This film is part of a two-pack DVD, and I got the set for the other movie in the set: The Devil’s Daughter.

This looks even rougher than that movie. It looks like it’s been transferred to video (for TV broadcast?) and then to DVD?

This isn’t bad — it’s got nerve and fun performances. I’m not familiar with the director, Marshall Neilen, but he did 63 movies between 1916 and 1937 — with a sharp drop-off once talkies started. So I’m guessing he wasn’t well-funded, and this does look pretty cheap in parts.

It’s too bad this er “transfer” is so awful — it looks like they’re using the scenery in interesting ways. This looks like it’s been filmed in the middle of a jungle type of swamp or something. But it’s just hard to tell here.

Wow, that looked like he was actually fighting a live crocodile. (Or is it alligator? I forget.)

I guess this is in the public domain, so I guess there’s little chance of anybody doing a proper restoration of this (because where would the money be in that?), but this deserves better treatment than this. It’s kinda actually kinda good.

And interesting. It’s got voodoo stuff, and there’s also stuff about “passing”, and racism and stuff.

OK, it’s losing tension now, but it’s still… like nothing I’ve seen before. That guy to the left (who’s in love with Chloe (Olive Borden) who’s passing), has just told the other guy who’s in love with Chloe that she’s *gasp* got a Black mother!!!

And that her mother is a voodoo priestess!

I have absolutely no idea where this is going.

What!?! She’s the long-lost daughter of this white guy! She’s not Black at all! And this is the guy why lynched her Black (now apparently her adopted) father! Oh the tangled web!

I didn’t see that coming.

Sounds likely:

The Ohio board banned the film.

These women doubt that she’s really the long-lost daughter, because “she’s so dark”.

And whenever she steps out, Chloe suffers attempted rape by these two guys.

It’s a very strange film.

I’m not at all sure how to parse this movie. I mean, what they were trying to do. Were they pointing out the absurdities of the concept of “race”? Or was this a movie where the audience was supposed to be horrified that a nice white girl had been mistaken for not being white?

Anyway, it’s entertaining, so:

Chloe, Love Is Calling You. Marshall Neilan. 1934. ⚃

Oh! I was thinking this was Dumbo, so I’ve been avoiding watching it. (The spine of the blu ray just says “Jumbo” without the “Billy Rose” bit.)

This starts off with an overture, then a long title sequence, and then a sort of introduction by this guy (sung, of course) — he’s singing that the premise of the movie is to bring the circus to you. So we’re like nine minutes in when the movie starts.

It’s like they’re really trying to class this movie up like it’s a blockbuster like… er… Gone With The Wind or something.

Doris Day!

I was starting to wonder whether this was going to be all sing-songey, but there’s talking, too.

The movie bombed:

MGM bought the rights to the musical soon after it reached the stage.

[…]

According to MGM accounts, the film earned $2.5 million in the US and Canada and $1.5 million overseas, but because of its high cost recorded a loss of $3,956,000. It was the last film producer Joe Pasternak made at MGM.

The director Charles Walters only made two movies after this one.

So I guess Doris Day has to carry this movie. I mean, we’ve also got Jimmy Durante and Martha Raye, but for such a big budget movie, all of these starts are a bit (or a lot) past their peaks in popularity.

Let’s see… it’s Durante’s final movie. Martha Raye did one movie (eight years later) after this. Day did a bunch of movies until 1968.

Oh, the original stage musical was from 1935, but it didn’t get a movie adaptation until 1962. I guess that explains why it seems like such an anachronism.

Heh heh, that explains the title:

Original producer Billy Rose stipulated that if a film version was ever made, he must be credited in the title, even if he were not personally involved.

This is a good wikipedia page:

Both play and film feature Durante leading a live elephant and being stopped by a police officer, who asks him, “What are you doing with that elephant?” Durante’s reply, “What elephant?”, was a show-stopper in 1935. This comedy bit was reprised in his role in Billy Rose’s Jumbo and is likely to have contributed to the popularity of the idiom, the “elephant in the room”.

But man, this is not a good movie. What were they thinking! Doing an overly long vaudeville/circus musical, with virtually no star drawing power, in 1962? Without a director like Stanley Donen, who could possibly have made this work? Instead it’s just flabby and tedious.

I mean, it holds true to the premise of bringing the circus to you, but I think the reason people like going to circuses is to look at all this stuff in person — to be in the presence of an elephant — and a filmed circus isn’t the same at all.

There’s also a plot involving the circus going insolvent, and they weave the scenes from this plot into the circus scenes. Which is a classic structure and can work perfectly. But these scenes are filmed so indifferently. Have they heard of the term “blocking”? These scenes are just amazingly amateurishly filmed, as if they used a newbie second unit director for these parts.

The elephant is really talented, though.

And Stephen Boyd as the beefcake, I mean romantic lead… His only talent seems to be standing around with that expression on his face.

I usually ditch movies that are this tedious, but I watched this to the bitter end. OK, while doing some programming in the middle. Because it looks quite good? I think that’s the reason I didn’t bail.

But there’s really no reason for anybody to watch this — it’s horrible. Martha Raye gets some good schtick in, but it’s otherwise… just…

Billy Rose’s Jumbo. Charles Walters. 1962. ⚀

I saw this in a cinema during its original run. I remember my reaction to it (as we were walking out of the place) as being “batteries? batteries!?!”

I.e., the reaction any nerd should have.

But watching it now, it looks cooler than I remember it. I mean… opening with that scene with Trinity… it’s fab. And… it’s greener? (This is the latest 4K restoration.)

Keanu does that face very well. Almost as if it’s natural.

Nice jewellery.

It’s Cowboy Curtis!

They’re really into acupuncture.

I guess there’s a lot of info to dump on the viewer, and that’s absolutely what it feels like. Except that they preface it with “what’s going on?” “I have to show you” *infodump while on greenscreen*

So I’m getting a bit bored now.

Finally! Something’s gonna happen again? We’ve spent about fifty minutes on infodumping and setting up the concept?

Nope, still more infodumping.

FINALLY!

So an hour of setting up the concept, and I guess an hour for the plot itself now.

Heh. The agent just explained that the simulation is set in 1999 because that was peak human civilisation. I guess it’s hard to disagree with him now…

The cool bits in this movie are so cool that when those things happen, they kinda blot out how boring the preceding scenes have been. It’s a neat trick.

I mean, obviously the Wachowskis are massively talented, and have thought up a universe here that’s really compelling and interesting. It’s just that they’ve felt the need to explain everything? That is, the world-building is just what we see on the screen, there’s nothing left for the viewer to piece together on their own.

The cool bits here are so cool that it’s totally reasonable to say that this is, like, THE BEST MOVIE EVAR!1! I wouldn’t really argue against that — it’s a unique movie, and it’s got something special going on. For me, though, I was thoroughly bored by at least half the movie, so I’m going with:

The Matrix. The Wachowskis. 1999. ⚃