Iron Man

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.

While its age is showing, "Iron Man" may be worth spending just over a hour of your time mainly because of the participation of 2 major names in film history: Jean Harlow (in a very early role) and Tod Browning (who directed "Dracula"). Just don't expect anything special. View the "Iron Man" as a relic of Hollywood's early years when sound was new and (mercifully) running times were short.

After the success of All Quiet On The Western Front Lew Ayres was suddenly quite the hot property for Universal Studios. Following up on that film Ayres was cast in this boxing saga about a fighter, his wife, and his manager. The roles are played by Ayres, Jean Harlow, and Robert Armstrong.

As long as Ayres follows Armstrong's instructions he's a success. And one of those instructions is to get rid of his gold digging wife Harlow. It's not jealousy working here, Armstrong can plainly see the adverse affect Harlow has on Ayres and that he's not got his head in the ring when she's around.

When she's not around Armstrong guides Ayres to the heavyweight championship. But when he does become champ, Harlow comes back to bask in his glory and also to party with Ayres and her new boy friend on the side John Miljan.

Let's just say that Ayres finds out just how badly he needs Armstrong before the film is over.

Iron Man seems to be borrowing quite liberally from the relationship that Jack Dempsey had with his then wife Estelle Taylor and his manager Doc Kearns. Kearns let it be known to all who would hear that Dempsey was a bum without him when they did part. However Armstrong truly is the brains in this duo. I'm surprised that none of the real life trio sued Universal Pictures and Carl Laemmle.

The title was used in another boxing picture that starred Jeff Chandler and Rock Hudson that Universal did 20 years later. But that film has absolutely nothing to do with this picture. Nor of course has it anything to do with the superhero Robert Downey, Jr. brought to the screen in the past few years.

Tod Browning got some really nice performances out of his star trio and the rest of the cast. Iron Man ranks right up there with a lot of other classic films on pugilism.

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.

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.