L'Enfer vert

'Green Hell' does not deserve the contempt it gained at its time, as it does keep up with the spirit of pure adventure. Perfectly discardable are the funny situations that occur between so many males in the presence of a female - which go from stupid jealousy to ridiculous declarations of love. 'Green Hell' can be seen as a crazy denouement with certain points of naivety. By the end the characters are at the doorstep of a new adventure, aware of what they will do until the last of their days: carry on.

Some people know how to make a movie. That is when we get a film.

This is an example.

This is simple story telling and adventure, with some great scenery.

It's set in a jungle as a team of excavators hope to bring back Gold and news of an archaeological find.

The key is to have all the elements.

We have expert directing, more than adequate editing, and good script writing enough to tell an exciting and interesting story. In today's world of dull routine scripts, this is probably more exciting than a modern audience is used to. This was made in the days when people were smart enough to know de Mille was someone to emulate, and this director does emulate de Mille in many ways, as much as he can with a less than de Mille budget.

The next element is believable and interesting characters. We have a slew of them. More than the usual excavation team. Even a few of the natives have interesting, believable, and important roles. Some of the more ignorant red necks of today will scoff at the superstitious ways, but superstitious attitudes are what makes this even more believable. We're at an Information Age cusp right now in which many of the younger people wallow in an Ignorance they aren't aware of, and don't realize what makes a character in 1940 credible.

This is excellent story telling and adventure. To deny that is to look like a jealous fool.

I will propose here that some films have merit, and are worth watching even though they are horrible. I mean to exclude laughing at ineptness from the equation.

This is an example. It has three notable items, the first of which is where the allure resides.

— It takes itself seriously. Really, the appeal of competence fades in the light of earnestness. As soon as it appeared, the participants realized it was a disaster, but you rarely know that when you are making the thing. It had name talent and a reasonable budget. The narrative stance has no irony or folds. It was intended to hit straight on, and even if the arrow did not score, it was shot with the intent to kill. And that matters.

— The film world had long since developed a shorthand for black sexual malevolence by depicting the risky jungle. Two touchstones were "Kongo" and "King Kong" both of which exploited the (then) visceral fear from racism. The same is attempted here, but I do not believe that any of the natives are played by blacks. The effect is startling, a now comic understanding of how transference occurs. You have the deep seated fear of sexual arousal out of control in the American populace. Deep, and strong. That gets transferred to an innocent people, only recently by the time of this film. That in turn gets denoted in unambiguous ways by the jungle and jungle people in film. At each step, there is a trailing disconnect, so that by the time you get to this film, the people in the jungle do not have to remotely look native. (It is not Africa, but that is irrelevant.)

— the script has all the elements. Sexual betrayal. Sexual competition (separately). Ancient magic attached to gold. Sexual imagery with phallic structures and blasting through walls to release floods. All the competitors (stereotypes) locked in a small space fighting the inevitability of death. It doesn't work, like "Kongo" does. But there sure as heck are all the parts.

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

A search for gold in Incan ruins is complicated by the arrival of a pretty lady. This is one of those old movies that you really want to love but it just doesn't work. The sets are terrific and would be reused to great effect by Universal in other films. On paper the cast is excellent. Sadly most are either underutilized or given parts that don't play to their strengths. Why was Alan Hale playing a straight role? The movie would have benefited greatly from one of his fun lighter performances. Doug Fairbanks huffs and puffs his way through the whole thing doing a poor Clark Gable imitation. And that awful part for Joan Bennett - don't get me started!

I've revisited this movie a few times over the years, hoping to find more to like about it. At its best it's a forgettable Saturday afternoon adventure flick. Unfortunately a lot of it is kind of dull and lacking in much style. You'd never guess James Whale directed this.

Essentially "Lost Patrol with a Girl"; not enough action to be a true adventure. Nice photography and spotty acting are the main features of Whale's last film. Noble Englishmen exploit grateful natives, finding treasure in an Inca temple. They fight over "the girl" and then are surrounded by savages with poison darts. Good battle scenes at the end. A must for Whale fans, for everyone else it's a moderately amusing time-waster.