Hors du gouffre

Last night I watched an old film for interest in the history behind it rather than for the film itself. Neither was really worth the effort; in fact, the film's a mess. I watched "The Man Who Came Back" (1931), the seventh of twelve collaborations of Janet Gaynor and Charles Farrell of "Seventh Heaven" and "Street Angel" silent fame. Indeed, they made three films together in 1931 alone, of which this is the first.

I watched the film, though, because it just so happens that Humphrey Bogart was Charles Farrell's dialogue coach on the film. Too, it was the same year that Bogart appeared in the Charles Farrell film "Body and Soul", one of only two Bogart films I've never seen. I'm suspicious of the possibility that Bogart got the job because Kenneth MacKenna was a co-star in this film, and he just happened to be Bogart's best friend at that time. Bogart was a fledgling film actor at Fox at the time. Also in this film, by the way, are William Holden (no relation to the later actor of the same name), Mary Forbes, Ullrich Haupt, William Worthington, Peter Gawthorne, and Leslie Fenton.

This one begins with a very fine scene of Farrell, after a very drunken night, awakening in the middle of the afternoon to have breakfast. Meanwhile, downstairs, his very wealthy businessman father is aggravated to the hilt because Farrell's previous night's behavior is in the newspapers on the front page - not only because it must have been a very drunken evening, but because Farrell evidently married a floozy besides and now she'll take $50,000 to get out of the arrangement! I was fascinated by the fact that when father and son meet downstairs to discuss all this, Farrell's voice, which I usually can't even stand in small segments, was half way decent and watchable. This segment lasts for nearly twenty minutes, but then a new segment begins, and one might think that that's going to be the lead up part to the conclusion of the film eventually. No way. This film gets going, then has several more segments, all linked very badly, but what's worse, the film goes haywire with its writing, and the plot becomes absolutely non-sensical! Try to imagine Janet Gaynor becoming hooked on opium in a Shanghai opium den after being a rather naive girl from the Midwest who doesn't even drink! The antics of Farrell for the entire rest of the movie are about as plausible as a dog becoming President of the United States.

Stupid movie. Way too long. Nicely acted by all around, though. Good to hear Farrell's voice actually making a decent transition finally from silent film. His earlier attempts at sound are rather bad, actually. Still, the film is poorly written, in fact, badly done: Janet Gaynor delivers a few lines of metaphor, comparing her love to spring, in one scene, and it's so ridiculous as to be embarrassing to have to listen to! Skip it or watch it for the sake of Farrell and Gaynor. But - they've certainly done much, much better.

This is a flawed, but fascinating adaptation of the short story with a complete about-face in characterization by Farrell and Gaynor. They handle the sometimes silly dialogue and abrupt transitions in character with grace, which makes the sometimes-unbelievable narrative of the story seem more realistic. Kudos to them for playing against type and doing it so well. The scene in the opium den is particularly affecting--watch it without sound and you can see their old silent chemistry at work.

The direction by Raoul Walsh is jumpy and overly talky, not surprising for 1931.

Not my favorite Farrell/Gaynor but a fascinating film to watch.

I gave this an extra star for originality, as this was new ground for both Charles Farrell and Janet Gaynor, the usual romantic pairing but with a much darker background.

Charles is a wealthy heir whose irresponsible, hedonistic lifestyle is the bane of his father's (William Holden) existence. Knowing it's partly his fault, for always bailing him out, he does an about-face and cuts him off with a mere 5 grand (worth about 50 grand today, I'm guessing). The son shows his lack of both immaturity and character by shouting all kinds of threats, how he'll drag the family name through the mud, etc.

Continuing his playboy lifestyle from New York to San Francisco, he finds his true love (Janet). At a jaded society party, where she doesn't fit in, he first proposes a no-strings affair, then proposes marriage, then disappears (Dad arranged to have him shanghaied for his continual defiance), leaving Janet to think he was just toying with her.

Next thing you know, Charles is an alcoholic mess, who wanders into an opium den and discovers Janet, who'd now an addict! How's that for realism??? (HAH!!)

If she thought he dumped her, why would she follow him to Shanghai? And how did she find out he was there? And how did she get hooked on opium? These questions are never answered.

Next thing you know, they've both cleaned up their act, gotten married and are living happily in Hawaii, when Charles's old life beckons, he gives into temptation and takes a drink, she almost gives into temptation and smokes the pipe, he goes home, she's left with the charming would-be seducer neighbor (Kenneth MacKenna), who they knew from San Fran days, and turns out to have a secret identity.

Will Charles forget Janet when he returns to New York? Will he return to his drunken playboy ways? Will Janet later join him or stay in Hawaii and give in to both opium and Kenneth?

The answers are not worth tuning in for, as it was really a pretty silly mess.

Janet Gaynor and Charles Farrell made a dozen films together and their films were incredibly popular. A few of them were classics, such as "7th Heaven" and then, unfortunately, there were films like "The Man Who Came Back"...a terribly written nonsensical sort of picture!

When the film begins, you see that Stephen Randolph (Farrell) is a rich, spoiled brat (sort of the Paris Hilton of the day). While his father is incredibly wealthy and worked very hard to amass this fortune, his son has none of his dad's character. The problem apparently is that Stephen knows no matter how stupid and obnoxious he is, his dad will once again bail him out of any trouble he gets in...or so he thinks. He's finally done it, however, and gone too far. His father gives him an ultimatum...go to work in San Francisco and work his way up (just like he did) or be completely disowned. Well, Stephen is apparently a total idiot as well and instead goes to San Francisco and drinks and carouses. He's still a major embarrassment to the family and so after blowing this chance, he is literally Shanghaied--tossed on a boat and ends up in Shanghai!

At this point, the film goes completely insane and I can only assume that is why you see him in an opium den...just a few steps away from turning from alcohol to drugs. Here is where he inexplicably meets the exact same girl he was running around with in San Francisco! Huh?! Well, apparently when Stephen was Shanghaied, this nice girl he was dating fell into despair, became a drunk slut and ended up in the exact same opium den he'd find himself in halfway across the world!!! Not only are the odds of this one in a billion, but seeing Gaynor playing this character was laughable. She was a tiny, lady- like actress and excelled at always playing nice girls...and seeing her as a tough slut in the opium den was more laughable than seeing Florence Henderson taking on such a film role!!

Suddenly, the film skips ahead a year. The pair have married and are living in Hawaii. Life is apparently good and Stephen appears to have stopped drinking. Oddly, however, the hubby brings home a bottle of booze and admits he had a drink. And, at this point I started wondering if perhaps it was the writer who was drinking heavily when they wrote this crap! What's next? Who cares?! I sure know I didn't...especially because the dialog and writing were just terrible and didn't get any better...in fact, it got much stupider!! The scene where Gaynor meets his family is one that needs to be seen to believed!!

The bottom line is that if you had poor writing BUT you liked the characters, the film might be watchable and worth seeing. But with characters who were idiots, made little sense and talked like no one in real life, you are left confused and wondering why they made this mess in the first place...especially since the pair were top stars at the time, not actors in a crappy B-movie by a 4th-rate studio. Inexplicably, it was from Fox...one of the biggies of the era. And, it was made by a great director...Raoul Walsh. Rarely have I seen a film with so many good parts that all amount to nothing!