“I play tunes on the typewriter…. No one listens.”

It has become almost typical for me to stumble down a cultural rabbit hole as the year draws to a close and begin the new year rummaging around and digging out what’s worth bringing back to the surface with me. One year it was Harry Potter, after my friend introduced me to the series when I was home from college. Another, it was the works of Benedict Cumberbatch after I finally got around to watching Sherlock at the recommendation of my cousin. This year, my roommate insisted we watch It’s a Wonderful Life as a part of our annual roommate Christmas gathering, and with it I fell down a new rabbit hole, one filled with the early works of James “Jimmy” Stewart.

This current fascination has been more historical than others, and there was so much that interested me that I decided I should just write it all down. So here it is: my thoughts on everything I’ve watched (and listened to) from The Murder Man in 1935 up through It’s a Wonderful Life in 1946, along with some fascinating discoveries I’ve made along the way.

[Note: I have organized this post in chronological order of release, but I did not consume them in that order. Also, I have read a ton of stuff about James Stewart, and this era in general, over the past few weeks, and it’s all started merging together into myth. I’m sorry if I got a fact wrong here or there. Although I did try to provide sources, so if anything here does diverge from the truth, you can at least see where I got it from.]

Early Films

After spending some time in summer stock theater and on Broadway, Mr. James M. Stewart first came to Hollywood in 1934 with a seven-year contract at Metro-Goldyn-Mayer (MGM) Studios during the heyday of the studio system. After an uncredited role in the short film Art Trouble, Jimmy went on to appear in 28 films from 1935-1941 as well as appearing in various short films and radio productions. Not all the films were hits, but they allowed Jimmy hone his craft while appearing alongside some of the biggest stars of the Golden Age of cinema.

The Murder Man (July 12, 1935)

Synopsis
James Stewart’s first credited film appearance was in this Spencer Tracy film about a journalist who specializes in writing about murders but who finds a new case he is reporting on hits a little too close to home. Stewart has a small part as a fellow reporter with the humorously ironic name Shorty.

Thoughts
I’ve never been a big fan of murder mysteries or police procedurals, and that’s essentially what this is. A murder has just happened and a group of reporters are trying to get the scoop. The movie is essentially a vehicle for Spencer Tracy, and I’ve never found him to be a very engaging performer (okay, so this is only the second film I’ve seen of his, but I’ve been underwhelmed twice now), so I don’t really have any thoughts about this movie. I’m not sure it got much more of an enthusiastic response when it was originally released, considering that when you search the film on Google, James Stewart’s name is listed before anyone else’s in the little summary box. Although it was originally a film for Tracy, it seems to be remembered primarily as the first film to feature another soon-to-be star. Even as that, it’s not really worth your time.

Favorite Scene
Tracy’s character dictates the Big Reveal into a tape recorder in the form of a newspaper article he submits for publication. We hear it as he’s dictating it, and then he passes it off to a stenographer, his girlfriend, to type it up for him. What follows is an extended scene where we watch the stenographer listen to the recording of the article through headphones (all we hear is his muffled voice) and react to the Big Reveal. It’s an interesting shot, and one of the only scenes in the movie that was particularly memorable.

Worth Watching?
No.

Next Time We Love (January 30, 1936)

Synopsis
Taken from the New York Times:

“Ursula Parrott’s novel Next Time We Live was an examination of the now familiar emotional problems that beset a man and wife who attempt to pursue independent careers besides the mutual one of marriage. Miss Parrott’s hero was Christopher Tyler, a roving foreign correspondent for a great newspaper. Her heroine was Cicely Tyler, whose name meant something when it was spelled out in bright lights on Broadway. The Tylers would have a brief reunion every year or so and then Christopher would scurry back to Russia or China and Cicely would return to their son, to Broadway and to faithful Tommy Abbott […] Universal has transferred Miss Parrott’s story to the screen […].” (source)

Thoughts
Margaret Sullavan suggested her friend Jimmy be considered to play Christopher after the original actor became unavailable, hence why one of his earliest credited roles is such a high-profile part, and it’s impressive how well he lives up to the challenge. However, when it comes to the film itself, I didn’t care for it. The two leads take turns behaving like idiots. Sure, he somewhat selfishly convinces her to ditch out her last year and a half of college to marry him–I expect that kind of rash, illogical decision from a romantic melodrama, but when he gets an international job, well, the New York Times summed it up nicely:

The film’s “investigation of the problem of marriage vs. career consumes something short of ninety minutes and most of your patience with Cicely Tyler. When her husband receives his first foreign assignment (Rome), she refuses to accompany him, later confiding to Tommy that she was going to have a baby and did not want to be a bother. Inevitably, when Christopher hears the news, he takes French leave of his post, returns to New York and is, quite properly, discharged by his managing editor. There are other essentially ridiculous problems which Miss Parrott proposes and–much to our dismay–makes no pretense of solving.”

It’s sweet that they’re both so supportive of each other’s ambitions, but it would be nice if they made a single decision together. Cicely keeps making decisions for Christopher. First she sends him off to Rome without letting him know she’s pregnant, and then, after losing his fancy foreign correspondent job, when he’s all ready to take a job managing a circus (I honestly can’t remember if they tried to make that make sense [a later listen to a radio adaptation clarifies that it was to do public relations for a circus–still quite a jump from international journalism]), she goes to his old editor and demand he give Chris a new job, in effect, sending her own husband off to Siberia. Chris carries around his own idiot ball when he pushes Cicely away, basically encouraging her to divorce him, because he’s dying and he doesn’t want her to see him that way… or something…. What?! What do either of you want out of life? Why are you even married?! Also, who let you two procreate? Poor Kit, with your self-obsessed, illogical parents.

The New York Times review does point out it’s not all terrible:

“Fortunately for this picture, the reiteration of scenes in which the players take the center of the stage and discuss their problems is made less wearisome through the ingratiating performances of the three principals. Miss Sullavan does so well that she almost convinces us that Cicely is not as stupid as her actions imply.” [Bazinga!] “James Stewart […] promises in this his first picture to reach New York to be a welcome addition to the roster of Hollywood’s leading men.”

Favorite Scene
Not a scene, but I did enjoy when the editor called up Chris to offer him a job as foreign correspondent to Russia: “Do you speak Russian? … No? … Well, you’ll have time enough to learn.” Ha!

Worth Watching?
No.

Rose-Marie (January 31, 1936)

Synopsis
I think it’s best I outsource this summary as well.

“Opera singer (Marie de Flor) seeks out fugitive brother in the Canadian wilderness. During her trek, she meets a Canadian mountie (Sgt. Bruce) who is also searching for her brother. Romance ensues, resulting in several love duets between the two.”

Thank you , Tom Ford on IMDB)

Thoughts
Just one day after Next Time We Love was released in theaters, you could go back to see Mr. Stewart in a very different kind of film with a much smaller role. I didn’t watch this whole movie. I stumbled on a comment on a Youtube video mentioning that Jimmy only shows up in the last ten minutes. After reading the premise and genre of this film, I took advantage of this information and just skipped ahead to the end.

I can’t say much about the film itself. If you’re into opera and the Canadian wilderness this might just be the movie for you. I, on the other hand, have never learned to properly appreciate opera, and I would rather visit the Canadian wilderness than watch a movie about it. From the little bit I did see of this film, I came to the conclusion that Nelson Eddy is not a very good actor and Jimmy Stewart is perhaps at his most attractive while stubbly with floppy hair. It’s a look that returns again briefly in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington as the filibuster rages on.

I love that the person who originally posted that collage on Pinterest captioned it, “Jimmy Stewart being adorable in ‘Rose-Marie.'” considering that throughout this scene he’s being escorted to prison by a Mountie after killing a man and evading arrest. It’s certainly not your typical Stewart character backstory.

Favorite Scene
I really only watched one scene, so I’ll have to go with that one. Rose-Marie sings “Indian Love Call” as her beloved drags her brother away to prison. Apparently sound really travels in Canada. They’re moving away from her, on horses, for goodness sake, and yet they can still hear a full 3+ minutes of singing.

Worth Watching?
No. Although that opinion is coming from a person who only watched about five minutes of it. Plus, for people who like opera, this movie seems to be a hit, so if that’s you, then maybe it would be worth watching. (Also, the stars of this movie, Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy, appeared in at least eight movies together and their off-screen relationship has interested many fans over the years. Rumors of love, hate, and studios meddling in their personal lives. It makes for quite an interesting read.)

Wife Vs. Secretary (February 28, 1936)

Synopsis
A woman, Mrs. Stanhope, due to the meddling of her mother-in-law and random strangers, begins suspecting that her husband is having an affair with his secretary, Whitey. When she expresses her fears, it puts the thought in his mind, leading to a rift in the relationship that wasn’t there before.

Thoughts
Jimmy plays a very small role in this one, as the boyfriend of the titular secretary. Most of his role involves vacillating between being trusting and supportive, and jealous and dismissive. Luckily he ends on a good note:

“Gosh, all the fighting and worrying people do, it always seems to be about one thing: they don’t seem to trust each other. Well, I’ve found this out: don’t look for trouble where there isn’t any, because if you don’t find it, you’ll make it. Just believe in someone.”

This is a story that could easily find itself moved along by people making stupid choices and behaving ridiculously. Luckily, that doesn’t happen here. Everyone seems very human throughout, rarely veering into the realm of caricature. My least favorite moment is when Mrs. Stanhope, in an attempt to disprove jealousy, encourages her husband to selfishly keep Whitey rather than allow her a promotion the company is wanting to give her. I’m all for trust in a relationship, but not at the expense of someone else’s career.

Favorite Scene
The film opens on the Stanhope’s anniversary. Mr. Stanhope seems oblivious to this fact, much to the disappointment of his wife, until Mrs. Stanhope starts cutting into her breakfast and finds a bracelet hidden inside. When those two are happy, they are downright adorable.

Worth Watching?
Sure. Due to most of the film having to do with sexual politics, it is a tad dated, but the performances are good, people behave reasonably considering the circumstances and, despite Whitey settling for her boyfriend, everything wraps up happily.

Small Town Girl (April 10, 1936)

Synopsis
A girl who’s tired of the small-town life marries a rich out-of-towner who proposes to her in a drunken stupor. The man quickly realizes his mistake, but chooses to stay married to her for six months before divorcing her, as a form of damage control, only to find himself falling for her for real.

Thoughts
For a bit I thought this movie might be a cautionary tale about rich city dwellers and how all their appeal will fade and small town life is pretty great after all. I kind of wish the movie veered in that direction, but that may be because I’m experiencing a cynical streak lately. Instead the girl falls for the jerk, but he kind of reforms himself, and in the end I was fine with it.

Favorite Scene
While I found the family of the “small town girl” to be a tad tiresome (there’s a spinach-hating girl that is way too old to be spoon-fed), I did prefer the glimpses of small-town life over the titular girl’s experiences in Boston, and my favorite scene is the brief one when she returns to that small town after being shirked one too many times by her husband. While back home, Elmer Clampett (played by Stewart), very sweetly and sincerely proposes to her. Of course, he gets turned down (Poor Jimmy. Just about every on-screen proposal gets a no. He has better luck when he just marries the girls off-screen in the first ten minutes or dances around the issue without ever asking outright), but his proposal was far more sincere and romantic than anything Mr. Rich-Doctor ever says or does.

Worth Watching?
No. It’s not a terrible movie, but it’s quite slow in places and it’s rather formulaic without much to differentiate itself.

Speed (May 8, 1936)

Synopsis
An early racing movie. A grease monkey is trying to get his new carburetor design functioning. He’s forced to get help from an engineer he doesn’t care for as the two compete for the affections of the new publicist.

Thoughts
I genuinely didn’t understand the ending. Spoiler Alert: The carburetor seems to break apart, causing a fire, which leads to Terry losing control of the car and eventually stalling out in the middle of the dessert. However, when he needs to be rushed the hospital, the car seems to be functioning normally and even allows them to break the speed record. I don’t understand. What went wrong in the first place? Did it magically fix itself? Did I miss something? It involves cars, so the answer to that last one is probably ‘yes.’

Up until then, however, it was more enjoyable than I thought it might be, considering how little I care about cars, regardless of the vintage. I found myself strangely enjoying the tour of the car manufacturing plant, which made me feel like I was watching Sesame Street or Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood–“they assemble the frame upside down. Here’s the machine that turns it right side up again”. I also loved that there was a woman executive! For a car company! In 1936! Rock on, Josephine Sanderson.

Favorite Scene
I really enjoyed the scene at the barn dance. It reminded me of my elementary school years in which square dancing was a part of the physical education curriculum. I have never in my life been called upon to square dance, but it was fun watching other people do it.

Worth Watching?
No–unless you’re interested in old cars. Then, maybe.

The Gorgeous Hussy (August 28, 1936)

Synopsis
I’m stealing the IMDB summary for this one: “President Andrew Jackson’s friendship with an innkeeper’s daughter spells trouble for them both.” It’s loosely based on the real story of the “Petticoat Affair” a scandal involving the wife of Secretary of War, John Henry Eaton. Many wives of Cabinet members thought Peggy Eaton to be morally corrupt and snubbed her socially, causing lots of drama in Washington, culminating in a slew of resignations (both voluntarily and encouraged by Jackson) that completely transformed the Cabinet in 1831.

Thoughts
Considering this blog is focused on James Stewart, I hope it’s okay that I’m giving less than a full glance to movies in which he is more sparingly featured (luckily he starts inching up into more prominent and notable roles soon). In this movie, he’s a friend of Peggy’s who would love to marry her, but she’s got two other guys ahead of him in line. His role is sparse, but he does don some awesome sideburns.

As for the rest of the movie, I found it slightly convoluted, and I will admit to not being nearly as enamored with this time period as people from the 1930s seem to have been. Plus, I’m so used to thinking of Andrew Jackson with a negative hue, so it’s hard to cheer for him or the people he cares about in fictional accounts of his life.

Favorite Scene
I got nothing, so instead I’ll observe that Andrew and Mrs. Jackson were played by Lionel Barrymore and Beulah Bondi. Those two were in everything in the ’30s. Bondi was nominated for an Oscar for this–the first year the supporting category existed. She was nominated one other time in her life, for Of Human Hearts, a movie also featuring Mr. James Stewart.

Worth Watching?
No.

Born to Dance (November 27, 1936)

Synopsis
A bunch of Navy officers show up in New York on shore leave and find themselves singing and dancing their way to ladies’ hearts.

Thoughts
This musical was a lot of fun. It’s breezy, goofy, funny, there’s some great music and some very impressive dancing. I haven’t watched a ton of musicals in my life, but if they’re at all like this one, I’ll watch more.

The highlight for me may be every conversation that happened with the captain on the ship. Every scene with him (or for any member of the Navy, for that matter), is filled with ridiculous wordplay and non sequiturs. For example:

“Mush” Tracy: Where will we find the Rear Admiral?
Captain Dingby: In the front office!

Or…

Captain Dingby: I understand you were born in Brooklyn.
Gunny Saks: Yes, sir.
Captain Dingby: What part?
Gunny Saks: All of me!

The subplot with Gunny Saks and the wife he knew for two days and hadn’t seen for four years was improbably amusing, and Eleanor Powell can tap dance!

Interesting fact: According to TCM’s page for the movie, the tap numbers would be recorded in three separate steps. First, the orchestra would record the music with Ms. Powell dancing on a mattress to help them keep the correct tempo for her, then they would silently film her dancing, and then she would dub in the taps.

This movie also features the first appearance of “I’ve Got You Under Your Skin,” but far more ballady and sincere than I’ve ever heard it before.

Favorite Scene
My favorite musical number is, “Hey, Babe, Hey.” This clip is missing the first two verses of the song, but it’ll do.

Buddy Ebsen’s dancing is hypnotizing. He’s like a giant noodle that looks like he’s going to flop to the floor at any moment, and yet he’s firmly in control of all his movements. I kind of love it. (Walt Disney agrees with me! Apparently Ebsen was recorded in front of a grid to help Disney animator’s choreograph Mickey’s dancing in Silly Symphonies cartoons.)

Worth Watching?
If you’re in the mood for a musical, absolutely!

Sidenote: Jimmy Stewart is not much known for his singing, and outside of a few comedic performances, he rarely did it. In addition to this film (his big solo number was “Easy to Love”), he did sing, for real, in one later film, Pot O’Gold (see below), but my favorite vocal performance of his comes from 1931 in a touring musical with the Princeton Triangle Club. The song is “Day After Day” and it was recorded, along with another song from the show called Spanish Blades, in New York. This link has some more info about the recording, or you can just listen to it here:

Further Reading: Princeton has a blog post about Jimmy’s exploits at their university (including a copy of his academic record and a really neat picture from his final theater production as a student).

After the Thin Man (December 25, 1936)

Synopsis
A sequel to the popular comedy detective story The Thin Man. In this film Nick and Nora are settling in back home after solving the big Thin Man case, only to get pulled into another case when Nora’s cousin’s husband goes missing and then turns up murdered on New Year’s Eve.

Thoughts
I haven’t seen The Thin Man, but based on the sequel I can understand why it was a hit. Nick and Nora are fantastic characters individually and together. Nick’s detached and amused attitude towards just about everything reminds me of Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock Holmes, but with whimsy and humility. And Nora is like so many movie women of the era–penned in by societal expectations about a woman’s place in the home, and yet still free to be funny and intelligent and to join in on the adventures.

In addition to William Powell and Myrna Loy, this movie also features a standout performance by Skippy who plays Asta, Nick and Nora’s dog. I don’t think I’ve ever before seen a subplot about a dog dealing with his wife’s infidelity, but I liked it.

Favorite Scene
Early in the film Nick is forced to endure a trip to Nora’s stuffy family’s home. While the women are in one room talking, Nick amuses himself by orchestrating a conversation of snores and coughs between a bunch of old, sleeping drunk men.

Worth Watching?
Sure. This is an entertaining movie, but I feel inclined to recommend The Thin Man over this, even though I haven’t seen it, because it came first and was good enough to spawn five sequels. As for Jimmy’s performance, which I haven’t yet mentioned, it’s solid and many people like to point out that it diverges from his typical roles, because [highlight for spoiler]: he turns out to be the murderer.

Seventh Heaven (March 25, 1937)

Synopsis
Chico, a sewage worker turned street cleaner, keeps Diane, a young woman who is being coerced into prostitution by her sister, out of prison by claiming to be her husband. She moves in with him to maintain the ruse for a few days to keep the cops off her back, but it’s long enough for them to fall in love for real.

Thoughts
This one really drew me in. The quiet, earnest Diane and the chatty, good-natured Chico make for quite an endearing couple. Chico’s atheism was slightly underdeveloped, but I did enjoy his constant cheerful insistence that “I’m a very remarkable fellow.”

Favorite Scene
I found weird joy in Chico’s passive marriage proposal. He drops a giant box on the table, daring Diane to ask about it and then eventually tells her to open it. Inside is a wedding dress. He then rushes her to put it on: “We have to be to the church by 2.” (Sidenote: who ever thought to cast James Stewart as a guy named Chico?)

Worth Watching?
Meh. Not really. This is a remake of a very successful silent film from 1927 that has been added to the National Film Registry. This version, however, was not a hit and seems to have fallen into the public domain. It’s interesting enough because Jimmy Stewart and Simone Simon are such engaging actors and because I like cheesy domestic shenanigans, but like I said, meh.

It turns out there was also a radio adaptation of this story with Jean Arthur in the role of Diane. You’ll see why I find this note-worthy later.

Navy, Blue & Gold (November 19, 1937)

Synopsis
The story of three young students (officers?) at the Naval Academy as they attempt to prove to themselves that they belong there and work to beat the Army at the annual football match.

Thoughts
I don’t have much interest in the Navy, and I have only the most passing interest in football, and that’s reserved for half-watching college games while doing chores on Saturday afternoons and my love of the show Friday Night Lights. So this movie was fighting an uphill battle. I did enjoy all three leads, and the glimpses of naval academy life were interesting, such as when Gates gets tricked into being hazed and then his roommates tear his pants off him to see the damage done. I can’t say I ever experienced anything like that in college. I also appreciated the peek into the Midshipman tradition of hitting the Gokoku-ji Bell upon beating the Army at football. (The original bell was sent back to Japan in 1987. A replica is now used to continue the tradition.)

Favorite Scene
There’s no one scene that really sticks out, but I really liked Gates, the well-intentioned boy from a wealthy family who gets picked on a lot but continues to be cheerily optimistic. His heart is clearly in the right place and he’s got a good family. I also love that at the completely average height of 5′ 9″ he’s made fun of for being short, because his co-stars are both abnormally tall.

Worth Watching?
Only if you’re really into the Navy or really into football or both. Otherwise, no.

The Last Gangster (November 12, 1937)

Synopsis
A gangster is sent to federal prison shortly after the birth of his son. When his wife learns that her husband wasn’t the upstanding man she thought he was, she runs off with a reporter. But things heat up when the gangster gets out of prison and goes looking for the son he hasn’t seen in ten years.

Thoughts
Apparently Jimmy Stewart has said the worst movie he was ever in was Pot O’Gold in 1941. He was wrong. This was it. I offer three pieces of evidence:

It’s paced very strangely. What feels like just the first act takes up almost two thirds of the film. The gangster marries, has a kid, and goes off to prison, at which point the wife leaves him for another man. There, now the stage is set. But at that point there’s only 30 minutes left in the film.
The boy in this movie has the most annoying voice I have ever heard. It’s loud and harsh, and he has a slight hint of an accent (maybe it was a taught Trans-Atlantic accent?) and everything he says sounds like loud screeching. The closest voice I can compare it to is Nelson from The Simpsons. But Nelson is the bully, not the perfect little kid who gets doted on by his sweet and soft-spoken parents. Can they not hear their son talk? *shudder*
Jimmy Stewart has a mustache. It only shows up when the film skips ahead ten years, but if they were trying to make him look older, they failed. It just makes him look stupid. So few men can actually pull off mustaches, and Jimmy is not one of them. See that picture on the right? If you search “Jimmy Stewart mustache” into Google image search, it’s literally the only one of him with a mustache. No one is memorializing this forgettable moment in the world of facial hair. And no one is memorializing this movie.

Favorite Scene
There’s a cute scene near the beginning-ish where Jimmy (pre-mustache), plays with a little baby. It makes my uterus happy.

Worth Watching?
No.

Of Human Hearts (February 11, 1938)

Synopsis
A boy is such a jerk to his parents that President Lincoln, a man trying to hold together a warring nation, needs to step in and set him right.

Thoughts
That synopsis is perhaps unfairly reductive, but it’s essentially what happens. Jason doesn’t get along with his preacher dad, who’s willing to wear other people’s hand-me-downs and eat frog-filled cornmeal in order to not embarrass his parishioners. Jason would rather hang out with the drunken doctor and read magazines. Eventually he gets into a physical altercation with his dad and leaves town to become a doctor. He then works his way up to field surgeon in the Civil War, all the while asking his parents to send him money.

Of all the movies I’ve seen thus far (this is maybe the 10th or 11th), this is the first one in which I’ve been unimpressed with Jimmy’s performance. It was a little much. The script lays Jason’s ungratefulness on a little thick, so he didn’t have a lot to work with (although it’s impressive watching him rattle off a seemingly endless stream of incomprehensible medical jargon during one scene), but he’s still too much, particularly in a scene with his dad when he doesn’t want to wear a woman’s dead husband’s coat (that clearly doesn’t fit him). It was the script’s fault that he’s completely ungracious and refuses to empathize with the poor, well-intentioned woman, but he comes across like a child. It doesn’t help that the scene is capped off with one of the messier fist-fights I’ve ever seen on screen. I’m not sure they choreographed such things back then. If they did, they’ve come a long way.

Once separated from his dad, Jason tones down a little bit, but his ungratefulness and sense of entitlement is not just sad, it’s downright upsetting. I was filled with so much anxiety over his constantly asking his parents to sell stuff (“It’s just old stuff. It’s not good for anything.”), I probably would have lost it if he hadn’t been able to make amends at the end. It’s weird that the president needs to step in (as Internet-stranger Monica said it, “How badly in life did you screw up that Abe Lincoln has to sit you down to write a letter to your mother?”), but I’m glad someone intervened.

I should say, that despite me not caring for Jimmy’s performance in this, other comments I’ve read in various publicity items and internet reviews from then and now seem to think it was fine. Everyone has their own opinions, though. Maybe I’m just not properly calibrated for such unabashed melodrama.

Favorite Scene
Jason’s mother, caught between her husband’s strictness and a love for her son, agrees to buy Jason a subscription to Harper’s Magazine. What follows is a touching scene where she attempts to sell her silverware for $4. The cheapskate store owner will only give her $2. We watch as she crosses “full year” out on her subscription order and write in “6 months,” before slipping the money into an envelope and dropping it in the mail. There’s something about her smile when she does so–she knows how happy her son will be, making the selling of her silver a sacrifice she’s willing to make.

If only he deserved it, that ungrateful snotface.

Worth Watching?
No. Although Beulah Bondi is great in it. She completely deserved her Supporting Actress Oscar nomination.

Sidenote: This is the first of four films in which Beulah Bondi plays Jimmy Stewart’s mother. The others being Vivacious Lady, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and It’s a Wonderful Life. She also played his mother one time on television, in 1971 on The Jimmy Stewart Show.

Vivacious Lady (May 10, 1938)

Synopsis
A college professor goes to New York to fetch his Black Sheep cousin and returns married to a nightclub singer (played by Ginger Rogers). He has to try to explain the unexpected marriage to his stern, disapproving father and weak-hearted mother and find some time to be alone with his wife to enjoy the perks of married life. Hilarity ensues.

Thoughts
This is where Jimmy’s career really starts to get good. The studio has put him in a bunch of different movies and seen him from a bunch of different angles, and they’re starting to figure out what kind of star he can be. In this movie Stewart gets an extra boost from his ex-sweetheart Ginger Rogers who hand-picked him to play her leading man in a movie meant to prove she can carry a movie without dancing. The result is the best Jimmy Stewart movie no one ever talks about.

I really enjoyed this movie, largely because it felt far more modern than I would expect from a movie that was made almost 80 years ago. The pacing was brisk, the dialogue was amusing, and the complications were the type you might find in the latest Katherine Heigl flick.

Favorite Scene
The fight between Peter’s father-approved fiancee and his new wife:

There’s also an amusing scene where Peter gets drunk off of alcohol and various chemicals he finds in his botany lab, but it pales in comparison to Jimmy Stewart’s best drunk scene two years later.

Worth Watching?
If you’re like me and you occasionally comb through Netflix for some light-hearted romantic story and want something better than the likes of Something Borrowed or The Ugly Truth, you’d be well-served checking out this little gem. It doesn’t have the same emotional gravitas as some of the most memorable rom-coms (the comedy here is very light), but it’s infinitely better than, say, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days.

Sidenote: This movie was re-released in 1941 after its two leads won the Oscars for best Actor (The Philadelphia Story) and Actress (Kitty Foyle).

Here they are in 1941 right after winning Oscars and then again in 1942, ready to present to the new winners (Jimmy had already enlisted and was finally inducted into the Army Air Corps less than a month after the first photo was taken. The second photo was taken a month after receiving his commission as a 2nd Lieutenant).

The Shopworn Angel (July 15, 1938)

Synopsis
A chorus girl lets a sweet, naive WWI soldier from Texas pretend she’s his girlfriend to impress his fellow soldiers. She starts to really like and respect him and agrees to marry him so he can go to war filled with happiness and hope. Meanwhile, the girl and her actual boyfriend try to sort out their feelings for each other.

Thoughts
Of the four films Jimmy made with Margaret Sullavan, this is my favorite performance of hers. Her know-it-all confidence that she seems to exude at all times is complemented here by her character’s self-centered brattiness. She softens throughout the film, which is part of why I enjoy this performance so much. She seems to have depth and personality and she goes on an emotional journey. The plot itself put me off a bit before I had watched it, but the characters are so well-drawn and everyone behaves in a way that makes sense for their own internal logic, it all came together in a way that was really touching.

Favorite Scene
There’s a scene early on in which Bill (James Stewart) enjoys a black and white at a soda fountain while writing fake letters from a fake girlfriend to himself to show the other soldiers when they’re swapping stories about their sweethearts. While there, he watches the soda shop girl profess her love for a soldier and tell him she’ll wait for him, and then he watches her say the exact same thing to the next soldier that walks in. Bill is not amused.

Worth Watching?
Sure. It’s sweet.

You Can’t Take it With You (August 23, 1938)

Synopsis
Alice Sycamore is from an eccentric, spirited family where each person does whatever makes them happy. Alice’s boyfriend, Tony Kirby, is from a wealthy banker’s family where stuffiness and wealth reign supreme. Alice wants the families to meet before she marries Tony and the joint dinner is more explosive than any of them could have imagined.

Thoughts
I loved this movie. I had seen a high school production of the play once. My brother played Grandpa Vanderhof. I don’t remember much from the production, other than a vague outline of the set and the fact that I had a crush on the guy playing Ed Carmichael (a character that turned out to be portrayed quite differently in the movie version). Thus, when I sat down to watch the Frank Capra-directed film version, I didn’t have a lot of pre-conceived notions or expectations. Everything was a happy surprise. There’s a scene early on in which Grandpa Vanderhof inspires bored accountant Mr. Poppins to quit his job that tried my patience a bit when I didn’t know where it was going (in general Mr. Poppins isn’t really needed), but that’s a minor quibble when everything else was so fun. A highlight is the relationship between Tony Kirby and Alice Sycamore (played by my new favorite Jean Arthur) which is one of the most genuine and adorable relationships I’ve seen played out on screen, despite the comparatively little amount of time devoted to it. They talk about things (actual things like the nature of fear and having the courage to pursue dreams–like developing solar power!), they flirt, they fight, and they have fun. Just generally, those two actors are magic together

Favorite Scene
Any time Stewart & Arthur are on screen together. If only Jimmy had worked with her as much as Margaret Sullavan. *sigh*

Worth Watching?
Absolutely! It’s funny, it’s sweet, it’s got memorable dialogue, and it’s part of cinema history: it won the Oscar for Best Picture (a fact which many critics now bemoan–I think partially due to the ever-annoying bias against comedy). Also it’s fun to see everyone from the other Capra films in different roles. Lionel Barrymore (Mr. Potter in It’s a Wonderful Life) gets to be the good guy in this one!

Made for Each Other (February 10, 1939)

Synopsis
Couple gets married at the spur of the moment, couple finds being grown-up difficult and sometimes boring. Couple decides to break up but are re-united by their shared anxiety over the health of their son, who needs a serum flown in from Utah on a stormy New Year’s Eve.

Thoughts
I watched this movie on a flight from Minneapolis to New York, and it kept me engaged well-enough, although very little actually happens. There are fine performances, but not much plot to speak of.

Favorite Scene
An extended scene where the still-kind-of-happy couple walk around the apartment with the bride telling her husband to man-up to his boss and demand a raise. The groom listens and occasionally interjects all while mopily nibbling on a chicken leg.

Worth Watching?
Maybe, if you’re really into domestic melodramas and want something on the TV while you clean your living room–which you can easily do: this is another one that’s fallen into the public domain.

Plus, I should note that The New York Times listed this film as one of the 10 best of 1939, hitting the nail on the head when they say of the film,

“We remember it not as a great picture but as a very human picture, with a panel of characters who behaved normally, underwent experiences common to most of us and emerged from them probably no wiser than they were before. It wasn’t epochal and it wasn’t especially enlightening, but it was real and honest and we enjoyed it thoroughly.”

For some context, 1939 is considered by many to be the Golden Year of Cinema due to so many classic and well-remembered films being released that year, including The Wizard of Oz, a film which failed to make the New York Times year-end list.

Sidenote: The New York Times ten-best lists have the best sub-titles and intros. The one for 1937 is entitled “Ten Best, in a Pickwickian Sense – Which Means Simply That a Reviewer, Having Made His List, Refuses to Lie in It, and Beats a Hasty Retreat” and begins thusly:

“With charity for all and malice toward none…. No, that’s the wrong speech…. Having donned the ceremonial robes, having placed burnt offerings upon the managing editor’s desk and having paid obeisance thrice to Will H. Hays, the department is prepared to announce its Ten Best list of 1937. (The line of irate readers will form on the right.)”

In 1938 they give the list the self-aware title of “Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo,” and they continue to make apologies in 1939:

“Inevitably we have been forced to concede that logic does not count, that arithmetic does not enter it. You puts down your pencil and you makes your choice and you kicks yourself around the block the day it breaks irrevocably into print.”

In 1940 they started to do away with the silliness:

“It seems, from a glance through our files, that a proper preface to this annual article, in which the ‘ten best’ pictures of the year are customarily named, should comment with considerable feeling upon the difficulty of making such a choice and should vaguely apologize for presuming to do such a thing…. […] we nominate the following as the ten best pictures of 1940[…]. And, with no apologies, we stand by them.”

While reading yet another spot-on New York Times review form the era I finally got around to glancing at the author’s name. Not too surprisingly (how many film reviewers did I think the Times had?), they were all written by the same person, Frank S. Nugent, who wrote over 1,000 witty, thoughtful and sometimes snarky, reviews for the Times (the last paragraph of his assessment of Bringing Up Baby is particularly pointed). His review of The Grapes of Wrath in early 1940 was so good, Fox Studios offered him a job as a script editor. He promptly left for Hollywood and Mr. Buzzkill, Bosley Crowther, took over at the Times, hence the abrupt and disappointing change in tone for the 1940 year-end list.

Further Sidenote: Frank Nugent became a full-fledged screenwriter, and wrote, among other things, Two Rode Together starring Jimmy Stewart.

The Ice Follies of 1939 (March 10, 1939)

Synopsis
An ice skater marries right before running into some financial trouble, so his wife goes to a movie studio and becomes a major star, as he becomes a super successful ice show producer. But will their individual successes keep them from domestic bliss?

Thoughts
I was expecting this movie to be terrible. It’s about fancy ice shows, for goodness sake, while neither of the leads are known for doing anything on ice. Plus, I had heard stories about how the movie was being promoted to be a much bigger spectacle than it ended up being, and I’ve seen and listened to enough stories about two halves of a couple pursuing their own dreams in the last month to be a little tired of that plot line. But I think my low expectations worked in this film’s favor. It wasn’t a great movie. It may not have even been a good movie, but it was okay. Joan Crawford and James Stewart are actually pretty adorable together (for the moments they actually are together and not ripped apart by their respective careers). Generally, the performances were good, the ice spectacles fascinating (the black and white one features a bit of my favorite song from Born to Dance), and the ending was in Technicolor, making this the first time audiences could see Jimmy in color. He wouldn’t appear in another color film until 1948.

Favorite Scene
Joan Crawford wants her husband and his bestie to help her practice for a screen test as they all eat breakfast, but they’re less than helpful. It’s friendly, amusing and kind of adorable all at the same time. I find myself often enjoying food-related scenes in these old movies. They seem more slice-of-lifey than more modern films. I think it’s because they actually eat the food instead of moving it around with a fork.

Worth Watching?
No.

MGM Short: “Hollywood Hobbies” (May 3, 1939)

Movies in the ’30s often featured cartoons, newsreels and other things before the main picture. One such short made by MGM, meant to publicize their amazing stars, features two out-of-towners getting a tour of Hollywood and seeing various MGM personalities engaging in some of their favorite hobbies. Although Jimmy was still up-and-coming, he had been established as enough of a heartthrob to be featured in this film, sitting in front of the two young visitors at a baseball game:

It’s a Wonderful World (May 19, 1939)

Synopsis
Detective Guy Johnson is on his way to prison for harboring a murder suspect. He escapes when he gets a new lead. Now he’s on the lam but a chance encounter with an adventure-seeking poetess means he’s no longer alone as he races to find the real killer.

Thoughts
James Stewart cannot do accents. It works here, because A) he only has about five lines of dialogue in two different accents and B) he’s playing a detective who’s pretending to be different people, so we can just assume the detective is crappy at accents and it all works for comedic effect. But seriously, he’s bad at it.

Beyond that, it was fun. I did genuinely laugh-out-loud during a couple of moments, but I can’t say the progression of their feelings for each other really worked. He’s just kind of a jerk and while I can see why she wants to hang around him for the adventure of it all–and because it looks like she really enjoys pestering him–I’m not sure why she sees romantic potential in him. She’s just projecting her own ideal onto him. Having said that, if these two had formed some sort of comedy detective duo, I would follow their adventures. I could imagine it as a really fun TV show.

Favorite Scene
The two find themselves near an apple orchard and Edwina says she’s hungry. What follows are some amusing little bits of physical comedy as Edwina struggles to climb over a fence in her dress and heels and then Guy encourages her to climb a tree to get some apples and leaves her dangling from the branches while chomping on one of the fruits she had thrown at his head.

Worth Watching?
Meh. I had never seen anything with Claudette Colbert in it before, so that was fun, but the movie isn’t that great. It’s fine, but not great. The trailer includes a line that it’s the best movie Jimmy Stewart has ever been in, and looking back at the movies that preceded it, well I would still rank it at least fourth behind Born to Dance, You Can’t Take it With You and Vivacious Lady (Made For Each Other may be up there, too). But even if you believe the bombastic hyperbole of trailers (particularly trailers of this era), you would just have to wait a mere five months for him to very seriously out-do himself.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (October 19, 1939)

Synopsis
Jefferson Smith is appointed senator by his state’s governor to fill a vacant seat without causing any trouble, but he starts doing just that when he uncovers corruption in his state government and refuses to stand by and watch it happen.

Thoughts
I went to Washington, D.C. for the first time over Thanksgiving. My cousin’s reaction to the capitol dome was almost identical to Mr. Smith’s when he first catches sight of it. And I have to say, this movie, with it’s wide-shot of a 6’3″ Mr. Smith turned downright tiny when standing before the larger-than-life Lincoln Memorial, did a pretty good job of approximating how humbling it feels to stand there yourself. It’s weird to think that the amount of time that stretches between me and this film, is just a few years more than the time that stretched between this film and Lincoln himself. The memorial hadn’t even been there for two decades. There’s a scene in the film where a young boy reads “The Gettysburg Address” to his grandfather while an older African-American man listens. I once read a commentary where someone suggested it’s made extra poignant when you realize that listener may have lived through the Civil War himself. That might be a bit of a stretch, but if not him, certainly his parents would have seen that chapter of history. Heck, Jimmy Stewart’s grandfathers both fought in that war. That, to me, is insane to think about.

When Mr. Smith accepts the appointment to the senate he says “I’ll do nothing to disgrace the name of Senator of the United States.” Watching this film just weeks before a former real estate mogul–a man who far more resembles Mr. Taylor than he does anyone else in the film–is sworn in as the new president of the United States, I tried to imagine if he could or would say those same words about his office, and if he would mean them nearly so much as Mr. Smith does.

These were the things on my mind as I watched the mini civics lesson that is this film. Corruption in government has become a cliche that permeates just about every representation of politicians in popular culture. It has become so commonplace that now in the 21st century, the anti-establishment Donald Trump (despite being very much a part of the business establishment) looks to many to be a contemporary Mr. Smith.

I don’t know where I’m going with this and it has nothing to do with the film, except so much that the film reflects a generic representation of American idealism, free of mentions of parties, or even specific state names. It can serve to inspire in any American a desire to return our country to whatever idealized America they have in mind. On a smaller scale it’s about a man fighting for what he believes in. On a larger scale, it’s about a nation yearning for something pure and honest, but such a thing doesn’t exist, and if it did, it would look different to each and every person.

Put another way, the film is ambiguous enough that it can defend or support any interpretation of government you want. And while many people look at it as a celebration of democracy, I can’t help but seeing it with a little cynicism, realizing that despite Jefferson Smith standing up for what he believes in, nothing is likely to change. At least not much. Maybe Mr. Taylor will suffer some setbacks, but that’s about it. Mr. Smith fought a small battle against corruption in one state. There are still 47 (now 49) other states, likely with many of the same issues, and what would Mr. Smith’s filibuster do for those other instances of corruption, other than teach the corrupters to be a little more careful about covering their tracks? It all seems like a lost cause. Then again, Mr. Smith tells me that’s the only cause worth fighting.

“And so we beat on, boats against the current…”

Favorite Scene
Of course, everybody loves the filibuster scene, but that’s really just a bunch of little chunks, each magical in their own way and impossible to choose between. So for my favorite, I’m going to say either the scene where Smith is trying to write his bill but gets distracted by the mystery of Ms. Saunders’ name, or this one, in which Saunders tries to inspire a despondent Mr. Smith to keep fighting the good fight, because, well, somebody’s gotta.

(Have I mentioned I love Jean Arthur and Jimmy Stewart together?)

Image result for jimmy stewart jean arthur

Worth Watching?
Absolutely! Another Frank Capra film and, love him or hate him (I lean towards the love), he’s one of the most defining directors of American cinema. This film was also among the first 25 films to be included in the National Film Registry when it started in 1989. Plus, other than us now having 100 senators instead of just 96 (it still seems weird we didn’t always have 50 states. It’s such a nice round number), I’m not sure anything else is all that different in Washington.

Sidenote: If you’re interested, check out this interesting dissection of how Frank Capra framed shots in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to make the incredibly tall Jimmy Stewart look like an underdog. From The Dissolve.

Destry Rides Again (December 29, 1939)

Synopsis
A corrupt town loses its sheriff. To replace him they choose Wash, the town drunk, who brings in Tom Destry, Jr., the son of his old boss to serve as deputy. The mild-mannered Destry tries to solve problems without guns or violence but he’s serious about cleaning up the town.

Thoughts
This movie was fun. The performances are top-notch, and there are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments (I love Destry constantly tucking in Wash’s shirt, and Boris–poor, goofy Boris). When things were calm and characters were just chatting, I loved it.

Unfortunately, I’ve just never really gotten into westerns. The only ones I have really enjoyed are the ones that involve some genre-bending, so the sci-fi/western Firefly (also with a sidekick named Wash!) and Back to the Future 3 are about the only ones that make the cut. Luckily, this is more a comedy than a western, but even then, I struggle. I get confused about conflicts, and who’s mad at who, and who’s working with who and I always get twisted up if there’s a giant battle of some sort. I can’t follow war movies for similar reasons.

I thoroughly enjoyed many aspects of this film (the ending deserves special mention), but I think for me to truly appreciate this film I’d need to watch it again. I’m sure I’ll get around to that at some point, but not today.

Favorite Scene
Destry’s entrance into the town, from getting off the carriage with a parasol and a canary up through him ordering a milk at the saloon.

Worth Watching?
Yes. (Don’t let my indifference towards westerns put you off). This is another one that has made it into the National Film Registry.

Sidenote: Dickie Jones, the Claggett boy, was appearing on screen with Jimmy Stewart for the second time this year, after playing the page boy in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. His most famous role, however, is probably the voice of Pinocchio in 1940. I hope that kid was enjoying his life, because it looks like it was fun.

The Shop Around the Corner (January 12, 1940)

Synopsis
Two bickering co-workers don’t realize they’re each other’s anonymous pen pals. This film is based on a play by Miklos Laszlo that also inspired the musical She Loves Me and the Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan hit You’ve Got Mail.

Thoughts
So many people love this movie. It’s made a number of lists of top American films, and I can see why, but I also gotta say I don’t love it as much as so many others. This would be the perfect movie to put on while curling up with a hot tea and crocheting a blanket. It’s pleasant and comforting to watch, but it doesn’t fill me with warm fuzzies. This movie suffers from the completely-out-of-its-control fact that I watched this for the first time after having already seen both You’ve Got Mail and a Broadway production of She Loves Me. Each retelling of this story has something different that it offers, and taking the three as a whole, they tell a complete and magical story, but each installment also seems like it’s missing a little something when you know the other possibilities. I fully respect this film for coming first, and being a beautiful and simple telling of the story, but you’ll forgive me if I appreciate the other two adaptations for working out some of the kinks (really, Klara, you got stood up by a guy you’ve never met so you’re bed-ridden and ditching work? Come on…!)

Favorite Scene
The cafe. Kralik finds himself in an interesting situation when he knows the identity of his pen pal before she knows his. Luckily he continues to behave as a gentleman, for the most part. Here he tries interacting with his antagonistic coworker for the first time after learning she’s the woman of his dreams.

Worth Watching?
Yes! It is widely considered one of the best romantic comedies ever, and it earns that honor. Sure, I’m a little luke-warm about it, but I’m glad I’ve seen it, and I’ll no doubt watch it may more times–and not just while crocheting.

The Mortal Storm (June 14, 1940)

Synopsis
Another James Stewart, Margaret Sullavan pairing, this is the last of the four films they made together, and it’s also the darkest. The film takes place in southern Germany as Hitler is coming to power. A blended family is ripped apart when the “aryan” older siblings start getting caught up in the Fuhrer’s ideas while their “non-aryan” father and siblings struggle to live their lives in a country that suddenly doesn’t want them.

A bit of context: According to History.com, the day this movie was released also marks the day Germany occupied Paris and President Roosevelt froze the American assets of Germany and Italy.

Thoughts
This movie was probably experienced very differently by someone watching it in 1940, when all the news they had about the war came from one, maybe two newspapers a day and whatever the latest radio bulletin contained. I’ve heard conflicting reports about just how much was known about what was going on overseas at the time, and this movie provides a glimpse of how the US perceived the rise of Hitler, although in its sanitized Hollywood way.

On my trip to DC last November, I visited the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. There was an exhibit entitled “Some Were Neighbors: Collaboration and Complicity in the Holocaust.” It was a very well-presented exhibit filled with interviews, stories and artifacts exploring how different people not directly under attack by the Nazi regime reacted to the events around them. This movie poses similar questions. The Holocaust (as it would come to be known) had not yet begun, but the tide was clearly turning, and everyone needed to decide what role they wanted to play in whatever was yet to come.

Many modern reviews of the film include transcriptions of the narrative that runs over the beginning of the film:

“When man was new upon the earth, he was frightened by the dangers of the elements. He cried out, ‘The gods of the lightning are angry, and I must kill my fellow man to appease them!’ As man grew older, he created shelters against the wind and the rain and made harmless the force of the lightning. But within man himself were elements strong as the wind and terrible as the lightning. And he denied the existence of these elements, because he dared not face them. The tale we are about to tell is of the mortal storm in which man finds himself today. Again he is crying, ‘I must kill my fellow man!’ Our story asks, ‘How soon will man find wisdom in his heart and build a lasting shelter against his ignorant fears?'”

I don’t think I’m the only one who would say I’ve felt some winds from that storm brewing anew. Right now that narration gives me chills.

The voice-over at the end is equally meaningful, but offers no promise that it won’t be a path filled with danger, fear and pain:

“And I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year: ‘Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.’ And he replied: ‘Go out into the darkness and put your hand into the Hand of God. That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way.'”

That last bit of narration is an excerpt of a poem that was included at the end of King George VI’s Christmas Message in 1939. They were the words citizens all over the British Empire heard as they sat down to their Christmas dinners as they braced themselves for what was to come, uncertain of what it would look like. America was so far removed from the growing threat in Europe, sitting safely across an ocean, far from Germany’s reach. In that context, this movie has far more punch.

Watching it now, I’m just wondering about historical accuracy and laughing at the bad special effects as the lead characters ski down a hill. Sometimes the passage of time can help numb the pain of a difficult events. Sometimes we need the pain to sting a little, to remember to not let ourselves get hurt again.

Favorite Scene
The image that has stuck with me the most takes place in a tavern. After some dialogue regarding allegiances and whether friendship is more important than political ideology, someone begins playing an anthem. Everyone in the bar turns to the front, holds their arms up in the Nazi salute and begins singing together. The camera holds on Sullavan and Stewart as they stand amongst a sea of Hitler supporters, unsure of what to do and trying to make sense of what this display means for the future of their nation. Their act of disobedience doesn’t bring them any immediate harm, but there’s something incredibly powerful about the image of those two, standing alone in a sea of bullies.

Worth Watching?
Only if you’re a history buff. It is an interesting cultural artifact from an important time in history. Research suggests that this film was one of the most successful anti-Nazi movies to be made at the time, and it was damning enough that Hitler banned MGM films from Germany. Unfortunately there are some cheesier aspects of production that take away from the story (I mentioned the skiing… they’re barely wearing coats, for goodness sake), but it’s still a well-made film that shows how familial connections can be challenged by political affiliations.

Sidenote: It’s interesting to look at the way Sullavan and Stewart’s characters relate to each other in the four different films they did together. In The Shopworn Angel, their second film together, Sullavan’s character mentions feeling motherly towards Stewart, and you see that. And if not motherly, it’s certainly a relationship in which he seems young and fawning, and she is more world-weary and powerful. In Next Time We Love, they start on much more even footing, but she seems to take some power by not telling Chris about the baby and she puts herself in a higher position, causing him to defer to her and leading to her feeling trapped in her own dominant position. The Shop Around the Corner finally puts Stewart’s character slightly above Sullavan’s. They start out more-or-less equal (he’s above her professionally, but she refuses to bow to anyone and gets herself hired out of sheer obstinacy and quick-thinking), but as time passes, he finds out who she is and has the opportunity to put her in her place before initiating their happy ending. And then there’s The Mortal Storm, where both are subordinate to other forces. They find themselves on even footing throughout, both holding steadfastly to their beliefs while being beaten down by the prevailing ideology. The thing that I find interesting is that Sullavan seems to be the same person in all four. She’s always firm in herself, confident, a little controlling but in a graceful way, and it’s Stewart who positions himself differently to her every time they work together. Anyone who insists Jimmy Stewart plays the same character all the time needs only watch the four movies he made with Margaret Sullavan to see how wrong they are.

Different Sidenote: I found an interesting tid-bit in a gossip column, “Hollywood Today,” written during the production of this movie. Not only does it mention how the movie ends in the first paragraph (spoilers were not a concern in those days), it includes a snippet of Jimmy Stewart getting frustrated with his days’ work,

“Why do eating scenes always take so long? I’ve been eating nuts and fruit for two days now, and I’m getting sick of them. Oh well. Thank Heaven it isn’t chicken. I’m really allergic to chicken.”

I find this comment amusing because of his extended chicken eating scene a year earlier in Made for Each Other that I enjoyed so much. I can only imagine that’s what he was thinking of when he made this complaint.

Additional Sidenote: “Hollywood Today” was written by Sheilah Graham, notable for having an affair with F. Scott Fitzgerald in the final years of his life when he was attempting to get work as a screenwriter out in Hollywood. It seems during this time he also got to know Jimmy, at least a little, and referenced him in a letter to a friend about different clubs at Princeton (both Fitzgerald and Stewart attended; only Stewart graduated),

“The Charter Club and the Quadrangle Club are notably among the nicer ‘small’ clubs, but only a few months ago Jimmy Stewart was telling me how it wrankled throughout his whole Princeton career that he had joined Charter instead of Cottage, which had been his father’s club” (The Collected Letters of F. Scott Fitzgerald).

These two men seem to come from such disconnected worlds that it makes me smile that their paths crossed. (Unrelated coincidence: Fitzgerald called his daughter Pie, and Jimmy’s favorite horse–which he rode in 17 westerns–was called Pie.)

Bringing it Full Circle: Fitzgerald was only ever credited on one film throughout his time in Hollywood: The Three Comrades, directed by Frank Borzage and starring Margaret Sullavan, two of the creative forces behind The Mortal Storm.

No Time For Comedy (September 14, 1940)

Synopsis
A playwright (Gaylord Esterbrook–what a name!) from a small town in Minnesota (yay!) goes to New York when his play premieres on Broadway. He marries the star and life seems peachy, until he gets sick of writing comedy and wants to write something serious. He turns into a mopey snob and a rift forms in his idyllic marriage.

Thoughts
This movie started out with such potential: the small-town boy seeing the big city for the first time, the stressed out shenanigans behind the scenes of a Broaday show… I was on board! And then it just got dull. Gaylord turned into a jerk and that keeps up until the very end.

Also, this is the first of the films that I watched where I was really uncomfortable with the portrayal of African-Americans. The film starts out with the fantastic Louise Beavers playing an actress in Esterbrook’s play by the name of Clementine. Clementine plays a maid in the play, but before they go on stage opening night, while in her maid costume, she serves as a maid for the star of the show. She mentions that when the public gets sick of her she’ll go back to being just a maid (instead of an actress playing a maid). The film then skips ahead two years where we see Clementine working as the maid for the now married Mr. and Mrs. Esterbrook. That distressing twist of fate is made worse by her character being portrayed as rather unintelligent and being treated like crap by Mr. Esterbrook. I read someone else’s comments about the film in which they were happy that at least Clementine gave back as good as she got, but while she has gumption, I’m not confident the film thought of it that way.

In many of the other films on this list there are African-Americans playing maids and porters and other individuals in the service industries (and rarely in any other context) and while I notice it, it doesn’t rankle me too much, largely because they’re often treated respectfully by the other characters. These movies are a reflection of a different time, and I can accept that while watching, but this one felt different, and I cringed every time Gaylord said something harsh and insulting to Clementine and every time she zinged back with a poorly-worded retort. Louise Beavers also played a maid in Made for Each Other. I prefer that part to this one. It’s a smaller part, but it has a little more dignity. On a related note, the Wikipedia page about Louise Beavers is really interesting. I’ve added Imitation of Life to my list of movies to check out.

Favorite Scene
The early part of the film where no one can believe Gaylord Esterbrook is who he says he is, causing him to show them every thing from his train ticket to the initials stitched into his hat. Also this exchange (which I am paraphrasing): “I was beginning to have my doubts that Redfield actually existed.” “I’m still not convinced Minnesota does.”

Worth Watching?
Not so much. The first act was fun and endearing, but then it all kind of falls to uncomfortable melodrama in the second and third acts. The well-performed final stage speech in the last five minutes is rather well-done but it can’t save the dreary middle. This is, however, the only film from which I’ve found bloopers (or ‘breakdowns,’ as Warner Bros. calls them) featuring Mr. Stewart:

The Philadelphia Story (December 1940)

Synopsis
On the eve of her wedding, socialite Tracy Lord exchanges witty dialogue with her fiance, her ex-husband and a gossip writer hired to report on the wedding, all while under the influence of champagne and blackmail.

Thoughts
This is a sophisticated romantic comedy, where the men wear tuxes and everyone drinks champagne and people say things like, “You’ll never be a first class human being until you’ve learned to have some regard for human frailty,” and people profess their love (or admiration? infatuation?) with poetic musings: “You’re made out of flesh and blood. That’s the blank, unholy surprise of it. You’re the golden girl, Tracy. Full of life and warmth and delight.” It’s the rare romantic comedy that gets better with repeat viewings, as you better understand the characters and their motivations and relationships with each other. It’s a little more subtle than Bridget Jones’ Diary, is what I’m saying. Also, apparently it’s one of J.J. Abrams’ favorite movies.

Favorite Scene “C.K. Dexter Haaaveen!”

Worth Watching?
Yes! One of the touchstone films of the romantic comedy genre, starring some of the biggest and brightest stars of the Golden Age of cinema.

Bonus Fact: Supposedly “Philadelphia” was spelled incorrectly on Jimmy Stewart’s Best Actor Oscar (it was spelled “Philidelphia”). A mistake that, if true, was infused with some irony when Jimmy gave it to his father who put it on display in his hardware store, on Philadelphia Street in Indiana, Pennsylvania. Ha!

Come Live With Me (January 31, 1941)

Synopsis
A writer marries a wealthy woman so she will be allowed to stay in the country. In exchange she pays his living expenses ($17.80 a week!) Spoiler alert: they fall in love.

Thoughts
There’s a reference to current events when Johnny (Hedy Lamarr) tells Bill that she needs him to marry her so she doesn’t get sent back to “what used to be Austria” but which contemporary viewers would know was recently taken over by the Third Reich. Although no mention of Johnny’s ancestry is made in the film, both of Ms. Lamarr’s parents were Jewish. …And Sandra Bullock was freaking out about being sent back to Canada….

Beyond that little observation, I will admit to not paying full attention while watching this. I started balancing my budget or something. I’ve done that with other films and at some point the movie snags me and I get drawn in. That never happened here. Until the end when Bill started rambling about lightning bugs blinking when they want to have sex. Or something. (By ‘they’ I mean the lightning bugs. People didn’t have sex in the 1930s. They kissed for no more than 3 seconds at a time and sometimes babies would magically appear as a plot contrivance or to signal domesticity.)

When it comes to providing commentary on this film, I have failed you. I am so very sorry.

Favorite Scene
I can’t think of one, but I did get the title of this post from the film, so, I guess that one. It’s near the beginning. He says it to the guy who played Mr. Poppins in You Can’t Take it With You.

Worth Watching?
No. Although in its defense I was tuned out half the time. It’s hard to know whether the inattention was more the fault of me or the movie.

Sidenote: I checked out the Wikipedia page for Hedy Lamarr to see what her own relationship was with Austria during the war years and was surprised and impressed to find this paragraph after a list of film roles:

“At the beginning of World War II, Lamarr and composer George Antheil developed a radio guidance system for Allied torpedoes, which used spread spectrum and frequency hopping technology to defeat the threat of jamming by the Axis powers. Although the US Navy did not adopt the technology until the 1960s, the principles of their work are now incorporated into modern Wi-Fi, CDMA, and Bluetooth technology, and this work led to their induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2014.“

Here I imagine Hedy Lamarr doing a mic-drop.

[I told my cousin about this and she pointed out there was once a Google Doodle dedicated to her.]

Pot O’Gold (April 3, 1941)

Synopsis
A small town man closes his beloved music store to work for his big-city uncle’s grocery store. While in the city he finds himself embroiled in a nasty feud between his uncle and a bunch of fun local musicians whose band drives the uncle crazy. Also, he falls for the lone girl in the band, but she doesn’t realize he’s related to the enemy and tensions arise. This movie was, bizarrely, based on a non-narrative radio show.

Thoughts
I’ve read some places that Jimmy once said this was the worst movie he ever made. I don’t know that I agree, but it wasn’t worthy of his talent or star power at the time. Also, according to TCM, he and his co-star, Paulette Goddard, did not get along, and he seems to have been somewhat forced into being in the film by MGM who agreed to loan him out to United Artists at the request of the film’s producer James Roosevelt, the son of the president. It was the only film produced by Roosevelt. He joined the fight during WWII and then went into government after, but apparently he charmed Stewart into starring in his sole film project. All that is to say, coming off the tails of The Philadelphia Story, Stewart deserved better than this, but I don’t think this is the worst movie he was in. It was bad, but not the worst.

Having said that, I’m not the best to judge this film. It’s a musical of the same variety as Pitch Perfect, where the musical numbers fit into the plot because everyone around is a musician, not because the music reflects the story. If you’re into that kind of movie (and the music of the early ’40s), then this might be a fun, middling romp. If you’re like me, however, it’s just a bunch of people singing silly songs and giving away money on a radio show (to a Minnesotan!). Nothing terribly embarrassing or ridiculous, but not really anything worth remembering either.

Favorite Scene
I enjoyed Mr. Stewart’s sole musical number in this film, “Johnny Toots His Horn.” He seems genuinely good at faking the harmonica, which is a skill I appreciate in an actor. There’s nothing quite so annoying as watching someone who clearly has never picked up an instrument before pretend to know what they’re doing (like Jimmy Stewart playing the penny whistle in The Gorgeous Hussy). Plus, I just think this is a fun song:

Related note: Apparently Jimmy really learned how to play! Harmonica player and teacher Jerry Adler talks about working with Jimmy and other actors in this short article (my favorite tidbit: Jimmy apparently made MGM pay for more harmonica lessons while he was in the Army. I guess that’s the price they pay for forcing him to star in terrible movies.

Worth Watching?
Nope.

Ziegfeld Girl (April 25, 1941)

I’ll admit. I didn’t watch this one. There’s something depressing about the films of 1941, like Jimmy has crested over the edge of the top of his game into… crap. Come Live With Me and Pot O’Gold are not the worst movies Jimmy made, but after 1938-1940 being filled to the brim with some amazing and memorable films, it’s a little depressing to see him in things unworthy of his talent, or roles that could have gone to anyone but were given to him to capitalize off of his hard-earned reputation. I just couldn’t bring myself to watch the last one. Maybe I will someday, but not now.

I assume part of the reason for the disappointing roles post-Philadelphia Story was due to him thinking more about the war. He was drafted before The Philadelphia Story premiered and I can’t imagine him putting too much effort into fighting for the next career-defining role when he was more concerned with figuring out how to get the government and his studio to allow him to serve his nation like generations before him, as the United States was being drawn further into World War II.

The War Years

The story of Jimmy’s military career can only be painted in broad strokes. Dozens of reports exist detailing how he got in and what he did there, and the few details that exist often conflict and start sounding like urban legends, but there are some things people seem to agree on:

On September 16, 1940, the United States instituted its first peace-time draft. The first picks were made in October of that same year, and among them was James Stewart (number 310), but he was turned away after being deemed too thin for his height. Perhaps influenced by a family history filled with men who took up the call during war-time, Jimmy was determined to get in somehow. Whether it was by working with an MGM trainer, withholding bowel movements, or asking the weight-taker to fudge the numbers, Academy Award-winner James Stewart overcame the weight issue, and entered the army in March 22, 1941 as an enlisted man in the rank of Private. He served in various positions state-side, including training young flyers in the particulars of flying bombers. For a while he was labelled “static personnel,” meaning he was not to be sent overseas, but in time he got his wish and was moved into a combat position in the 8th Air Force stationed in England. Over the next two years former actor Jimmy Stewart commanded and/or flew over 20 missions over German-Occupied Europe.

Throughout Jimmy’s time in the Army the government wanted him to do publicity as a public face of the Army Air Corps. Jimmy seemed to prefer not to, hoping to be treated as any other officer, a wish that continued after the war, when he rarely spoke publicly about his war experience, and supposedly had it written into his contracts that his service could not be mentioned in association with any of his films. He did, however, appease his higher-ups a few times and made a few public appearances. They serve as an interesting glimpse into America during wartime.

“We Hold These Truths” (December 15, 1941

December 15, 1941 was the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. A special had been planned to air on all 4 major networks (NBC Red, NBC Blue, CBS and Mutual–yes there were two NBC networks. Eventually the NBC Blue was sold off and became what is now ABC!).

The special was intended to be a grand celebration of American democracy, but it became grander celebration of American ideals when, 8 days before it aired, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, bringing America into World War II. The script had been over 1/2 written at the time of the attack, but something tells me President Roosevelt’s speech at the end was written closer to airtime.

Bergen & McCarthy (January 18, 1942)

One of the biggest stars in radio’s heyday was, bizarrely, a ventriloquist. Edgar Bergen (father to Candace Bergen), and his friend, (puppet) Charlie McCarthy appeared regularly on the radio from 1936 through 1956. Jimmy Stewart appeared on the show many times, but the first time was while a Lieutenant in the Air Force. In this particular installment, Charlie was being court-martialed for having joined both the Air Force and the Marines. Lieutenant Stewart defended him. No copies of the recording are known to exist, unfortunately, but articles about it do. As do some really fun pictures. Here are Stewart and Bergen, swearing Charlie in:

Plays for Americans: “Letter at Midnight” (March 15, 1942)

Throughout the war, radio networks dedicated some of their time and production facilities to the government to air programming in support of the war effort. (More about that below in regards to the CBS’s Victory Theater production of “The Philadelphia Story.”) NBC, doing their part, aired a series of “Plays for Americans” and this one starred Lieutenant Stewart as a son writing a letter to his father explaining why he was drawn away from his pacifism and into joining the Air Corps.

I have transcribed my favorite part, but it’s really better listened to than read.

“America was rich and growing richer and everything would always be that way. For we, indeed, were quite the wisest. And there was no world but our world. And there were two broad oceans all around us and life was good and safe. Safe. Everlastingly safe. […]

“In that safety was a decay that grew and grew. A rottenness of men who thought security could be bought with strong beams in their houses and thick vaults in their banks, who talked of Christ and who applauded evil when it grew powerful, who thought that the world of their family was more important than the world of men. That safety, Father? Oh no. Not at the price of a world where men grew fat and children hungry, not a world where every fifty years they blast and bomb and burn your churches, where power feeds itself on persecution, where deviltry of self stands on all the throats of all the little people. I don’t want that world, I tell you.

“This is my world. And this is my day. For now, at last men fight and know that they are fighting against the miseries you forgot in your world. Good and evil, clearer than ever before in the history of man, stand facing each other across the blood and the tears. This is my day, Father. Our day. Our fight. I may die, but I’ll be fighting for my world. And even dead, it’ll be my world: a world of people living in the peace that will come, that must come–the peace of all the brotherhood of man, together at last in common decency, in simple justice.”

These radio programs were straight-up propaganda, meant to fire up Americans in their support of the war, to convince an isolationist nation that it was worth fighting a fight that was oceans away. The involvement of public personalities was a way to further that cause and heighten those appeals. in that sense, it’s clear why the army would want to use Stewart for things like this; keep him safe from combat, but use him as symbol of an American willing to sacrifice a cushy job and a fancy life by donning a uniform for his country. But this whole radio play, and particularly those words and the moments that follow, have an extra bit of resonance knowing that a year and a half after recording this, Lieutenant Stewart went overseas himself and put his own life on the line for the very fight he’s talking about.

I don’t know how I feel about war in general (I tend to not like it), and even knowing how World War II ended, and the important role America played in winning it, I’m not sure how I would have felt in the time leading up to it had I been alive then. Heck, right now the world is feeling awfully unsettled and my primary response has been to ignore all news and escape into 1930s Hollywood. I may be taking avoidance to an extreme, or maybe the era is serving as a prism through which I can see current events without being overwhelmed. Regardless, this “Letter at Midnight” hit me harder than I thought some war-time propaganda could, perhaps because I listened to it sandwiched between snippets of present-day reports on the war in Syria and talk of building a wall on the Mexico border.

Sidenote: Although Jimmy Stewart spent more time in combat than other actors during World War II, many other stars joined the war effort. Clark Gable also served with the Air Corps and flew as an observer-gunner in a few missions in addition to working with the First Motion Picture Unit, the film production unit of US Army Air Forces. Here are the two MGM stars hanging out in 1943.

Gable had been encouraged to join the army by his wife, Carole Lombard (Jimmy’s co-star in Made for Each Other), but he resisted and only joined up after she died.

Lombard, the highest paid actress of the time, was killed in a plane crash while flying home from a trip selling war bonds in her home state of Indiana. She sold over $2 million worth of war bonds in one day (well exceeding her quota of $500,000). On her way back, she was on a plane with some members of the Army Air Corps as well as her mother and press agent when, due to either pilot error or incorrect navigation, the plane crashed into the side of a mountain just west of Las Vegas on January 16, 1942.

Two months later saw the release of Lombard’s final film, about a married couple who run a theater company in Warsaw when Germany invades. It received mixed reviews which were likely influenced by Lombard’s tragic, war-related death. Now the film, To Be or Not to Be, is looked on quite favorably.

Two years later, a Liberty Ship was named after her. Her widower, Captain Clark Gable was on hand to help christen it.

Winning Your Wings (May 28, 1942)

While Jimmy’s war-time radio work was largely directed at the general public, he was also called in to star in and narrate this recruitment film, used to get young men excited about joining the Air Force. At just under 20 minutes, there’s no reason to watch the whole thing, but there are some amusing moments, such as when Jimmy appeals to the young men viewers’ hormonal side by reminding them that girls love a man in uniform.

“Victory Theater: The Philadelphia Story” (July 20, 1942)

After the success of the film version of The Philadelphia Story, there were two different radio productions of the movie featuring the three leads. The first one, for Victory Radio Theater, also featured Ruth Hussey and Virginia Weidler reprising their roles. Both adaptations are interesting enough, particularly as you see a 112 minute film whittled down to an hour (including message breaks) and then to 30 minutes in subsequent productions, but the Victory Radio Theater production, which aired on July 20, 1942, is worth a listen just for the chance to experience a slice of the home front during World War II.

Victory Theater was essentially a continuation of the Lux Radio Hour, a weekly radio play presented by Lux Soap (sidebar: apparently Lux soap still exists! In the US it’s been re-branded as Caress, but the Lux brand name is a market leader in a number of Asian countries and Brazil). According to one newspaper at the time, the government had made a call for “voluntary mobilization of the brains, the hearts, courage and experience of the entire radio industry toward winning this war” (source). CBS and Lux responded by making another episode of the series, but handing the title and ad time to the government. As Billboard magazine summed it up, “[Director Cecil B.] Demille and the cast’s stars donated their services, CBS supplied the time, and the government provided the war messages.” Or, as the announcer says at the end of the first episode:

“Ladies and gentlemen, the Victory Theater is your theater, a rallying place where you can meet with your fellow Americans and with your government each Monday night. We shall play certain true facts about the war before you each week. We shall ask you to do something about those facts and on what you do may depend the safety of your home and the lives of those you love.”

Between each act of this particular installment there are public service announcements encouraging the purchases of war bonds, and at the end of the show, each of the four adult stars take turns offering PSAs of their own. One notable moment: the announcer starts saying “Jimmy” and then catches himself before properly addressing the actor-turned-Army Air Corps member as Lieutenant Stewart. (The picture from “Letter at Midnight” makes me wonder how he dressed for this recording. The thought of him playing drunk while in uniform makes me giggle.) Lieutenant Stewart’s PSA is unexpected:

“Well, sir, in the army, we’d like to see everyone stop criticizing our allies in England. The next time, stop before you talk and ask yourself, what have I done that gives me the right to criticize people who fought for three years as bravely as the English?”

I didn’t realize Americans were criticizing the English, particularly enough for it to require the government to bring it up on a popular radio series. (This is why I love my little rabbit holes. I never know what I’m going to learn.)

Katherine Hepburn’s PSA was far more dark;

“I think I would like to ask every mother if she’s heard of the crime of Lidice. That’s the village in Czechoslovakia where every man was killed by the Nazis. I would ask her to imagine a knock at her door tonight — a knock and a door crashing in. A father and his son dragged out to be shot. The girl and the mother scattered in cruel concentration camps, never to see each other again. I would say to that mother, if our side doesn’t win this war, you can cross out the name of Lidice and write in the name of Middletown, U.S.A.”

I looked up Lidice. In case I’m not the only one who hadn’t heard the story, a Nazi officer was murdered in Prague by resistance forces. As reciprocity, Hitler demanded that any town that had been harboring one of the suspected assassins be destroyed. Thus, the entire town of Lidice was wiped out, much in the way Hepburn describes. Every man in the town was lined up against a wall and shot in groups of 10. Women and children were detained in a neighboring school for three days before the women were sent to work camps and all but a few “racially suitable for Germanization” children were sent to an extermination camp. The town itself was then completely destroyed, with roads and streams re-routed to lead away from the town. (source)

The Wikipedia page also points out, that unlike most of the horrific acts Germany committed during the war, this one they featured in propaganda and the international media picked it up, thus allowing it to be used by Americans to try to fuel American support for the war effort.

I appreciate the government only putting ads for war bonds during the act breaks. Having this story spliced between scenes of drunk and arrogant men making passes at a stuck-up socialite would have made for a very disconcerting mood.

To inject a little levity: enjoy these pictures of Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant wearing skirts as they tape the second radio adaptation of The Philadelphia Story five years later. Apparently they were giving Katharine a hard time for wearing pants, and they decided to turn the tables on her.

News

In March of 1941, Jimmy’s induction into the Army was filmed as part of a newsreel. Three years later, he appeared briefly in another newsreel, mirroring his appearance in the first. At this point he was serving as commander of a bombardment squadron in England. Comparing the two newsreels, it’s almost hard to believe only three years separates them.

At the war’s conclusion there were a few more artifacts addressing his service, including a two-part article in The Saturday Evening Post written by Colonel Beirne Lay Jr. that provides a third-person narrative account of Stewart’s rise through the ranks and some specific missions he flew, and some really fun photos from Life magazine taken by a photographer who followed him around his hometown of Indiana, Pennsylvania when he stopped by to visit family after returning from Europe. Here he is, appearing to be of no help at all, in his father’s hardware store.

Return to Hollywood

In late 1945, Colonel James M. Stewart returned to Los Angeles. He hadn’t made a movie in five years. The one he chose to reintroduce himself to audiences was It’s a Wonderful Life, directed by his old colleague Frank Capra. Both men had spent the last few years immersed in the war, Stewart dropping bombs and experiencing the stress and loss that comes with active combat, and Capra immersing himself in the visual images of the horrors of war and trying to weave them into stories to communicate the importance of fighting to the American people. It’s well-known that It’s a Wonderful Life flopped. While it made plenty of money, it failed to be the hit that was expected and that the impressive production demanded. Looking at it next to all of Jimmy’s previous films, it’s not shocking that people weren’t gaga over it. Before the war Jimmy was young and silly and wooing girls and being wooed by them. There was a carefree nature to many of his characters, and the stories more often than not hinged on idealism and the hope and promise of young love. It’s a Wonderful Life is different. He’s older, he’s married with four kids. He’s not pining after some girl or caught up in amusing domestic shenanigans, he’s worried about how to pay the bills, and whether his life has any meaning when his idealism fails him time after time. There’s a tension and volatility to his performance that never existed before. Sure, he had played angry and deranged, but it never seemed quite so authentic.

I can only imagine my reaction to the film if I were alive then, perhaps a teenager when Stewart first started showing up in the movies. I would have laughed and cried at all his little celluloid romances, been disappointed but dutifully sat through the less interesting films, and then listened excitedly whenever he showed up on the radio during the tense war years, happy he wasn’t killed and anxiously awaiting his return to the big screen (which I wouldn’t have called the big screen, because there wasn’t another size screen to compare it to).

I would have been so excited in December of 1946 to see good, old reliable Jimmy Stewart in the theater again, after all this time. I would have smiled as he walked Mary home from the dance, cheered as he defended the building and loan against Potter, and then been frustrated and angry when Harry returns home only to sentence his big, lovable brother to more drudgery after years of hope. I would have been unsettled by his aggressive grabbing and yelling at Mary before finally getting around to admitting his love, and I would have been downright frightened by his violent outburst at his family after Uncle Billy loses the $8,000. In other words, the movie would have been insanely effective as a story, but I’m not sure I would have walked out of the theater smiling.

It can’t help that when George first appears onscreen, Jimmy has been made-up to look younger. He may never be fully believable as 18, but he doesn’t look much different than the Jimmy we last saw and then we watch him age. At the end he is unabashedly gray. Is he really that old? If he’s that old, how old am I? Has the world really changed that much? No one wants to be reminded of the passage of time.

I decided to include It’s a Wonderful Life in my look at the early career of James Stewart, because although it was first released after the war, which serves as an obvious break in the man’s career, it seems as much a goodbye to his earlier career as it does a greeting to the later. It’s the fulcrum on which his film career rests. It features old co-workers, the well-known Capra-corn undercurrents, a timeline that reflects on the past as much as it takes place in the present, but it’s dark and angry in ways that his later films would explore more fully. Jimmy’s back, the movie seems to say, but something, whether it’s Jimmy, the world, movies, all of it… something has changed, and it will never be the same again.

It’s a Wonderful Life (December 1946)

Synopsis
For their first first film after the war, Capra and Stewart, join forces for the third time to tell the story of a man on the verge of suicide as he contemplates a life that refuses to turn out the way he imagined. Of course, everyone knows what happens. Even if you’ve never seen the movie you know what happens. This movie may be the only thing more American than apple pie

Thoughts
I had never seen It’s a Wonderful Life before. I had clear memories of the SNL alternate ending that I first stumbled on at the age of five, I had seen the first brief moments of solar system-like angels talking to each other when an old mentor sat me down to watch it before I distracted myself with other Christmastime activities, and I had seen countless sitcoms hi-jack the “if I had never been born” premise, but I had never seen the original in its entirety. I had seen the very end, the George-had-never-been-born bit, a couple of years ago with my dad, but not having seen the majority of the movie and being a cynical grinch about certain things, it didn’t really draw me in. Thus, now, at the age of 31, I watched it for the first time, and I was hooked. I get it now, world. I get it. It’s not just a sentimental favorite that people watch out of a sense of tradition, it’s a really good movie that has earned it’s place as a holiday classic.

Favorite Scene
George and Mary are heading off on their honeymoon but stop in on the Building and Loan when they notice a crowd of people. Mary, who initially tries to convince George to ignore it and keep their plans, is the first one to (excitedly) offer up their $2,000 nest egg to keep the bank open.

Worth Watching?
Absolutely, more than any other film on this list.

Would You Rather Listen? Donna Reed and James Stewart reprised their roles for a Lux radio production. Clarence becomes more bumbling in this interpretation, but the spirit is still there.

Happy Tangents

‘Happy Tangents’ would make a great name for a movie, wouldn’t it? Alas, it is not one. Instead, here are some amusing things I discovered that are only tangentially related to the career of Jimmy Stewart.

Handies

It sounds more inappropriate than it is. Or it sounds inappropriate for different reasons than it is…? It was a craze that swept the nation circa 1936. I don’t think it lasted very long, but it involved making hand gestures and having others guess what the gestures meant and then responding with their own. I first heard of it in connection with a couple pictures of Jimmy from 1936. (Pictured to the left and the right. Try to guess what thing he’s depicting in each of the pictures. Answers are below.)

I say that the game is inappropriate because the few examples of Handies I found all seem to involve some amount of racism in the gestures used or in the phrases the gestures are indicating, or both. Apparently Jimmy knew over 300, and I can only hope that at least a few of them would be appropriate for our modern sensibilities.

In my search for more information about the fad, I found a little blurb in Life Magazine in 1941,

“Every few years the great American public is seized in the grip of some fad. In 1936 it was handies. In 1934 it was nudism. In 1932 it was technocracy. In 1930 it was miniature golf. In 1925 it was Coueism, the cult of the French druggist Emile Coue, who taught his acolytes to repeat daily: ‘Every day in every way I am getting better and better.’ Such a rage is currently blowing up in New York around Andrew Salter whose work in autohypnotism, whatever its scientific merits, has all the makings of a fad” (source).

I get that they’re all fads, but I love that this author is comparing autohypnosis to young people making strange gestures with their hands to kill time. They may both be fads, but I think the author could have done better.

Highlight here for the answers to Jimmy’s handies: Left: China Clipper, Right: Low-browed Indian.

Jimmie the Raven

Jimmie the Raven is an actual, real life bird (there’s some debate as to whether he is a crow or a raven–he’s been credited as both), that according to reports appeared in over 1,000 films from the 1930s through the 1950s including The Wizard of Oz. Frank Capra cast him in You Can’t Take it With You and apparently loved him so much he included him in every subsequent film he made (although I wonder if he’s in the documentaries Capra made for the War Department…). Next time you’re watching It’s a Wonderful Life, keep your ears out for the moment when George jumps over the counter at the building and loan and warns the bird: “Look out, Jimmie.”

Unfortunately Jimmie seems to have gotten cut from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but here you can see him in an image of a cut scene, watching over as Mr. Smith tends to a monkey (with a bonus pic of the monkey, because… monkey).

The Big Apple

From my memory there are three movies in Mr. Stewart’s early years that reference the Big Apple dance, unfortunately I can only recall the two that featured it prominently. The Big Apple lasted a little longer than Handies in the national (and international) consciousness, but didn’t stick around too long itself.

According to Wikipedia, the dance’s origins go as far back as 1860 in the south, but it reached popularity when the dance started popping up at the Big Apple Club, an old synagogue that had been turned into an African-American juke joint. Apparently some white college kids started paying to gain entrance to the club to watch the dancers from the balcony, occasionally tossing nickels down to continue to feed the juke box after the dancers ran out of money. Those students eventually started doing the dance in white clubs and it caught on, spreading throughout the nation in 1937 and 1938. Thus the films You Can’t Take it With You and Vivacious Lady (both from 1938), feature it at the height of its popularity, right before it became so cool even Winston Churchill started doing it, at which point, like all fads, its own success became its undoing, when it crested over the ridge of “cool” and fell dramatically into the realm of “lame” and everyone moved onto something else.

Language

There’s all sorts of great language in some of these old movies, some of my favorites are below:

Post Office: This phrase is used in the trailer for It’s a Wonderful World. When the text suggests that when Claudette Colbert and James Stewart “play ‘Post Office’ you’ll see why It’s a Wonderful World.” Post Office refers to a kissing game played by kids at a party, kind of like 7 Minutes in Heaven. Its use in the trailer still seems a little off to me, though. I suppose it’s just using the phrase as a metaphor for kissing but it still seems like an odd choice when one of the characters hates the other one for most of the movie and they don’t ‘play Post Office’ until the last 30 seconds.

French Leave: Refers to when someone leaves without telling anyone. I had heard of this being an Irish Leave, but a quick Google search suggests that alcohol is a necessary requisite for that usage. “French Leave” may still be in use today, but it was used frequently throughout the late ’30s.

The Wikipedia page lists equivalent expressions in other countries. Apparently most of the world uses “English Leave” to refer to the same thing. It’s only us, the Spanish and the Portuguese that trash on the French.

Clever: This isn’t an outdated word, but in old films it’s used in the British way rather than the contemporary American way. In Britain, the word just means “smart.” In America, it tends to refer to a person or behavior that is sneaky or pernicious. I’m not sure when the divide happened, but apparently it’s sometime between 1940 and when I learned the word, circa 1990.

Making love: Here’s another expression that’s evolved. There’s a scene in It’s a Wonderful Life when Mary’s busy-body mother is nervously inquiring about what Mary is up to with George Bailey:

Mrs. Hatch: Who is down there with you, Mary?
Mary: It’s George Bailey, mother.
Mrs. Hatch: George Bailey? What does he want?
Mary: I don’t know!
[to George]
Mary: What do you want?
George Bailey: Me? Nothing! I just came in to get warm.
Mary: [pause] He’s making violent love to me, mother!

It’s a line that is now probably funnier than it was originally when she basically meant “violently wooing.” The same old definition crops up in Born to Dance as well as Seventh Heaven:

The definition seems to have shifted at some point in the mid-20th century, although the contemporary use was recorded as far back as 1927, thus, use of the phrase (at least in It’s a Wonderful Life) could have been intended to have its current humorous effect with there already being a distinction between the more liberal meaning of the word in 1946 when the movie was released, and the more chaste connotations of the late ’20s when the scene takes place.

Functional Nonsense

pop culture then & now

Early Films

The War Years

Return to Hollywood

Early Films

The Murder Man (July 12, 1935)

Next Time We Love (January 30, 1936)

Rose-Marie (January 31, 1936)

Wife Vs. Secretary (February 28, 1936)

Small Town Girl (April 10, 1936)

Speed (May 8, 1936)

The Gorgeous Hussy (August 28, 1936)

Born to Dance (November 27, 1936)

After the Thin Man (December 25, 1936)

Seventh Heaven (March 25, 1937)

Navy, Blue & Gold (November 19, 1937)

The Last Gangster (November 12, 1937)

Of Human Hearts (February 11, 1938)

Vivacious Lady (May 10, 1938)

The Shopworn Angel (July 15, 1938)

You Can’t Take it With You (August 23, 1938)

Made for Each Other (February 10, 1939)

The Ice Follies of 1939 (March 10, 1939)

MGM Short: “Hollywood Hobbies” (May 3, 1939)

It’s a Wonderful World (May 19, 1939)

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (October 19, 1939)

Destry Rides Again (December 29, 1939)

The Shop Around the Corner (January 12, 1940)

The Mortal Storm (June 14, 1940)

No Time For Comedy (September 14, 1940)

The Philadelphia Story (December 1940)

Come Live With Me (January 31, 1941)

Pot O’Gold (April 3, 1941)

Ziegfeld Girl (April 25, 1941)

The War Years

“We Hold These Truths” (December 15, 1941

Bergen & McCarthy (January 18, 1942)

Plays for Americans: “Letter at Midnight” (March 15, 1942)

Winning Your Wings (May 28, 1942)

“Victory Theater: The Philadelphia Story” (July 20, 1942)

News

Return to Hollywood

It’s a Wonderful Life (December 1946)

Happy Tangents

Handies

Jimmie the Raven

The Big Apple

Language

Further Reading

Share this:

Related

2 thoughts on ““I play tunes on the typewriter…. No one listens.””

Leave a comment Cancel reply