Iron Man

... Todd Browning directing a movie about prize fighting?? But if you give it a closer look it really is Todd Browning's style. After all, Browning usually directed films about familiar human emotions - love, revenge, longing - in an unfamiliar setting whether it was Freaks or the Lon Chaney collaborations. So what is this film's central theme? Oddly enough it really has nothing to do with prize fighting and everything to do with unrequited love.

Lew Ayres is Kid Mason, the Iron Man that actually doesn't look much like a fighter at all. Very much in character is Robert Armstrong as George Regan, Mason's manager. Harlow is just getting started at playing the platinum blonde femme fatale, and she is pretty good here. Finally there is the unfairly forgotten John Miljan, playing the early talkie slimy villain that he did so well.

The basic plot is a familiar one - Kid Mason is all wrapped up in his wife Rose (Harlow) who is only interested in the Kid when he's on top and in the dough. At the beginning of the film she dumps him after he loses a series of fights. With Rose gone the Kid concentrates on his training and pretty soon he's won the championship. Oddly enough - or not - Rose suddenly finds the Kid irresistible again and the poor Kid, whose head more than his muscles seems to be laden with iron, is like a dog on a leash once more.

Now manager Regan has plowed a lot of time, money, and energy into training Mason, and he would have a right to be sore about all of this. However, he really doesn't act like a brother figure, father figure, or even your James Gleason style "why don't you get wise to yourself" wise-cracking kind of manager. Instead of being angry at the Kid's blindness to Rose's intentions, he acts like a man thrown over - drinking heavily after Mason deserts him surrounded by photos of the Kid.

Watch for yourself and see what you think. It's just another example of one of the odd little films that could only have been made in the precode era and probably only at Universal, a studio that would seemingly try anything in the early 30's.

When you enter into a film, you are accepting a world. You are accepting whatever God and physics and mythology that the filmmaker has created. Within that world, wheels turn and things happen.

All too often we think the movie is about those happenings. We focus on characters and the emotions they convey. But the deeper influence of a film is in how the world works.

Over time, movie watchers develop a sensitivity to this and make choices about which worlds resonate or not.

I have decided to boycott Glazier/Howard films because they are convinced that we like a world where some bad things happen as if they were rainstorms, but the entire cosmos is infused with a happy sweetness.

If you watch film deeply, this can ruin your whole day, with great expenditures of psychic energy in buying back your individuality. So instead of seeing "Cinderella Man" which is in the theaters now, I sought another boxing movie instead.

Sure, we have "Raging Bull" which is an exercise in visualizing a brutal personality. And we have "Rocky" which is sort of cold war ode to nationalism. But I chose this because it is by a director whose world I respect.

Tod Browning's world is a complex one, not catagorizable in terms of a single type of God or fate, depending on how you think. He himself comes from a circus world with some elements of risk, some of heavy fate, and others of practiced comedy tied to honor.

I credit Browning with laying the groundwork that allowed noir to take hold in the 30s, probably the strongest influence in film. So this film is about a contender, several actually. And it IS a contender, but unlike Howard's cardboard guy, this fellow has a wife that destroys the first layer of his world in order to expose and reinforce the larger world.

In the story, that's the world of honor and striving and self assurance. In the world of film, it is the world of self awareness and the link of fate to the game.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

For a boxing movie, there really isn't a lot of boxing in the movie, perhaps ten minutes total. Apparently the original ran 73 minutes and the version I saw on Youtube ran 68 minutes. I suspect the missing five minutes were boxing scenes.

This may be a blessing as Lew Ayres is certainly too handsome and collegiate looking for a boxer. Without muscles, he certainly does not physically resemble any contemporary boxers.

However, the reason to watch this story is not the boxing, but to watch a strong tale of friendship between a coach and an athlete and the selfish, sinful woman who disrupts it.

The acting is terrific. Robert Armstrong had only been starring in movies since 1928 when this was made in 1931, yet this was his 20th starring role. This was two years before his career making performances in "King Kong," and "Son of Kong," but it is easy to see why he was chosen for the lead in those movies. He gives a rock solid, believable performance here.

Lew Ayres is a bit uneven at the beginning, but eventually grows into the part. He was 23 years old and only in his fifth starring role, with the first being the classic anti-war film "All Quiet on the Western Front." It seems that Ayres was trying to develop a tough guy image after the romantic image he portrayed in that first film. My guess is that it was the studio's decision. It worked with song and dance man James Cagney, but not with Ayres. Still, he's a great actor and is easy to watch throughout.

I was surprised at how well Jean Harlow did. We should remember that she was only 21 and this was only her fourth starring role. She is quite despicable in the movie, but that was her part. She plays it with intensity and believably. I think reviewers here are criticizing her unfairly, because she doesn't show much of her comic or sexy siren side here. However, that is not the role. She is a jaded, mean, despicable woman and she plays it straight.

Again, this is a good dramatic piece and those looking for a sports movie or light comedy (although it does have moments of humor) will be disappointed. Those looking for sharp direction from Tod Browning and wonderful performances from three great actors will enjoy the movie.

Lots of talent on this one, but a creaky film, even considering the era. It's not helped by video and audio quality issues (at least in the print I watched), but the real issue is the story-telling from director Tod Browning, which was disappointing. He moves things along too slowly and doesn't take advantage enough of three pretty decent performances and a script that had some nice one-liners. ("You'll get your fur coat, Rose." / "Sure, if I go out and shoot a couple of cats!"). There's not enough crackle or emotional zing in what he shows us, despite the film's themes of standing up for one's principles, losing sight of them with fame, and betrayal from a loved one, which had potential.

Jean Harlow makes the film worth seeing, despite the pretty standard role of a gold-digger. This was right around the time of her rise to fame, and you can see at least a little bit why here. I love how she shoots daggers out of her eyes when her two-timing ways are challenged. Lew Ayres shows the necessary toughness and body of a boxer, even if the footage in the ring seemed mostly canned, and Robert Armstrong has the right presence as his manager. Wondering how this might have gone in a silent film from Browning's past (e.g. One with Lon Chaney), I imagine deeper emotions on close-ups, more pathos, and faster cuts. It's a shame we didn't get that here. If you like Harlow or are a Browning completist, it's worth 73 minutes, otherwise, pass.

IRON MAN originally ran 73 minutes but most prints today are in the 66 minute range but even at that abbreviated length, it's a chore to sit through. One of the worst examples of a stiff early talkie, it's films like this that unjustly give that era a bad reputation when there were actually many fine films from the period that were done with finesse and hold up superbly today. IRON MAN, alas, is an awkward, boring mess.

Lew Ayres stars as a lightweight boxer whose marriage to money-loving blonde Jean Harlow may be the root of his less than spectacular career. When Jean leaves him, manager Robert Armstrong molds him into the champ he always had the potential to be. When his career is on the upswing, a seemingly changed Harlow returns much to Armstrong's displeasure and their mutual hostility ultimately leads to a threat in the Armstrong/Ayres friendship and professional ties and Ayres' status as champ, with Armstrong mentoring a rival boxer.

IRON MAN is easily the worst film of Jean Harlow's career. She is wasted in a cardboard role that only gives her a few scenes and she is handled most unsympathetically by director Tod Browning, who apparently was scarcely less hostile to her than Armstrong's character. Browning may have been a master of horror, but he's a disaster here in the world of boxing and metropolitan life. Lew Ayres is badly miscast as the fighter and walks through the film with a sullen pout to perhaps suggest toughness although for the most part he's a milquetoast, passive both to wife Harlow and manager Armstrong.

Armstrong's manager is more control freak than the devoted pal he is supposed to be and there is a undercurrent of homosexuality in his possessiveness of Ayres which may have escaped the actor but certainly not director Browning (Armstrong and Ayres private talks frequently take place in bedrooms!) Ayres is (naturally) frequently shirtless but while handsome he is pretty dull here. Fans of the cast or director might want to check IRON MAN out just to see another one of their films but will most likely rank it at the bottom of their works.