsession to another, essentially, and neither of them are about her blooming into adulthood. It’s really about characters, not about “growing up.” 

Damn, you could feel the Southern summer heat in this! Every character was sweating buckets, and the camera lingered on it. These were the days before air conditioning was widespread, and boy do you empathize! 

There was no easy happy ending- things were left quite sad and ambiguous. 

Ethel Waters got top billing, which was almost unheard of for a black actress in Hollywood then.

The Bad: 

Although Harris’ work was lauded in this, she does not look 12 by any measure. She was 26 or 27 when this was filmed, although she doesn’t look that old either. She could believably pass for 16-18 maybe, but 12 is really pushing it. There were times I could suspend my disbelief a little, but there’s no denying it detracted from the realism. I doubt any 12 year old actress could play a role this demanding, though.

Some things with Ethel Waters’ character Berenice were cut from the film version, which was a shame. She was the strongest part of the film for me, her acting unmatched. 

Like most theatrical adaptations it got too “talky” at times for a movie. “Show don’t tell” was not the motto here. 

It also felt “stagey”- you would never doubt this was originally a play. Because of this, sometimes scenes ran on too long. 

200 Films of 1952

Film number 196: Blackbeard the Pirate

Release date: December 24th, 1952 

Studio: RKO 

Genre: adventure 

Director: Raoul Walsh 

Producer: Edmund Grainger 

Actors: Robert Newton, Linda Darnell, William Bendix, Keith Andes, Torin Thatcher 

Plot Summary: In the late 17th century, a Lieutenant in the British Navy sets out to prove that Sir Henry Morgan, a Jamaican government official, is engaging in piracy. In the process, he winds up on the ship of the infamous Blackbeard. 

My Rating (out of five stars): **¾  

I’m not entirely sure why, but something about this film just didn’t click for me. I’m getting a little sick of seafaring/pirate movies, though, to be honest. That could certainly color my opinion! Blackbeard was played memorably, but the rest of the characters kind of fell flat. (minor spoilers) 

The Good: 

Robert Newton as Blackbeard. Yes, he sometimes chewed the scenery a bit, but he made Blackbeard a strong villain, lacking any kind of sympathetic romanticization. I much prefer that to turning him into some kind of anti-hero. 

Linda Darnell. She looked jaw droppingly gorgeous, and it’s hard to take your eyes off of her. Thank god she got to be in a better movie in 1952 than the low budget mess Island of Desire! (film number 18) 

William Bendix as Ben, Blackbeard’s sidekick. He is such a good character actor with so much screen presence. Even in a fairly small role, he stands out. 

There were certainly some interesting adventures that are pirate movie staples- I liked the treasure plot, some of the sword fighting scenes, the escape plans, etc. 

The death of Blackbeard was pretty damn unforgettable. 

The Bad: 

The romance side plot bombed, as most romance side plots in adventure movies do. The worst part was the fact that Darnell and Keith Andes had about as much chemistry as a wet match. 

I didn’t really like Keith Andes- I don’t know if it was him or the role, but he came across as pretty bland. He looked good shirtless, though! 

Darnell’s character, Edwina. She thankfully had more strength and guile than a typical damsel in distress, but barely. 

The music in these kinds of movies is usually sweeping and epic, but even within that genre the score here was too heavy-handed. It became annoyingly distracting at times. 

The adventures started bleeding together in an amorphous way that got kind of tedious after awhile.  

For a film directed by a prominent director like Raoul Walsh, it was surprisingly ho-hum visually. 

The budget, while not small, was clearly not a lavish one either. In the scenes aboard the ship, the sets were super obvious, and the models used for the long shots of the ships weren’t much better. It really compromised any feeling of being at sea.  

200 Films of 1952

Film number 195: Everything I Have is Yours

Release date: Oct 29th, 1952 

Studio: MGM 

Genre: musical 

Director: Robert Z. Leonard 

Producer: George Wells 

Actors: Gower Champion, Marge Champion, Dennis O’Keefe 

Plot Summary: Chuck and Pam Hubbard are just about to open in their debut Broadway show. The first night is a huge success, but when Pam faints after the performance, they discover she is pregnant. Chuck is adamant that Pam give up the stage permanently to be a full-time wife and mother, but Pam isn’t so sure that’s what she wants.  

My Rating (out of five stars): ***¼  

When I watched Lovely to Look At (film number 100), I was completely captivated by the Champions, and I remember writing that I wished they were the stars of that movie, not Grayson and Keel. Well, I recently found out they were the stars of a 1952 musical, and I was thrilled! I can’t be super objective about this film, because Marge and Gower are so freaking adorable I want to eat them up like a brightly colored two scoop ice cream cone! If I take my love goggles off, though, I’d say this is a somewhat middle of the road MGM musical. It's definitely not bad, but it isn't a classic either. Marge and Gower Champion are what make it worth watching, although there are a few other interesting elements too. (minor spoilers)

The Good: 

Marge and Gower Champion. Being an actual married couple, their chemistry seeps right through the screen and wraps itself around you. They dance together beautifully, both in softer ballet numbers and high energy athletic tap and swing routines. Their acting is well above par too. They are also just insanely cute, individually and together. I love them! 

The dancing! I loved all their dance numbers, especially the lively vigorous ones.  

I appreciated the way the film broached the subject of being a wife and mother while having a career. Pam was presented as totally justified for wanting to return to the stage. She wasn’t demeaned or judged because of it, and unlike Somebody Loves Me (film number 136) giving up her career wasn’t the noble thing she absolutely had to do. 

I loved the character of Alec Tacksbury, the producer. What he ended up doing, and where the plot took him, was refreshingly unexpected. By the end of the film, I was a little bit in love with him. 

The portrayals of the daughter (unfortunately named Pam Jr.!) were really good. When she was an infant, there were many scenes where a real live baby was used- it was clearly not a prop doll. Then, when she grew to be about three or four, the little actress who played her (Mimi Gibson) was incredible. She spoke so well for her age, and her acting was also surprisingly good. 

The musical numbers were filmed quite well, with some nice sweeping shots, good movement, and effective framing. The film as a whole was also visually pleasing. 

The Technicolor! Of course, of course, I loved it, and it looked MGM perfect as always. 

Some of the musical numbers that were supposed to be on a theater stage actually looked somewhat possible for once! 

I really cared about the characters. 

The added meaning of Everything I Have is Yours, and the way it became a big plot point, was a charming surprise. 

The Bad: 

I wished there were more musical numbers in the middle section of the movie. Most came at the beginning or toward the end. 

There was one very impossible “theater stage” musical number. In no planet would it have either worked on stage or have fit on one! 

I enjoyed most of the songs, but they weren’t especially memorable. (Except for the one about counting 17,000 poles!) 

200 Films of 1952

Film number 194: Colorado Sundown

Release date: February 8th, 1952 

Studio: Republic 

Genre: western 

Director: William Witney 

Producer: Edward J. White 

Actors: Rex Allen, Mary Ellen Kay, Slim Pickens 

Plot Summary: When Rex’s sidekick Slim inherits a ranch, he discovers he must share it with two other parties. One third goes to Jackie, a city girl who wants to get away from it all and settle in the country. The third share goes to a brother and sister with an evil scheme up their sleeve. 

My Rating (out of five stars): **¾  

This is my final western! It’s a modest little B picture with yet another singing cowboy- Rex Allen. He holds his own pretty well with Gene Autry and Roy Rogers, I must say. He’s got a lovely singing voice, his acting is on par with the others (not great, but not awkwardly terrible), and he’s got a good deal of charisma. Honestly, I think I prefer him to Rogers! But I have such a crush on Dale Evans, I could never swear off Rogers completely! (some spoilers)

The Good: 

Rex Allen. As I just said, he made a very good singing cowboy. He was probably the most macho and traditionally handsome of Autry and Rogers, and his singing voice sounded the most classically trained. He fell in the middle of Autry and Rogers when it came down to tone- Autry is almost tongue and cheek, with a heavy dose of self-awareness and a twinkle in his eye, and Rogers takes himself more seriously. 

The music. There were only three songs, but they were all very enjoyable and well performed. The final number was pretty silly plot-wise, though. I also wish we had gotten a song at the end. 

The plot was interesting and effectively structured. It wasn’t overly simplistic, and it never dragged. 

The acting was pretty good for a B western. No one was cringey. 

The Bad: 

The darkness of all the murder plots didn’t match the singing cowboy tone overall. Bad girl Carrie was seriously evil, easily willing to kill people left and right!

Everyone lives when they get shot by a gun at close range?! How realistic is that? 

The character of Mattie, who played a large black maid to Jackie, was very racially stereotyped. She was childishly jolly at nearly every moment, giving off that “I just love serving white people!” vibe. She also had the terrible dialect of almost every black person in a Hollywood film then. (“Is you sho’?”) That said, she wasn’t the least bit stupid, and the white people around her treated her like she was just one of the gang. 

There was an asinine fat joke made after Mattie’s character got shot. The doctor said, “For once, it paid to be hefty, because the bullet was spent by the time it got through all of those layers of layers.” 

Here we had another appearance of the tiresome trope of a pacifist character who must abandon his pacifism and fight to prove his manhood. 

There was no hiding that this was a cheap film. For example, the comical rear projection had me howling more than once. 

There were some dangling threads left at the end. What exactly happened to Daniel? And what about Jackie? Was she romantically linked with Slim Pickens? Or Rex? Or no one? 

200 Films of 1952

Film number 193: De VI Olympiske Vinterleker Oslo 1952 (aka, The VI Winter Olympics, Oslo 1952)

Release date: October 31st, 1952 

Studio: Norsk Film 

Genre: documentary 

Director: Tancred Ibsen 

Actors: Hjalmar “Hjallis” Andersen, King Olav V 

Plot Summary: This is a documentary about the 1952 Winter Olympics in Oslo, Norway.  

My Rating (out of five stars): ***¼  

If you’re looking for an artistic documentary about the Olympics with in-depth coverage of specific athletes and their stories, this is not the film for you. It is a rather dry and straightforward overview of the proceedings and events that occurred in Oslo in 1952. It’s wonderful as a historical record, but a thrilling watch it is not. 

The Good: 

The print I saw was in great condition. You can find it for free online on the Olympics website. 

This is priceless as a history of the event.  

It was fun to notice the differences in the ceremonies. There were only 30 countries competing! 

The glimpses of the crowds were probably my favorite part. I loved seeing details like some people wearing extra knitted foot warmers around their boots.

The speed skating sprints were the most exciting event for me. 

I was impressed with the athleticism of the men’s figure skating. The sport has certainly become more difficult today, but the difference wasn’t as big as I imagined. 

The way the compulsory figure skating routines were judged was trippy to me. All the judges stood on the ice close to the skater while they performed, and afterwards, part of what they judged was the marks the skater left on the ice! 

The bob sled races were really entertaining- it looked like the entire chute was made of ice. 

The ski jump finale was probably the highlight. The soaring athletes were watched by a crowd of 140,000 people! 

The Bad: 

The narrator was pretty monotone. 

It often felt like an extended newsreel. 

It got kind of repetitive after a while, probably because it felt so much like a newsreel. It also didn’t help that every event was either some kind of skating or some kind of skiing. 

It was clearly shot silently, and sound was added in later. The film did a decent job making the audio feel realistic, but it was still obvious it wasn't the authentic sound. 

It would have been nice if we had gotten to know some of the athletes. There were no interviews, and we were given no information about them other than their names and if they had won anything before.

There was a moment of ick when the narrator was describing a Japanese ski jumper- “An Oriental performance by Japan’s Kawashima shows us that the Children of the Sun can now jump too.”