Em Cada Coração um Pecado

Set at the turn of the 20th Century, Henry Bellamann's novel seemed to embrace the whole town of Kings Row. Many characters received a page or two then faded into the background. It also contained Bellamann's worldview with insights into just about every aspect of the human condition from birth to death with liberal doses of incest, lust, racism, fraud and bigotry along the way. Kings Row was a busy place.

Some things just couldn't be included in a 1940's movie. Screenwriter Casey Robinson masterfully eliminated buggy loads of peripheral characters while retaining the central story and much of the novel's unique wisdom, although the ending was changed.

This film is a super-charged emotional experience as it follows the three main characters, Parris Mitchell, Drake McHugh and Randy Monaghan from childhood to often-painful adulthood.

The breathless enthusiasm of Robert Cummings' Parris takes some getting used to, but it is Ronald Reagan as Drake who burns himself into the memory with his cry of "Where's the rest of me?" Ann Sheridan glows in her role as Randy, the girl from the other side of the tracks who has more class and substance than most from the snootier end of town.

The supporting cast adds much to "Kings Row" especially Claude Raines and Betty Field as the troubled Dr. Tower and his daughter Cassandra. Charles Coburn plays Dr. Henry Gordon, creating the most sadistic M.D. this side of a horror movie.

Inspired script, direction and photography are topped off with Erich Wolfgang Korngold's sweeping score. His music communicates the unspoken thoughts of the characters and helped create many lump-in-the-throat moments. Remove his music and "Kings Row" wouldn't be the same.

The emotional level may be off the Richter scale, but there is a seductive magic to this old movie. It defies you to remain unmoved.

Kings Row in my opinion is one of the greatest motion pictures ever made. Why it wasn't it on the American Film Institutes 100 films of all time is beyond me and another weird thing why wasn't its star the beautiful and talented Ann Sheridan among their greatest stars of all time is another crime. Ronald Reagan gives the performance of his entire career. The rest of the cast is first-rate as well. Robert Cummings is good but is the weakest character for me. Betty Field is very good in her small part. The supporting cast which includes Charles Coburn, Claude Rains, Maria Ouspenkaya and Kaaren Verne are all sensational. The music and the cinematography are incredible. Sam Wood directed a truly Gothic melodrama. The black and white photography is so gloriously rich. I am waiting anxiously for this to come out on DVD. In 1942 this film should have gotten a lot of nominations and won some. Best picture, actor, actress, director, supporting actor, supporting actress and screenplay and also cinematography and musical score. I think it did actually get a best picture nomination come to think of it. If you never saw this film, you must look out for it and Ann Sheridan in her finest hour.

I've only recently seen this film in its entirety (after decades of watching the clip of Ronnie Reagan's best scene in it) and am totally surprised by how fine this film really is; in fact, when it ended, I found myself wanting to burst into applause. But to appreciate it you must put yourself into the time it was made, mid- to late 1941. This picture was meant to be an "A" picture (that is, the first picture to be shown on a double bill, or the only film being shown) showcasing the up and coming generation of Warners actors. None of the young players was particularly well-known, except in supporting roles. The older players were all familiar to film, theater and radio audiences. Radio, since radio drama was a major national venue then and all of these older players, in fact, most major stars, had starring roles in radio plays.

This picture would have been shown in its first run in the chain of theaters owned by Warners, mostly large ones, and shown in a large house, holding an audience of a thousand people or more, with a very large screen yards wide and high and a sound system that was louder and definitely more "high fidelity" than any member of the audience had at home or had heard anywhere else.

The book on which the film was based had been a scandalous best seller two years before and many if not most had read it (people read books then!) and in fact many in the audience were probably alive when this film takes place, in the last decade of the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th. Everyone would have been familiar with the style of dialogue and acting, which seems stilted to us, since it originated on the stage, with no microphones; the costumes, customs and speech would have been in living memory for many watching it in its first run, if not theirs, then their parents'.

As for Korngold's superb score, this too was a familiar part of a theatrical experience at the time. Most stage plays had live incidental music accompanying them. All major Broadway plays did. Opera, operetta and vaudeville were all part of the audience's experience, all with live music as part of the experience, and no one would have found Korngold's score obtrusive, just part of the show and gorgeous to hear. In fact, Korngold's score for "Robin Hood" in 1938 was premiered live on network radio as a major event, before the picture opened!

As for black and white, these films were truly in "black and white" on the big screen. Blacks WERE black and whites were silvery white. We see then on video screens, and so far, even with the best of those, these films look to be in "gray and grayer", with not the high contrast they had in the theater. So we dismiss them as flat and lifeless; in the theater, black and white has quite a lot of depth and sparkle.

So in its proper context, this film is really quite astonishingly good. The production design is by the same man who designed the look of "Gone With the Wind", so there are the gorgeously composed shots, the depth of field, use of light and shadow and attention to detail in that film. Even the landscapes, matte paintings that so many of them are, most have looked quite beautiful projected large. The acting is all first rate. All the actors, in their late twenties and early thirties, are playing younger than their ages. Cummings has the right wide eyed innocence of an only child reared in relative isolation by his grandmother, Sheridan is beautiful and true, Reagan lively and cocky, and Field, the disturbed adolescent. Reagan is the real surprise here; totally unaffected, he acts effortlessly here on film, building a character, listening to the actors in the scene and reacting in the moment. And his best scenes, "THAT" one, and the final scene, are excellent.

And when it ends, with a flourish those audiences would have found entirely familiar and even comforting, I can imagine an audience of a thousand bursting into prolonged applause.

For those who made fun of President Reagan's movie career by always citing "Bedtime for Bonzo" and laughing may be surprised if they take the time to watch "Kings Row." Even "Bedtime for Bonzo" is not as bad as those who have never seen it think it is, because of the ridiculous title. The former sports announcer plays Drake McHugh as well or better than any other Hollywood actor of the period could have. He stands tall among an extremely talented group of actors, including several others who have also been underrated and never received their due by the Hollywood establishment, especially Bob Cummings and Ann Sheridan. There's also Judith Anderson of "Rebecca" fame; Claude Rains who first made a name for himself in a part were he was invisible through most of the film; Charles Coburn, the grand old man of 40's cinema, playing against type in "Kings Row" as not such a grand old man; Maria Ouspenskaya in a non-horror role; and Betty Field shines as the tortured soul, Cassie.

Sam Wood's magnificent direction plus the acting keep the story from slipping into soap opera melodrama. True heart-rending sentiment rather than sappy sentimentality emerges from the social and economic conflicts that mix with human kindness and cruelty in small-town America at the turn of the last century. Though there is an element of nostalgia for a vanishing America, it never becomes petty or commonplace.

I have never been to America, but this movie seems so familiar. It reminds me so much of the apartment building I grew up in Calcutta. Maybe because people everywhere are essentially the same, or maybe because every character in this movie is a carefully thought out archetype. The Good Grandson who is the apostle of virtue, the Sacrificing Best Friend, the Spunky Girl, the men who live on the wrong side of the tracks but are still nobler than the rich old townspeople, the Old Man with Something to Hide, the Evil Man with an Honorable Facade, etc. In fact just the crowd u'd meet anywhere u live. That's what, I feel, gives this movie its timelessness. Add to it James Wong Howe's lustrous b&w photography like an old family photo polished everyday by the doting old maid, the assured editing that pieces together scenes straddling across time [Parris, the good little boy to Parris the good young man] & space [Americana to Vienna, like the new year msg in Parris' letter from Vienna dissolving into another msg scratched out on the snow in King's Row], Sam Wood's confident direction [he had done 'Our Town' too] & brilliant all round acting. Reagan blew my mind & so did Anne Sheridan. Wish Robert Cummings was less wimpy, but you can't take it all, can you?

A great movie, see it!