They Knew What They Wanted

I saw this old movie around the late 50s on Australian television. Aged about twelve, I thought Charles Laughton was just about the best actor of all time.

Putting his performance as Tony Petucci into context, back then we regularly saw movies he made in the 30s and 40s. Charles took on roles almost like Theatresports' challenges. One minute he's tossing chicken bones over his shoulder as Henry Vlll, next he's Captain Bligh sneeringly offering cheese to Mr Christian. Then we get Inspector Javert in "Les Mis" with an expression as though his piles were active.

The guy just jumped into character after character. Most amazingly, he was Quasimodo swinging on the bells in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" and plenty of others. What other big star stepped so far from their comfort zone so often? Clark Gable used to balk at shaving off his moustache for a role or growing one.

Hitchcock once said, "You couldn't direct Laughton, only hope to referee him". In "They Knew What They Wanted", Charle's Tony was definitely at the extreme end of the Hollywood Italian stereotype, but maybe some of it was down to the very contrived situations. Simon Callow in his superb dissection of Charles Laughton's life and career, "A Difficult Actor", tells how the actor worked hard at the part, often derided by director and cast.

However for such an unathletic looking guy, you have to admire Laughton's agility and strength especially in the party scene. At least they didn't have a grape stomping scene.

If you want to feel better about Laughton's portrayal, check out Edward G Robinson in the earlier version of the story, "A Lady to Love". It's as though Edward G had never met a real Italian.

Against Laughton's fireworks the other actors underplayed almost to the point of inertia. Maybe Lombard hit the right note as Amy, whose empty life is summed up when she reluctantly finds a moment of passion with the uncharismatic Joe (William Gargan). Frank Fay's Father McKee is just weird, more like a morals commissar than a priest.

Still, Napa Valley looks fine and we have a good Alfred Newman score. The film has a better second half, and an ending that is strangely bittersweet.

Any fans of the Frank Loesser musical The Most Happy Fella? Did you know it was based off the play They Knew What They Wanted, adapted into two movies before Frank added songs to the story? I'm looking forward to seeing Edward G. Robinson's interpretation, as I'm sure he'd be wonderful, and I was so excited to see my beloved Charles Laughton's 1940 version.

Charles was perfect. He's practically unrecognizable as he transforms into an Italian peasant, trying to make it in America. He's shy and self-conscious, but he still wants to brag and prove himself worthy. He creates a great complex character, so believable as a lonely immigrant looking for love.

For those of you who don't know the story, Charles falls in love with a waitress in San Francisco, Carole Lombard. He observes her from afar and writes to her, offering marriage and a comfortable life on his vineyard in Napa. Carole doesn't have very many options, and she impulsively agrees. However, Charles didn't send his photograph in his letter; he sent the picture of his young, handsome friend William Gargan. I don't know why Bill was the one nominated for an Academy Award when he had the least to do. The other two leads were ignored, and here at the Rags, we were happy to rectify the error.

Who impressed me to no end was Carole Lombard, the queen of screwball comedies thrust into a heavy drama. She completely embodies her character, and you can see her entire history written on her brow. She's exhausted and has very little hope of a better life, and she's endured an incredible amount just to make ends meet. When she arrives in Napa, she's nervous, and even though she thinks it's silly, she's hopeful. She tries to make Charles a good wife, and she hates herself for being attracted to Bill. She doesn't want to ruin her one chance, she doesn't want to be as common as she knows herself to be, and she doesn't want to cause pain in a world that has enough pain in it.

Chances are you've never seen this movie, since it's rather hard to find and hasn't been remastered. Try to find it and get ready to be very impressed.

"A Lady To Love" (1930) with some key differences.

Tony (Charles Laughton) is a simple yet successful Italian immigrant who owns a large grape farm in California. After he sees beautiful waitress Amy (Carole Lombard) during a trip to the city, Tony falls hopelessly in love, and he enlists his best friend and foreman Joe (William Gargan) in composing love letters to Amy to convince her to marry Tony. They succeed, but when Tony sends a picture of Joe instead of himself to Amy, things get complicated, as she arrives already in love with the image of Joe to only be told that the real Tony is something altogether different

I recently watched A Lady to Love from 1930, the earlier screen version of this story starring Edward G. Robinson, Vilma Banky and Robert Ames in the lead roles, so I spent a lot of time watching this version and comparing the two. This later version is better, but there are several changes to story points: in the early version, Amy marries Tony immediately upon arrival, while in this version they never actually get around to it. Tony gets injured in both versions, but the circumstances and outcomes are much different. And one very pertinent plot point which I won't spoil was absent in the early version, but very much a factor in this later one.

Lombard is very good in a serious role, and while Laughton is very broad, his role calls for it and his scenery chewing is acceptable, and not nearly as bad as Robinson's was. William Gargan earned an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor, although his role is really a lead, and he even has more screentime than Laughton. Gargan is good, but not in a flashy way, and his role is one that seems like an odd choice for a nomination. It may have been a career acknowledgment, as he'd been a popular B-level leading man since the late 1920's. He was the real deal, too, when it came to tough guy roles, as he'd been both a bootlegger and a detective before he started in pictures. His movie career ran out of steam by the late 1940's, when he moved to radio and had a big hit with Martin Kane, Private Eye, a role that he also played on TV in the late 50's. A battle with throat cancer left him without a voice by 1960, although he lived until 1979.

even taking into account the context of its time, this is incredibly dated, morals-wise. also, it strains credibility that the female protagonist (amy) would stay initially, stay later, stay longer, proclaim her love for (the wrong guy), and then leave w/o getting together w/who she wanted all along. just seems really dopily contrived. "she DIDN'T know what she wanted" would be a more apt title. also, the whole plot revolving about her pregnancy just comes from out of nowhere and dominates the proceedings as if it was 1750 in puritan new england. i really wanted to like this film; i'd heard it was good - - but it's really pretty hard to take. as for tony; he's similarly unbelievable, a 1-dimensional character, until he explodes, and then he becomes 2-dimensional (still 1 short). OK i'm done

I can only assume that before he started out in the role he asked the RKO excutives to run "Room Service" so that he could perfect his Chico Marx impression for this film.He wears a black curly wig not unsimilar to Marx,and apart from the fact that he does not play the piano he does everything else.So little wonder that this film had a very tortured production costing over $850000 and posting a loss of over $200000.It is difficult to understand why Laughton did these sort of films.He made some great films in the 1930s however he went to Hollywood more or less for good in 1939 and almost ruined his career in the 1940s withs some awful films.Lombard is fine but unbelievable as the waitress and Fay dreadful as the priest.