Charles Laughton goes sort of over the top in this little movie. The plot is reminiscent of "Postman Always Rings Twice", i.e. sweet lil' immigrant meets girl & loses girl to employee, but without James M Cain's violence. Laughton's Tony really is a most happy fella, & Lombard is as usual, steamy. Totally by chance, I happened to do a double bill of this and the 1935 Mutiny On The Bounty. I should have added Ruggles Of Red Gap, Hunchback, Hobson's Choice, and Witness For The Prosecution for a total Laughton immersion. This was filmed on location in an incredibly rural Napa Valley, and if you're familiar with Napa Valley, you may recognize what is now the Calistoga Inn/Napa Valley Brewing as Tony's local cantina/bar. I'd like to see a cleaned up version of this, as the print I saw was verrry dark. Good little movie.
12 Reviews
The Most Dated Fella
marcslope15 January 2001
Pretty darn grown-up for its day, this atmospheric adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize-winning play has waitress Lombard wooed by immigrant winegrower Laughton, becoming his mail-order bride, having an affair with ranch foreman Gargan, carrying his child, and being forgiven for it. (In this version, though, she has to go off and do some Breen Office penance first.) It's one of the very few dramas made under the Production Code where the unwed mother doesn't contract a fatal disease, die in a car crash, or plunge herself off a cliff. Lombard, an unparalleled comedienne, gets to show off her considerable and underrated acting chops, while Laughton does an unsubtle "paisano" caricature that might have been considered great acting in its day (this, after all, was the Paul Muni wig-and-accent era) but has dated badly. Lombard smolders in her scenes with the Oscar-nominated Gargan, their adultery cleverly conveyed by director Kanin through long soulful gazes, dark shadows, and moody music. Some other welcome faces turn up in tiny roles (Karl Malden, Tom Ewell, Nestor Paiva), and the only real irritant is Frank Fay's impossibly noble priest, lit from behind like a madonna and forever mouthing holier-than-thou "God is smiling on us" dialogue. You want to smack him one.
Stage musical fans who want to see how Frank Loesser's great "The Most Happy Fella" plays without music will be pleased to observe how faithful he was to the source material, and the characters' emotions really do sing here. It's a fast and unpretentious little film, and another reminder (as if we needed it) of how badly we were robbed by Lombard's early death.
Stage musical fans who want to see how Frank Loesser's great "The Most Happy Fella" plays without music will be pleased to observe how faithful he was to the source material, and the characters' emotions really do sing here. It's a fast and unpretentious little film, and another reminder (as if we needed it) of how badly we were robbed by Lombard's early death.
The serious flip-side to Garson Kanin's comic genius (possible spoilers)
the red duchess25 July 2001
Warning: Spoilers
'They knew what they wanted' fits in very well with Garson Kanin's most famous films, the romantic comedies 'Bachelor Mother' and 'My Favorite Wife': a cynical view of the pieties of marriage, family and friendship; a larger-than-life paterfamilias who must rethink his most complacent assumptions: a spineless male hero who would rather run away from trouble he's caused than face up to it; a plot involving crossed-wires, mistaken identities and performances intended to deceive.
It's good to remember the Kanin familiarities, because in many ways this is the above-mentioned films' polar opposite. It is based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning play, which not only means that the dialogue is stilted, the characterisation caricatured and the themes morose, but also means a combination of self-consciously 'heavy' issues (race, promiscuity, adultery, unwanted pregnancies, mail-order marriages - despite gaping plot euphemisms and ellipses) and lachrymose piety, in the noxious person of Padre McKee, an Irish priest whose status in the community is that of a luggage carrier, and yet who insists on sticking his oar in with a mixture of cruel jibes and other-worldly homilies.
Tony Patucci is the larger-than-life Italian immigrant who has worked so hard in his new country that he now owns a huge vineyard ranch in Nava County, run by his foreman and trusty friend Joe, a migrant worker who spends his nights hustling women by the quays and is afraid of becoming too attached to his boss.
On a vacation to San francisco, Tony catches sight of a life-hardened blonde waitress, Amy, and decides to marry her. He gets joe to write her a letter, and soon a correspondance ensues, resulting in Amy accepting Tony's proposal of marriage. Afraid that she will reject a fat Italian, Tony sends a photo of Joe, and so all the trouble starts. Even after the initial mix-up is cleared up, there is an obvious, though hate-filled, attraction, between Amy and Joe, and on the festive night before the wedding Tony drunkenly falls off his roof in an attempt to impress his new bride, leaving her and his friend wide open to temptation.
Tonally, 'They knew' is a strange film, moving as it does from gentle rural comedy to sub-Eugene O'Neill tragedy. It is made with Kanin's customary skill, and he manages to made the material watchable for most of its running time. He skillfully captures the sun-cracked Eden of Tony's ranch, and the intimations of temptation, and it's a rare Hollywood film of the period that shows any kind of ethnic community positively, even if these Italians predictably sing, drink and perform dangerously macho feats.
Some people think that 'They Knew' is racist, and that Charles Laughton's performance as Tony is not an intelligent attempt to reveal his character's inner-life, but a self-indulgent collection of stereotypical texts, perhaps on the level of ''Allo 'Allo'. It would be mean-spirited to accuse the film-makers of racism - they are clearly sympathetic to their hero, and presumably think his climactic act of violence does reveal character, rather than being the generic climax for all 'serious' American drama.
Tony is never allowed go beyond being a naive, infantilised, figure of fun - he has no sexuality, he doesn't even seem to truly understand what Amy and Joe have done. This is deliberate - when Tony is on the roof trying to prove his masculinity, he falls, just as the friend he calls his 'son' is making progress with his bride: his act of sacrifice is his way of being a husband and father, without having to become a sexual adult, retaining his Christ-like innocence. We would now call this racist, or at least not thought through hard enough - as an Oedipal drama it lacks true physical weight, although Joe's exit into a dawn wasteland is visually powerful.
But there is a strange scene where Tony is listening to 'Amos and Andy' on the radio: we, the audience, find ourselves watching a media representation of a racist stereotype listening to a media representation of racist steretotypes. Not for the first time in his career, Kanin's prickly intelligence forces us to rethink what we've been watching.
It's good to remember the Kanin familiarities, because in many ways this is the above-mentioned films' polar opposite. It is based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning play, which not only means that the dialogue is stilted, the characterisation caricatured and the themes morose, but also means a combination of self-consciously 'heavy' issues (race, promiscuity, adultery, unwanted pregnancies, mail-order marriages - despite gaping plot euphemisms and ellipses) and lachrymose piety, in the noxious person of Padre McKee, an Irish priest whose status in the community is that of a luggage carrier, and yet who insists on sticking his oar in with a mixture of cruel jibes and other-worldly homilies.
Tony Patucci is the larger-than-life Italian immigrant who has worked so hard in his new country that he now owns a huge vineyard ranch in Nava County, run by his foreman and trusty friend Joe, a migrant worker who spends his nights hustling women by the quays and is afraid of becoming too attached to his boss.
On a vacation to San francisco, Tony catches sight of a life-hardened blonde waitress, Amy, and decides to marry her. He gets joe to write her a letter, and soon a correspondance ensues, resulting in Amy accepting Tony's proposal of marriage. Afraid that she will reject a fat Italian, Tony sends a photo of Joe, and so all the trouble starts. Even after the initial mix-up is cleared up, there is an obvious, though hate-filled, attraction, between Amy and Joe, and on the festive night before the wedding Tony drunkenly falls off his roof in an attempt to impress his new bride, leaving her and his friend wide open to temptation.
Tonally, 'They knew' is a strange film, moving as it does from gentle rural comedy to sub-Eugene O'Neill tragedy. It is made with Kanin's customary skill, and he manages to made the material watchable for most of its running time. He skillfully captures the sun-cracked Eden of Tony's ranch, and the intimations of temptation, and it's a rare Hollywood film of the period that shows any kind of ethnic community positively, even if these Italians predictably sing, drink and perform dangerously macho feats.
Some people think that 'They Knew' is racist, and that Charles Laughton's performance as Tony is not an intelligent attempt to reveal his character's inner-life, but a self-indulgent collection of stereotypical texts, perhaps on the level of ''Allo 'Allo'. It would be mean-spirited to accuse the film-makers of racism - they are clearly sympathetic to their hero, and presumably think his climactic act of violence does reveal character, rather than being the generic climax for all 'serious' American drama.
Tony is never allowed go beyond being a naive, infantilised, figure of fun - he has no sexuality, he doesn't even seem to truly understand what Amy and Joe have done. This is deliberate - when Tony is on the roof trying to prove his masculinity, he falls, just as the friend he calls his 'son' is making progress with his bride: his act of sacrifice is his way of being a husband and father, without having to become a sexual adult, retaining his Christ-like innocence. We would now call this racist, or at least not thought through hard enough - as an Oedipal drama it lacks true physical weight, although Joe's exit into a dawn wasteland is visually powerful.
But there is a strange scene where Tony is listening to 'Amos and Andy' on the radio: we, the audience, find ourselves watching a media representation of a racist stereotype listening to a media representation of racist steretotypes. Not for the first time in his career, Kanin's prickly intelligence forces us to rethink what we've been watching.
Great Performance by Carole Lombard
drednm5 November 2011
This is the third filmed version of Sidney Howard's play. Previously this was filmed a THE SECRET HOUR (1928) with Pola Negri and Jean Hersholt and as A LADY TO LOVE (1930) with Vilma Banky and Edward G. Robinson.
Here, Charles Laughton plays the Italian Tony, a successful grape grower in Napa Valley. He goes to San Francisco and is smitten with a waitress named Amy (Carole Lombard) and decides to marry her. Back home he gets his pal (William Gargan) to write a letter. She answers back. Eventually they send a picture and invite her to Napa.
Unfortunately they send a picture of Gargan. But Lombard has nothing to go back to but her dreary and demeaning job so she stays. Despite her best efforts she falls for Gargan right under Robinson's nose.
Basically a love triangle story, there's enough humor to defuse the slightly clichéd story. Lombard give a great performance as the feisty Amy. Laughton is hammy and loud but a pleasure to watch. Gargan won an Oscar nomination for the hapless Joe, torn between his devotion to Tony and his love for Amy.
Supporting cast includes Harry Carey as the doctor, Frank Fay as the priest, Victor Kilian as the photographer, Janet Fox as Mildred, and the film debuts of Karl Malden and Tom Ewell.
Good location shooting in Napa Valley opens up the film and adds a nice touch.
Here, Charles Laughton plays the Italian Tony, a successful grape grower in Napa Valley. He goes to San Francisco and is smitten with a waitress named Amy (Carole Lombard) and decides to marry her. Back home he gets his pal (William Gargan) to write a letter. She answers back. Eventually they send a picture and invite her to Napa.
Unfortunately they send a picture of Gargan. But Lombard has nothing to go back to but her dreary and demeaning job so she stays. Despite her best efforts she falls for Gargan right under Robinson's nose.
Basically a love triangle story, there's enough humor to defuse the slightly clichéd story. Lombard give a great performance as the feisty Amy. Laughton is hammy and loud but a pleasure to watch. Gargan won an Oscar nomination for the hapless Joe, torn between his devotion to Tony and his love for Amy.
Supporting cast includes Harry Carey as the doctor, Frank Fay as the priest, Victor Kilian as the photographer, Janet Fox as Mildred, and the film debuts of Karl Malden and Tom Ewell.
Good location shooting in Napa Valley opens up the film and adds a nice touch.
Unusual casting for the leads
bkoganbing5 April 2014
For some reasons all three of the big screen versions of Sidney Howard's Pulitzer Prize winning play They Knew What They Wanted have been unavailable for years. Not seen on television and not out in any form, it certainly was lucky that someone put this out on YouTube. Also unusual in that the only Oscar recognition this film got was William Gargan's nomination for Best Supporting Actor as the Christian role in Sidney Howard's twist on the Cyrano DeBergerac story.
Charles Laughton is a lusty Italian immigrant who's got the biggest ranch in the Napa Valley in California and he's the richest guy around. Laughton with his Italian accent gives a Mediterranean flavor to his own Oscar winning role that of Henry VIII. That scene at the feast where he shows off his strength and vitality reminded so much of the wrestling scene in The Private Life Of Henry VIII.
But unlike a king who can just command a marriage to his royal person, Laughton for all his wealth and power is not the handsomest fellow around. So when he decides to marry waitress Carole Lombard, Laughton sends a picture of that handsome devil William Gargan who's known to be a devil with all the local women.
Lombard is cast against type, she's usually an urban girl of some means. She sees no future just slinging hash and snappy dialog in her hash house job and she accepts the Laughton/Gargan proposal. She even agrees to go through with it after meeting Laughton. But afterward the story takes a different turn as Laughton is injured and in a long convalescence of his 'tibia and fibula' Lombard starts looking at Gargan and Gargan starts looking back.
I won't go any further except to say that the ending here is not what Sidney Howard originally wrote. But the Code was in place and Howard having died the year before was in no position to complain. It ruins the film though, but the Code had to be served. Great performances by Laughton and Lombard are wasted. Gargan who usually played all kinds of police roles in and out of uniform was also good in a role that was against type for him as well.
Still a chance to see legends Lombard and Laughton together is worth it. They were together in a bad film years earlier when both were under contract to Paramount called White Woman. They Knew What They Wanted is so much better.
Charles Laughton is a lusty Italian immigrant who's got the biggest ranch in the Napa Valley in California and he's the richest guy around. Laughton with his Italian accent gives a Mediterranean flavor to his own Oscar winning role that of Henry VIII. That scene at the feast where he shows off his strength and vitality reminded so much of the wrestling scene in The Private Life Of Henry VIII.
But unlike a king who can just command a marriage to his royal person, Laughton for all his wealth and power is not the handsomest fellow around. So when he decides to marry waitress Carole Lombard, Laughton sends a picture of that handsome devil William Gargan who's known to be a devil with all the local women.
Lombard is cast against type, she's usually an urban girl of some means. She sees no future just slinging hash and snappy dialog in her hash house job and she accepts the Laughton/Gargan proposal. She even agrees to go through with it after meeting Laughton. But afterward the story takes a different turn as Laughton is injured and in a long convalescence of his 'tibia and fibula' Lombard starts looking at Gargan and Gargan starts looking back.
I won't go any further except to say that the ending here is not what Sidney Howard originally wrote. But the Code was in place and Howard having died the year before was in no position to complain. It ruins the film though, but the Code had to be served. Great performances by Laughton and Lombard are wasted. Gargan who usually played all kinds of police roles in and out of uniform was also good in a role that was against type for him as well.
Still a chance to see legends Lombard and Laughton together is worth it. They were together in a bad film years earlier when both were under contract to Paramount called White Woman. They Knew What They Wanted is so much better.
A retelling of ...
AlsExGal25 December 2022
"A Lady To Love" (1930) with some key differences.
Tony (Charles Laughton) is a simple yet successful Italian immigrant who owns a large grape farm in California. After he sees beautiful waitress Amy (Carole Lombard) during a trip to the city, Tony falls hopelessly in love, and he enlists his best friend and foreman Joe (William Gargan) in composing love letters to Amy to convince her to marry Tony. They succeed, but when Tony sends a picture of Joe instead of himself to Amy, things get complicated, as she arrives already in love with the image of Joe to only be told that the real Tony is something altogether different
I recently watched A Lady to Love from 1930, the earlier screen version of this story starring Edward G. Robinson, Vilma Banky and Robert Ames in the lead roles, so I spent a lot of time watching this version and comparing the two. This later version is better, but there are several changes to story points: in the early version, Amy marries Tony immediately upon arrival, while in this version they never actually get around to it. Tony gets injured in both versions, but the circumstances and outcomes are much different. And one very pertinent plot point which I won't spoil was absent in the early version, but very much a factor in this later one.
Lombard is very good in a serious role, and while Laughton is very broad, his role calls for it and his scenery chewing is acceptable, and not nearly as bad as Robinson's was. William Gargan earned an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor, although his role is really a lead, and he even has more screentime than Laughton. Gargan is good, but not in a flashy way, and his role is one that seems like an odd choice for a nomination. It may have been a career acknowledgment, as he'd been a popular B-level leading man since the late 1920's. He was the real deal, too, when it came to tough guy roles, as he'd been both a bootlegger and a detective before he started in pictures. His movie career ran out of steam by the late 1940's, when he moved to radio and had a big hit with Martin Kane, Private Eye, a role that he also played on TV in the late 50's. A battle with throat cancer left him without a voice by 1960, although he lived until 1979.
Tony (Charles Laughton) is a simple yet successful Italian immigrant who owns a large grape farm in California. After he sees beautiful waitress Amy (Carole Lombard) during a trip to the city, Tony falls hopelessly in love, and he enlists his best friend and foreman Joe (William Gargan) in composing love letters to Amy to convince her to marry Tony. They succeed, but when Tony sends a picture of Joe instead of himself to Amy, things get complicated, as she arrives already in love with the image of Joe to only be told that the real Tony is something altogether different
I recently watched A Lady to Love from 1930, the earlier screen version of this story starring Edward G. Robinson, Vilma Banky and Robert Ames in the lead roles, so I spent a lot of time watching this version and comparing the two. This later version is better, but there are several changes to story points: in the early version, Amy marries Tony immediately upon arrival, while in this version they never actually get around to it. Tony gets injured in both versions, but the circumstances and outcomes are much different. And one very pertinent plot point which I won't spoil was absent in the early version, but very much a factor in this later one.
Lombard is very good in a serious role, and while Laughton is very broad, his role calls for it and his scenery chewing is acceptable, and not nearly as bad as Robinson's was. William Gargan earned an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor, although his role is really a lead, and he even has more screentime than Laughton. Gargan is good, but not in a flashy way, and his role is one that seems like an odd choice for a nomination. It may have been a career acknowledgment, as he'd been a popular B-level leading man since the late 1920's. He was the real deal, too, when it came to tough guy roles, as he'd been both a bootlegger and a detective before he started in pictures. His movie career ran out of steam by the late 1940's, when he moved to radio and had a big hit with Martin Kane, Private Eye, a role that he also played on TV in the late 50's. A battle with throat cancer left him without a voice by 1960, although he lived until 1979.
Slightly corked
tomsview18 September 2022
I saw this old movie around the late 50s on Australian television. Aged about twelve, I thought Charles Laughton was just about the best actor of all time.
Putting his performance as Tony Petucci into context, back then we regularly saw movies he made in the 30s and 40s. Charles took on roles almost like Theatresports' challenges. One minute he's tossing chicken bones over his shoulder as Henry Vlll, next he's Captain Bligh sneeringly offering cheese to Mr Christian. Then we get Inspector Javert in "Les Mis" with an expression as though his piles were active.
The guy just jumped into character after character. Most amazingly, he was Quasimodo swinging on the bells in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" and plenty of others. What other big star stepped so far from their comfort zone so often? Clark Gable used to balk at shaving off his moustache for a role or growing one.
Hitchcock once said, "You couldn't direct Laughton, only hope to referee him". In "They Knew What They Wanted", Charle's Tony was definitely at the extreme end of the Hollywood Italian stereotype, but maybe some of it was down to the very contrived situations. Simon Callow in his superb dissection of Charles Laughton's life and career, "A Difficult Actor", tells how the actor worked hard at the part, often derided by director and cast.
However for such an unathletic looking guy, you have to admire Laughton's agility and strength especially in the party scene. At least they didn't have a grape stomping scene.
If you want to feel better about Laughton's portrayal, check out Edward G Robinson in the earlier version of the story, "A Lady to Love". It's as though Edward G had never met a real Italian.
Against Laughton's fireworks the other actors underplayed almost to the point of inertia. Maybe Lombard hit the right note as Amy, whose empty life is summed up when she reluctantly finds a moment of passion with the uncharismatic Joe (William Gargan). Frank Fay's Father McKee is just weird, more like a morals commissar than a priest.
Still, Napa Valley looks fine and we have a good Alfred Newman score. The film has a better second half, and an ending that is strangely bittersweet.
Putting his performance as Tony Petucci into context, back then we regularly saw movies he made in the 30s and 40s. Charles took on roles almost like Theatresports' challenges. One minute he's tossing chicken bones over his shoulder as Henry Vlll, next he's Captain Bligh sneeringly offering cheese to Mr Christian. Then we get Inspector Javert in "Les Mis" with an expression as though his piles were active.
The guy just jumped into character after character. Most amazingly, he was Quasimodo swinging on the bells in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" and plenty of others. What other big star stepped so far from their comfort zone so often? Clark Gable used to balk at shaving off his moustache for a role or growing one.
Hitchcock once said, "You couldn't direct Laughton, only hope to referee him". In "They Knew What They Wanted", Charle's Tony was definitely at the extreme end of the Hollywood Italian stereotype, but maybe some of it was down to the very contrived situations. Simon Callow in his superb dissection of Charles Laughton's life and career, "A Difficult Actor", tells how the actor worked hard at the part, often derided by director and cast.
However for such an unathletic looking guy, you have to admire Laughton's agility and strength especially in the party scene. At least they didn't have a grape stomping scene.
If you want to feel better about Laughton's portrayal, check out Edward G Robinson in the earlier version of the story, "A Lady to Love". It's as though Edward G had never met a real Italian.
Against Laughton's fireworks the other actors underplayed almost to the point of inertia. Maybe Lombard hit the right note as Amy, whose empty life is summed up when she reluctantly finds a moment of passion with the uncharismatic Joe (William Gargan). Frank Fay's Father McKee is just weird, more like a morals commissar than a priest.
Still, Napa Valley looks fine and we have a good Alfred Newman score. The film has a better second half, and an ending that is strangely bittersweet.
Simple and forced, bad combination.
kevvportela21 May 2021
The first work I see by Garso Kanin, he directs this film that goes from a comedy tone to a gray love drama. It stars Charles Laughton and Carole Lombard supported by William Gargan.
It is a film that stays in the middle, it starts out well, it is entertaining but it develops taking as understood situations that are not clear. The development of the Lombard and Gargan couple is taken by the hair, there is no moment where they connect and unless a deep problem arises. The problem of pregnancy is taken for granted and one does not know when it happened.
Remarkable performances although the script did not help much and the 3 characters are flat without much to say. Charles Laughton is surprising because at first it seems not to be very interesting and ends up being the moral. Carole is fine and looks as natural as possible despite the forced scenes she's in. Gargan in this role that begins lonely and mysterious but is halfway through development. He is nominated for 'Best Supporting Actor' at the Oscars and is the only nomination the film gets.
It is a film that stays in the middle, it starts out well, it is entertaining but it develops taking as understood situations that are not clear. The development of the Lombard and Gargan couple is taken by the hair, there is no moment where they connect and unless a deep problem arises. The problem of pregnancy is taken for granted and one does not know when it happened.
Remarkable performances although the script did not help much and the 3 characters are flat without much to say. Charles Laughton is surprising because at first it seems not to be very interesting and ends up being the moral. Carole is fine and looks as natural as possible despite the forced scenes she's in. Gargan in this role that begins lonely and mysterious but is halfway through development. He is nominated for 'Best Supporting Actor' at the Oscars and is the only nomination the film gets.
pretty durn dated, morals wise & o/w
slaphappy50008 October 2010
even taking into account the context of its time, this is incredibly dated, morals-wise. also, it strains credibility that the female protagonist (amy) would stay initially, stay later, stay longer, proclaim her love for (the wrong guy), and then leave w/o getting together w/who she wanted all along. just seems really dopily contrived. "she DIDN'T know what she wanted" would be a more apt title. also, the whole plot revolving about her pregnancy just comes from out of nowhere and dominates the proceedings as if it was 1750 in puritan new england. i really wanted to like this film; i'd heard it was good - - but it's really pretty hard to take. as for tony; he's similarly unbelievable, a 1-dimensional character, until he explodes, and then he becomes 2-dimensional (still 1 short). OK i'm done
Incredible performances
HotToastyRag21 August 2020
Any fans of the Frank Loesser musical The Most Happy Fella? Did you know it was based off the play They Knew What They Wanted, adapted into two movies before Frank added songs to the story? I'm looking forward to seeing Edward G. Robinson's interpretation, as I'm sure he'd be wonderful, and I was so excited to see my beloved Charles Laughton's 1940 version.
Charles was perfect. He's practically unrecognizable as he transforms into an Italian peasant, trying to make it in America. He's shy and self-conscious, but he still wants to brag and prove himself worthy. He creates a great complex character, so believable as a lonely immigrant looking for love.
For those of you who don't know the story, Charles falls in love with a waitress in San Francisco, Carole Lombard. He observes her from afar and writes to her, offering marriage and a comfortable life on his vineyard in Napa. Carole doesn't have very many options, and she impulsively agrees. However, Charles didn't send his photograph in his letter; he sent the picture of his young, handsome friend William Gargan. I don't know why Bill was the one nominated for an Academy Award when he had the least to do. The other two leads were ignored, and here at the Rags, we were happy to rectify the error.
Who impressed me to no end was Carole Lombard, the queen of screwball comedies thrust into a heavy drama. She completely embodies her character, and you can see her entire history written on her brow. She's exhausted and has very little hope of a better life, and she's endured an incredible amount just to make ends meet. When she arrives in Napa, she's nervous, and even though she thinks it's silly, she's hopeful. She tries to make Charles a good wife, and she hates herself for being attracted to Bill. She doesn't want to ruin her one chance, she doesn't want to be as common as she knows herself to be, and she doesn't want to cause pain in a world that has enough pain in it.
Chances are you've never seen this movie, since it's rather hard to find and hasn't been remastered. Try to find it and get ready to be very impressed.
Charles was perfect. He's practically unrecognizable as he transforms into an Italian peasant, trying to make it in America. He's shy and self-conscious, but he still wants to brag and prove himself worthy. He creates a great complex character, so believable as a lonely immigrant looking for love.
For those of you who don't know the story, Charles falls in love with a waitress in San Francisco, Carole Lombard. He observes her from afar and writes to her, offering marriage and a comfortable life on his vineyard in Napa. Carole doesn't have very many options, and she impulsively agrees. However, Charles didn't send his photograph in his letter; he sent the picture of his young, handsome friend William Gargan. I don't know why Bill was the one nominated for an Academy Award when he had the least to do. The other two leads were ignored, and here at the Rags, we were happy to rectify the error.
Who impressed me to no end was Carole Lombard, the queen of screwball comedies thrust into a heavy drama. She completely embodies her character, and you can see her entire history written on her brow. She's exhausted and has very little hope of a better life, and she's endured an incredible amount just to make ends meet. When she arrives in Napa, she's nervous, and even though she thinks it's silly, she's hopeful. She tries to make Charles a good wife, and she hates herself for being attracted to Bill. She doesn't want to ruin her one chance, she doesn't want to be as common as she knows herself to be, and she doesn't want to cause pain in a world that has enough pain in it.
Chances are you've never seen this movie, since it's rather hard to find and hasn't been remastered. Try to find it and get ready to be very impressed.
dated, boring, too long..
a-n-g-e-l-114 January 2006
Charles Laughton, even more annoying than usual, full equipped with glued on beard and Italian accent, is a simple-minded farmer somewhere in napa.(wearing a pair of dungarees most of the time, which look like they might burst any second) having seen the waitress Carole Lombard only once, he's already very much in love with her and after writing some letters, proposes to her. being the coward that he is, he sends a photograph of his pal joe(equally unattractive William Gargan)to lure her to his farm in the desert. after a terrible accident(in which he falls off a roof while being completely wasted)Carol, his wife to be, finally gives in to her urges and has some fun with farmhand William Gargan.
will their relationship survive this tragedy?? believe me after 96 min, (wich felt like 2 hours) you wont give a rats ass about those little lost souls in the middle of nowhere.
and of course the upright local priest Frank Fay, who has such important lessons on life and love that you really wonder how one man alone can acquire such deep and meaningful knowledge is truly unforgettable.(pun intended)
on the other hand, if you're into 400 pound guys imitating Italian farmers(badly) and pretending to be 3 years old(with baby talk and all)than this is the movie for you.
i really wonder how Carole Lombard ever got into this nonsense. i got some (unintented) laughs out of this one, but overall its a real waste of time. if you wanna see gorgeous Carole Lombard in a good serious part watch Made for each Other.
will their relationship survive this tragedy?? believe me after 96 min, (wich felt like 2 hours) you wont give a rats ass about those little lost souls in the middle of nowhere.
and of course the upright local priest Frank Fay, who has such important lessons on life and love that you really wonder how one man alone can acquire such deep and meaningful knowledge is truly unforgettable.(pun intended)
on the other hand, if you're into 400 pound guys imitating Italian farmers(badly) and pretending to be 3 years old(with baby talk and all)than this is the movie for you.
i really wonder how Carole Lombard ever got into this nonsense. i got some (unintented) laughs out of this one, but overall its a real waste of time. if you wanna see gorgeous Carole Lombard in a good serious part watch Made for each Other.
Laughton does his Chico Marx impression
malcolmgsw19 January 2013
I can only assume that before he started out in the role he asked the RKO excutives to run "Room Service" so that he could perfect his Chico Marx impression for this film.He wears a black curly wig not unsimilar to Marx,and apart from the fact that he does not play the piano he does everything else.So little wonder that this film had a very tortured production costing over $850000 and posting a loss of over $200000.It is difficult to understand why Laughton did these sort of films.He made some great films in the 1930s however he went to Hollywood more or less for good in 1939 and almost ruined his career in the 1940s withs some awful films.Lombard is fine but unbelievable as the waitress and Fay dreadful as the priest.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
