Nido d'amore

Gary Cooper still hadn't learned to act by the time he made this movie, but he didn't have to do much: stomp around, glower and deal with the occasional super-close-up of his eyes, mouth or hands. It's Florence Vidor's movie, about how a woman needs real love, and, oh yes, work, to make herself complete.

As the movie opens, Miss Vidor is tired of the drudgery of caring for her old and superannuated father. Two men have their eyes on her. One is strapping young Mr. Cooper, a farmer reviving a dilapidated farm and thinking that she, quite willing to thrust her hands into boiling water so her father can have clean, white shirts, or enjoy a scene in a haystack with him -- we cut away in time to save the modesty of censor -- is the woman to scrub his windows and for whom he chops down his beloved forest single-handedly so she can have a modern kitchen.

There's also Lawrence Grant, the local banker, who needs a beautiful woman to grace his beautiful home. He promises her lovely things and a life of ease. So just as Cooper gets in all the new appliances, he also gets a note that Florence has been married to Mr. Grant and is away on her honeymoon/shopping trip.

When she and the hubby return, she wants to spend the day with her ailing father, but Grant insists that his friends are coming to meet her. During the party, word comes that her father has died, so she leaves Grant. When he goes to fetch her back, she returns the jewelry. He points out he's still her husband. She indicates the marriage has never been consummated.

It's a pure eye candy, soap-opera programmer. Paramount worked its stars hard, and the sound era was just around the corner: best to amortize Miss Vidor's expensive contract as quickly as possible. She had risen quickly as a star in the late 1910s, mostly because she was featured in the movies of her first husband, King Vidor. According to his memoirs, it was a rocky relationship. They divorced in 1926, and in 1928 she married Jascha Heifitz. Her first sound film was a box-office disaster. She never made another. Mr. Cooper, on the other hand....

It's been a very long time since I last visited "Doomsday" (1928), but last night I put it in and watched a print that lasts as the IMDb says it does: 60 minutes. I mention that fact, because the last time I watched it, it was on a VHS tape that lasted 74 minutes, and it moved like molasses. Didn't care for it then; but - I enjoyed the show last night. Starring Florence Vidor and Gary Cooper, the other of any importance is Lawrence Grant, and a tad less, Charles Stevenson. For good measure Tom Ricketts and Frederick Sullivan have momentary parts. This is written as a parable, and it's a romantic one, so if you like romantic movies that you think you can figure out from the beginning, and you enjoy seeing them go from less than a joker's beginning to a trump card ending, this is for you. Otherwise, be aware that there are some philosophies in the film that will appear way out of date. The problem is - farming hasn't necessarily become any easier, though the machinery to make it work in the modern world has technologically advanced a great deal, but it still demands a certain kind of heart and mind to make it successful, especially for a married couple.

Cooper owns Doomsday House in England, a very old house with a fairly large amount of arable land. He gets up around 4:00 AM every day and works till the sun goes down - every day, day after day. He's lonely. He wants a woman who will be like he is, scrubbing and cooking, cleaning and baking, washing clothes and, and... He wants a woman to love, too. Vidor - who has the most captivating eyes - lives with her father, a former military person who is now becoming nearly invalid and needs looking after - constantly. She cooks and she cleans, and she boils the water and cleans the clothes. She works her fingers to the bone and is to the point she'd like to forgo this kind of life if she could.

Around the bend, so to speak, is Fream House, owned by the Fream descendent, played by Lawrence Grant, at his most icy, but unctuous towards Vidor. He wants to marry her so she can be like an ornament to the house and the name. It won't be for love, and she'll have all the THINGS that any woman could possibly want.

Vidor marries Grant. He's older and impotent, but he gives her anything and everything, any thing and every thing. But not love.

Vidor is involved in a parable, remember? You'll have to watch to learn the ending, but this 1928 film has a good message and is fun to watch - at the right fps speed(!). Coop really isn't up to snuff acting-wise in this one yet. He doesn't get there until next year's "The Virginian", but he's definitely watchable thanks to decent direction by Monta Bell and nice camera work by Henry W. Gerrard.

Though you wouldn't guess it from the title, "Doomsday" (1928) is a romantic melodrama set in the English countryside. This Paramount production was directed by Rowland V. Lee, a dull director who had arrived to the studio from Fox two years prior to this. It is based on a novel from 1927 by Warwick Deeping, but feels like the source material could be 100 years older.

The protagonist of the film is a woman named Mary, played by Florence Vidor, former wife of King Vidor. Mary has a decision to make. She can either marry for love, and end up with the handsome Gary Cooper, who is poor and manages a farm called "Doomsday", or she can marry for money, and become the wife of a much older man. Because this is an American silent film, we know there is only one correct answer, but Mary goes and chooses the wrong one. Can she correct the mistake?

There are a million silent romances with the same plot. This is a bland telling of the story. Director Lee is not visually an interesting filmmaker, and he doesn't get much out of the actors either. Cooper's career was on the rise, but this did nothing to him. "Arnold Furze" is also a rather odd character name for him. The contemporary press gave the film negative reviews, and I can see why. This probably felt old-fashioned and spiritless back then as well.

If you're looking for the reason as to why Gary Cooper was so popular when he wasn't a very good actor, you've got to watch him in a silent movie. He was young, handsome, tall, heavily made up, and didn't have to open his mouth. He was a far better actor when he only relied on his glances rather than his words, and he didn't seem nearly as afraid as he did during his talkies. Audiences grew loyal to him, just like they did with Joan Crawford when she was young and pretty, and they stuck with him even when they heard him talk.

In Doomsday, he plays a poor farmer who can't give the woman he loves a good life. Florence Vidor is being courted by the wealthy, older Lawrence Grant, but she isn't attracted to him. She's very attracted to Gary, and they share a steamy scene in a haystack. She marries Lawrence, and soon learns the painful lesson that money can't buy happiness. I guess she didn't know the title of the movie. Check this old silent movie out to see why Gary Cooper was a hit!

For all the advances in technique and technology that we saw in the silent era, even up to the advent of talkies some titles continued to reflect what some modern viewers describe as "simpler entertainment for a simpler time," with comparatively unsophisticated storytelling and film-making. Of course, the same could be said of no few movies in subsequent years, but the point is that even from the start this 1928 picture seems to carry that ethos. 'Doomsday' makes more significant use of intertitles than some of its contemporaries, especially to convey - perhaps unnecessarily - every small idea and line of dialogue that could and maybe should instead be communicated by the image alone. The cinematography also feels more than not like the application of a basic "point and shoot" method. And of course the narrative itself, for any additional thoughts that flesh it out, certainly sits on the uncomplicated side of things: a woman living a humdrum life falls in love with one man, but is impelled to marry another who will offer her a more comfortable life. Rich and captivating narrative fiction this is not.

Of course, not every film needs to be a revelation. None of this is an inherent mark against Rowland V. Lee's film, though it's safe to say that this is something less likely to appeal to those who aren't already enamored of the silent era. In fairness, though nothing here is especially remarkable, there are some smart moments nonetheless. Every now and again Lee sets his sights on a small detail that demonstrates some swell shot composition, and which is endearing in and of itself. In the first half of the feature, as protagonist Mary weighs the pros and cons of wealthy Fream versus hard-working Furze, there's a wonderful subtlety to a scene of a few minutes where Mary realizes the life Furze seems to be offering her, and the shrewd sequencing alone is very revealing without any need for explanatory intertitles. And while of anyone here Gary Cooper obviously has the lasting star power and name recognition, I really think it's Florence Vidor who stands out most in 'Doomsday,' performing with splendid nuance and emotional depth that handily outshines her fellow cast members.

In other regards, though, the picture is just less impressive. The story is suitably compelling, with classic themes of love versus luxury, superficiality versus substance, and how women are treated by the men who would claim to admire them. These themes and story ideas are so classic, in fact, that we've seen them time and again before and since, and when you get right down to it the iteration here feels quite stripped down and straightforward. Some moments, or lines of dialogue (as expressed in intertitles) are more notably appreciable than others, but the broad tenor of the movie remains, and it's rather narrow. Moreover, it doesn't seem to me as though 'Doomsday' truly knows the values it wishes to communicate; Fream and Furze are both unlikable in different ways, and Mary is stuck in the middle because obviously a woman who isn't attached to a man has no worth of her own. (Since tone doesn't easily come across in the written word, please note that the last bit was sarcastic.) And for as ably made as this is in a very general sense, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Lee's direction may sadly be the weakest element of all. It's not outright bad, and it bears repeating that he illustrates some keen intelligence in that capacity. Too many scenes are just distinctly flat, however, bereft of the feeling and weight that would make them matter, or simply bear a spark of vitality. Elsewhere, Lee makes use of close-ups or other relatively novel inclusions that come off as, well, empty novelties, and meaningless embellishments. A film was successfully made, but it's not one that challenges or inspires in any way.

I don't think this is bad. There is value here. I just don't believe there's enough to allow this to stand particularly tall, or to stand out in a crowd. The intent is earnest, but the execution lacks the vibrancy to let that earnestness be felt, and despite some bright spots the whole comes off as too unworked and unpolished to specifically earn one's favor. There are far worse ways to spend one's time, by all means, yet there's no major reason to check it out unless one is either a diehard fan of those involved or a moviegoer who loves early cinema - and even then, this is a lesser creation, or at least a middling one. 'Doomsday' is okay, but its flaws and shortcomings stack up and drag it down, and this is something best left to the curious for a lazy, quiet day.