Madame X

This first talking film version of the venerable Madame X takes a full one-third of its running time to get started as a proper movie. The first 30 minutes suffer horribly from atrocious miking, unbelievably stilted acting and frozen camera placement that was all too common in the early talkie era. It's as if the actors were on morphine laced with acid and performing under water. The one scene that takes place outdoors in a public park is crudely recorded and more jarring than revelatory in its effect.

When the locale finally shifts to southeast Asia the juicy part of the story begins with the star Ruth Chatterton on the first leg of her debauched round-the-world journey to oblivion as the wayward official's spouse whose life is ruined by an extramarital tryst. Chatterton's performance careens from laughably, abysmally dated posturings at the beginning to incandescent hyper-realism as she portrays the dissolution and ravages of absinthe addiction and self loathing. It is a brave and even startling tour de force, especially for its time. And the extreme contrast between the awful and the sublime is itself a phenomenon worth observing for its own sake. It speaks to the transition in acting styles that was taking place in the 1920s, a time of deep cultural change. Usually a movie from this era will contain different styles of acting coming from different actors - but here the differences are all within Chatterton herself.

The rest of the cast simply falls by the wayside, although in the early minutes it is Lewis Stone who registers more strongly, due to his deeper and more mike- friendly voice. Raymond Hackett as Madame X's clueless son is suitably earnest and sympathetic in his bravado courtroom climax scene. Ullrich Haupt is effective as the con man who befriends the heroine in South America, but Burgess Meredith's rendition of the same character in the 1966 version was more chillingly repulsive.

Toward the end Chatterton's performance begins to slip back into treacly mode (not helped by the overwrought dialogue), but for about 45 minutes she delivers one of the most entertaining acting jobs of 1929.

Seeing this 1929 version of Madame X was quite a revelation, the only other version I had seen was the Americanized Ross Hunter soap opera production that starred Lana Turner in 1965. This film illustrates the problems of early sound production and how the players and directors had trouble adapting to the new sound medium.

Ruth Chatterton was nominated for her stage like overwrought performance as the degraded Madame X formerly Jacqueline Floriot. I'm glad that before seeing Chatterton I had seen Mary Pickford in the Oscar winning film for Best Actress, Coquette. Pickford's performance is no more overwrought than Chatterton's. The Academy voters I'm sure chose from a whole lot of similar product.

Lionel Barrymore was up for Best Director in the only other Oscar category Madame X was entered in. Barrymore directed a few silents, but after talkies came in he soon found himself in front of the camera. His direction is for a stage play, but again I'm sure no better or worse than his competition.

The play is of French origin and debuted on Broadway in 1910 with a run of 156 performances. The lead was Dorothy Donnelly whose reputation today comes from being the book and lyric writer for Sigmund Romberg for Student Prince, Blossom Time, and My Maryland. The author Alexandre Breson took his plot idea from Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. Chatterton marries a cold hard self righteous Lewis Stone who when she gets no love at home, strays and seeks it elsewhere. Stone acts like Anna Karenina's husband and tosses her in the streets. And like Karenin, Stone tells his son, his mother is dead.

Fast forward about 25 years and Chatterton is now a poor man's version of Sadie Thompson. She hooks up with a South Seas low life in Ulrich Haupt who guesses her true identity and sees the blackmail possibilities in it. But when the idea is broached to Chatterton, she balks and Haupt pays the price.

This one as did the modern version had the Victorian ladies weeping every Wednesday matinée. Chatterton, Stone, Raymond Hackett as their grown son, and Haupt deliver their performances in true 19th century style.

The film is a curiosity and of course doesn't hold up well for today's audience. But in viewing don't compare Madame X with more modern work. It won't stand comparison that way.

... and understand that if the photography seems static and uninspired it is because that at this point in early talking film the camera could not move. You had to cross cut between shots to get even the illusion of motion.

As for Ruth Chatterton and Lewis Stone, in my opinion these two never could give a bad performance and that is true here too. These two were pioneers in acting in the talkies and acquit themselves marvelously considering that actors were often directed to over-emote. Ruth Chatterton resists the common early talkie urge to chew scenery better than Stone, though, probably owing to the fact that until she was 35 she was a star of the stage and thus was familiar with handling dialogue. Stone had started acting in silent films, so in these early talking roles he was having to feel his way through it, although he quickly got the hang of it.

In this case the two play estranged couple Jacqueline and Louis Floriot. Unlike the other filmed versions of Madame X, this one starts several years after Jacqueline has abandoned her family and at a time of severe illness for her son. The man she left her husband for has died, and she asks for a fresh start with Louis, who still loves her, but rebuffs her anyway on account of his pride and turns her out into the street without even allowing her to see her son.

In this version there is no meddling mother-in-law thinking the wife is not good enough for her son. Instead it is Louis' coldness that apparently caused Jacqueline to look for affection elsewhere. The vast majority of the film belongs to Chatterton as we see her go from man to man and fall deeper into alcoholism and despair. The makeup job was quite good on this film too as we see Chatterton transform from a woman with delicate China doll features to a bloated used-up alcoholic that not even her ex-husband recognizes when she goes on trial for her life in a courtroom where he presides as judge. Raymond Hackett is excellent as Jacqueline's grown son who feels real compassion for this woman that he does not know is his mother when he is assigned to defend her.

I have only seen three Ruth Chatterton films: DODSWORTH, FEMALE and MADAM X. I had never heard of Ruth Chatterton before I saw DODSWORTH and had no expectations regarding her as an actress. After seeing DODSWORTH, Ruth Chatterton's elegant persona entered my life forever. FEMALE, seen a couple of years later, was pure delight. What a find! A younger Ruth Chatterton, equally glamorous and equally brilliant, this time delivering a light, witty, winning performance. When I got to MADAM X, I was already a great fan of this divine actress. How can one describe the effect of her acting on one's feelings? I confess I was spellbound from the start. Chatterton's seamless technique renders her emotional outbursts painful to watch, yet we cannot move or breathe and just stand in awe, witnessing an exposure of emotion that is so raw and so true. I have read reviews that criticize Ruth Chatterton for the very qualities that I find attractive and unique in her acting. That only shows that taste is indeed a very subjective thing. MADAM X is an early talkie, static, old-fashioned, a shameless melodrama. I loved it!

It's interesting that the rebellion against Victorian mores lasted until well into the 20th century. This story of the endurance of Mother Love and the cruel implacability of Victorian morality is much contrived ado about nothing.

Like too many early talkies it is extraordinarily dull: there is no background music, little cutting and the camera work is static. Self-indulgent, stagy scenes are allowed to run on for too long. The gloomy sets, dark painted flats such as one must have seen on the Victorian stage and as can be seen in early silent films, are only dimly illuminated. The gloss that MGM became known for is not in evidence here.

The only point of interest in this film is that it is a record of the talent and style of Ruth Chatterton, one of the foremost stage stars of the '20s, and a star of early talkie films. Unfortunately, though a definite professionalism and artistry are evident, they also expose her as a shallow and posturing actress. With her slack body, puffy face and large, bleary eyes, she exudes masochism and self-pity from her very first scene, and this sense of weary defeat is sounded again and again without variety. More of a problem is her voice: her plummy and very deliberate diction (perhaps a by-product of early sound recording) gives lie to what is supposed to be a display of deep feeling. Her performance is nothing but empty technique, all of which imitates and indicates intense feeling without actually showing any. Where is the energy and life of real emotion? It isn't here.

In fact, polished, lifeless performances like this suggest why Bette Davis's work in OF HUMAN BONDAGE was like a gust of cold, clear air in the movies: In that film, Davis is full of the grit, spite and energy of real life. When her Mildred gets angry, there is a real sense of danger and excitement in it, an almost out-of-control sexual edge. The tension, intensity and unexpectedness in Davis's best work is exactly what is lacking in Chatterton's playing at emotion. This film is strictly for students of early sound films, or devotees of outmoded styles in stage and screen acting.