MexicaliRick

Painful beyond description. It probably would have been more fun watching Blake kill his wife.

I won't at this juncture append a rating to this "review" as I've yet to see the entire movie. About 1970, around the time I began collecting 16mm film I managed to acquire some odd reels (incomplete prints of some rather peculiar films) which I gladly added to my burgeoning collection for want of something (anything) to show. Among these curiosities was the first half (1200'/16mm) of STRANGE JOURNEY. After screening it initially I wondered what caused this print to have been separated from itself and where the other half might be if indeed someone possibly still had it. Forty years later I'm still wondering who got stuck with part two of this epic. It's really a nothing film with a nothing story and a nothing cast. No user involved with this database claims to have seen it (or if they have, they've chosen not to review it) nor have the authors of the A.F.I. catalogues claimed to have screened a print. I've never seen it scheduled for a television airing and I would bet that this one would stump Robert Osborne. Lousy as the film is I've been waiting over 40 years to see how it ends; stupid perhaps but I just gotta know.... If anyone knows where the second half of my print is or knows where I might find a complete copy of this Sol M. Wurtzel masterpiece I'd be beholden to you if you'd impart the information to me.

addendum, 1/31/13:

With considerable gratitude to a gentleman who read the above remarks and who was kind enough to contact me with certain relevant information, I can now say that I've seen the entire film. In retrospect and with the knowledge that I've wasted a fair portion of the last 40+ years, I can state unequivocally that this film really makes me wish I had had the cranberry concessions at every theater in which it played. The second half is marginally better than the the first but to little overall avail. The film's one saving grace is the presence of Hillary Brooke doing a reasonably good job in a fairly routine "mean girl" act. She's no Ann Savage in "DETOUR", but then again this film makes "DETOUR" look like "DUEL IN THE SUN." At one point she gets thrown into a bath tub presumably to "cool her off". Brooke who is probably best remembered as Abbott and Costello's neighbor down the hall in their rooming house projected a poise and overall demeanor that made you wonder how she ever ended up in the company of Bud, Lou, Mr. Fields, Mike the cop and Stinky. This same aplomb and grace was likewise evident in her subsequent film and television work. If I've given the impression that I dislike this film then let me for the record disabuse anyone reading these thoughts of that notion. I love "B" films be they from studios who made virtually nothing but or from the majors who turned out product like this to fill the lower halves of double bills. This item was actually produced independently by Wurtzel for release through Fox. Wurtzel was to Fox's "B" unit what Brian Foy was to Warner's a decade earlier. If taken at face value and without unrealistically elevated expectations this film can be an innocuous 63 minute experience. The only caveat; there are "B" films (I WAKE UP SCREAMING [1941], arguably the greatest "B" of all time) and then there are "B" films like STRANGE JOURNEY curiously from the same studio.

I genuinely dislike this film. Unusual for me in that I have always been somewhat less interested in these Vitaphone shorts as sustained entertainment either individually or in the aggregate than as the invaluable historical documents they are. The fact that these films exist at all is in and of itself a marvelous gift for which we film and theater historians must be forever grateful. Likewise, if I find myself entertained by one of these anachronistic treasures then so much the better. In the main, these Vitaphone and M.G.M. Metrotone shorts survive today as a reasonably accurate barometer of what the viewer must have experienced sitting in a neighborhood or Broadway vaudeville house some 80-85 years ago. Thus, even the least interesting, silliest and most dated of these films have an undeniable intrinsic worth. This film, TRIFLES may be no exception hence my generous two star rating as I sincerely hope that I am not its sole, ultimate arbiter and that a reviewer or reviewers whose sensibilities differ from my own will lend an alternate perspective. I found this film to be bleak, depressing, morbid and totally lacking in those elements which make even the most trivial and routine Vitaphone shorts fun and engaging if only superficially. Between the heartless and sadistic killing of a canary (which fortunately is implied here rather than shown), Blanche Friderici's attempt to best this with a heartwarming story of a kitten she had as a child and a neighborhood boy with a hatchet, and Sarah Padden's typically morose performance, this strange short is happily an anomaly in the Vitaphone catalogue. Sarah Padden's film performances have always clearly illustrated her uncanny ability to run the gamut of emotion from A all the way to B. She makes no attempt here to deviate from this, her stock in trade. The film is also stage bound to the degree of near claustrophobia. Even though this material had its antecedents in the theater it seems as though some attempt might have been made to bring it into the cinematic realm if only momentarily. A Vitaphone short of 1928, THE DEATH SHIP also featuring Jason Robards Sr. is likewise confined to essentially one room but at least an effort is put forth via the use of some rather unconvincing stock footage (a severely weather battered ship's deck) to take it "outside" if only for some brief cutaways. As something of an adjunct to all of this unbridled levity TRIFLES boasts domestic strife, murder and the imprisonment of a hapless, victimized wife. One wonders if this was perhaps an ill conceived deference to high art, an attempt to possibly "legitimize" film as a truly respectable venue or possibly just a broad spectrum lapse in judgment on the part of the producers or whomever it was who green lighted this thing. Much of the appeal of the Vitaphone shorts as opposed to the Metrotone offerings is their disposition toward variety. Irrespective of one's personal tastes it can be clearly demonstrated that comedy (or what then passed for it) was prevalent in these films. Musical material abounded as well as the occasional drama or oddity; CHARLES C. PETERSON:BILLIARD CHAMPION OF FANCY SHOTS (1929) survives as an example of the latter. This film is I believe a textbook case of what can happen when a shoemaker strays from his last. It's a generally accepted notion that Harry Langdon was considered quite funny during his heyday; I never thought so but I'll accept the consensus. One need only to observe what happened however when he started directing his own films. The overall deterioration of his character and bizarre direction in which his films careened was evident even to someone like myself who admittedly never appreciated even his best work. Happily, TRIFLES is in no way illustrative or representative of the extant Vitaphone offerings. This is not to suggest that all Vitaphone films should have adhered to a particular profile or of necessity fallen within the parameters of a specific category. Nor is this an attempt to in any way diminish Susan Glaspell's literary achievement. Presumably, this material would have had more legitimacy and thus have played better in a theater than on a screen. That said, this would have been a heavy handed, dismal and dreary outing had it been conceived as a full blown melodrama or film noir. The producers found a way to squeeze a hell of a lot of misery, suffering and despair into two reels. I'm not Pollyanna but come on.... This is certainly just what despondent depression era audiences needed and no doubt wanted to lift their spirits. If you're a neophyte as far as these wonderful little films go, and can recognize them essentially as fleeting and ephemeral glimpses into our past, and this perchance is one of the first titles you screen, don't be dissuaded from wanting to see others. Likewise if you find that your sentiments are similar to my own after watching this fun fest then please consider this film an aberration which given the overall Vitaphone output it clearly is. This was a very curious choice for Vitaphone material. Happily, they ain't all like this.

The study of the life and and career of W.C.Fields has been an obsession with me since 1967 when I witnessed my dad roar with laughter while watching THE BANK DICK. This was also the year that Deschner's book "The Films of W.C.Fields" surfaced. Since then I've continued to read and study about Fields in an effort to absorb as much information as I can about his life both professionally and personally. I heartily agree with other enthusiasts who have called Fields fascinating as well as extremely complex. It is as I said an obsession with me and I am unable to veil my bias. Naturally, news of the existence of a supposedly lost Fields film is to myself and other like minded persons a find akin to that of the Holy Grail or Dead Sea scrolls. Given the fact that the reviewer (whom I have subsequently learned since writing these notes was a notorious head case and is now deceased as a result of a deliberate choice he made) claimed to have seen this item as well as two other missing Fields films my curiosity is I feel not without justification. Despite what I now know about the aforementioned "reviewer" I nevertheless have several questions relevant to this situation which I have detailed in my notes on TILLIE'S PUNCTURED ROMANCE (1928) and FOOLS FOR LUCK (1928). If any of what I've broached here is of interest to you then may I please direct your attention to those thoughts which may be found under those entries.

My admiration for W.C.Fields has not abated one iota in the 45 years I've been studying and enjoying the man's life and work. When this past summer I casually entered this title in the IMDb I was at once shocked and delighted to see a review of this film as the general consensus is that this item has been lost for the better part of the last 80 years. I have never completely subscribed to the theory that a film is lost until all avenues have been searched and all possibilities exhausted. While all reports indicate that FOOLS FOR LUCK was mediocre at best it would nonetheless be fascinating to see if for no reason other than its unavailability (its current status is that it is considered a "lost" or "missing" film). The review of this film is somewhat ambiguous as its author does not emphatically state that he saw it (where, when etc.) although by inference I'm assuming he has. There is a larger issue at work here which I have detailed in my thoughts on TILLIE'S PUNCTURED ROMANCE (1928). At risk of redundancy may I please direct your attention to that review.

addendum, 4/15/11

When I initially posted comments regarding this title relevant to its possible rediscovery I was both elated and excited. Despite my skepticism I was hopeful; I WANTED to believe it. That said, in the two months since I shared these thoughts on this database I have not received any feedback from like minded individuals to whom a discovery of this nature would be a landmark event; this would encompass not only staunch Fields fans but a fair number of film historians and scholars as well. Therefore, I must conclude that the possibility that this film actually exists is either of no interest to anyone but myself or perhaps no one has anything further to share. It's also entirely possible that no one has read what I've written regarding this issue. Having considered all of this but still unwilling to let it die, I e-mailed Leonard Maltin, an old acquaintance from my New York days and someone who would surely be among the first to either substantiate or discredit these claims. What he said in his e-mail to me pretty much puts the issue of whether this film as well as similar claims by the same "reviewer" of having seen two other missing Fields films to rest:

...."I'll eat Mr. Micawber's hat if those Fields movies exist and nobody has encountered them except this guy...."

That was good enough for me. Somewhat parenthetically, I did some superficial research on this "reviewer" and have learned that a day after writing his final review for the IMDb he took his own life in a way which compromised the safety and well being of many innocent people. Comments about this fellow and his many eccentricities and idiosyncrasies abound on the internet. Google him and you'll soon learn what I did.

In conclusion, I am left to wonder how many of the 1621 reviews he posted on this sight over the years are on the level. Aside from the Fields films in question, he alleged to have seen many missing, lost or obscure films that no one else had. In the remote event that he actually did see FOOLS FOR LUCK (1928) or if someone else can corroborate the existence of this and/or the two other Fields films among his claims, I would be beholden to you if you would share this information with me. Until such time, I'll take what Leonard said as gospel. You can fool some of the people some of the time...

I have spent the past 45 years researching, studying and enjoying the life and professional career of W.C.Fields. It has been and continues to be an all consuming passion of mine. With the exception of the 1926 feature SO'S YOUR OLD MAN I believe I have either acquired or at least seen virtually every bit of extant film in which Fields appeared. I have much of his work in my 16mm film collection as well as the usual VHS and DVD. I believe I have every book ever written about the subject including books not exclusively dedicated to Fields but which include chapters or profiles pertinent to the man. When I was a kid in New York City I spent many an hour at the Lincoln Center Library for the Performing Arts trying to find out what I could about Fields' vaudeville career as well as ferreting through ancient editions of "Motion Picture News" and "Motion Picture Herald" in an effort to find contemporaneous reviews of the films. I was a member of the New York tent of the Sons Of The Desert and while this organization is primarily for Laurel and Hardy enthusiasts I was able to network with others (one of whom was Leonard Maltin) and keep myself up to date on the latest events with respect to film preservation and ongoing "new discoveries". I am no longer in N.Y.C. or for that matter in a metropolitan area of any significance or consequence and am thus "out of the loop". I don't even have a computer; this one belonging to my girlfriend. I keep both Ronald Fields' first book about his grandfather as well as James Curtis' excellent biography by my bedside at arm's length. My ardent fervor has neither diminished nor abated after all of these years nor do I imagine it will. O.K.....so what? Who cares?..... What does all of this mean to anyone but this author? It seems to me that news of a "find" of this magnitude would be of landmark importance not only to Fields fans but to the world of film scholarship and study at large. The reviewer who saw this film also claims to have seen at least one other missing W.C.Fields film (HIS LORDSHIP'S DILEMMA) and although he doesn't specifically claim to have seen it, his review of the film FOOLS FOR LUCK strongly suggests that he has. Why then isn't this BIG, BIG NEWS??? To me, finding or claiming to have seen not one but THREE of the films on the mercifully short list of missing Fields films would be a matter of major significance amongst historians irrespective of one's personal feelings about the subject. Clearly Fields does not enjoy the same following today as do Laurel & Hardy or Chaplin. If someone managed to unearth a print of Laurel & Hardy's HATS OFF it would be an extremely noteworthy event.....a REALLY big deal. So too should someone find the Marx Brothers' HUMORISK or Chaplin's HER FRIEND THE BANDIT although in a purely speculative vein BANDIT is probably just another Keystone. If it sounds as though I am either doubting or trying to discredit the reviewer who claims to have seen these films let me say unequivocally that this is not the case. A few years ago I e-mailed and had a brief but extremely pleasant correspondence with this gentleman pursuant to a review he had written of a very rare Edward G. Robinson film which he claims to have seen. When I found his reviews of these Fields films this past summer I hastily e-mailed him with essentially the same concerns I have set forth here. Curiously, this e-mail was not answered. Hmmmm..... I have since learned that the reviewer has written his final review (for METROPOLIS, his favorite film) and that perhaps my query to him regarding these Fields films was made too late. As I mentioned earlier, I have no computer of my own but do check the Fields web sights occasionally. How come none of the other Fields fans worldwide haven't questioned this? Surely, this must have occurred to some of you who are more than just casual admirers or devotees of W.C.Fields. If any of you find this a bit mystifying or perplexing as do I, please let me know. SOMETHING isn't quite right here.....

I concur with the 2 previous reviewers who lament the unavailability of this film. When I was a kid in New York City it was a staple on WOR TV for many years. I've not seen it or been able to locate a copy since. In 1992 Steve Allen (the film's nominal star who was at the time this film was made a radio personality in L.A.) was a guest on the old Tom Snyder radio program. I was fortunate enough to call in and get through and when I mentioned this film to him he was at once astonished at my not only having remembered it but also with the detail with which I was able to recall certain portions thereof. He very graciously offered to check his personal archive and send me any copy (either in 16mm, VHS or any other gauge or format) he may have had. Sadly, 2 letters later neither he nor his staff could unearth one. Somewhat parenthetically, a gentleman with whom I spoke just a couple of years ago and who is a direct descendant of the person who ran Eagle-Lion studios (the company that produced DOWN MEMORY LANE) had never even heard of the film. This film's unavailability is mystifying to me given how ubiquitous it was back in the 1960s and '70s. Why??? I'm sure it hasn't decomposed. While it's no masterpiece it is nonetheless a great deal of fun to watch a youthful Steve Allen interviewing Mack Sennett, Franklin Pangborn and the wonderful Frank Nelson. If anyone knows where I can acquire a copy of this film either in 16mm, VHS or DVD please let me know here. It would be greatly appreciated. I would love to see it again and take my own personal trip back down memory lane.

When I started collecting 16mm films about 1970 FOLLIES GIRL was the first feature I bought. It cost me $25. I later sold it for $40 and thought I had scored a tremendous coup. I have regretted that move ever since. The film stinks on oh so many levels; independently made in the Bronx, released by P.R.C.....what more need be said? Back then however I did speak with one of the people who had appeared in it. I will not identify this person (Ray Heatherton) but I was told that should I ever choose to show the film publicly he/she would give me $100 not to do so. Facetious yes, but clearly an indication of the embarrassment that was felt for having appeared in it. My desire to again own or at least see this epic is borne strictly of melancholy and nostalgia as it was one of the first films in my collection. Curiously, the A.F.I. Catalogue (1941-1950) lists a "print viewed" notation by this entry. Just as intriguing to me are the 4 stars and 9 votes accorded this film by the IMDb which is a strong indication that someone has either seen it or knows where it is. Despite the film's obvious shortcomings it boasts a marginally interesting cast including Wendy Barrie, Ray (Merry Mailman) Heatherton, Johnny Long and their respective orchestras as well as everyone's favorite Cora Witherspoon (I never miss a Cora Witherspoon picture). I'll take any reasonably good copy either in 16mm, VHS or DVD. Someone must have a handle on this since the IMDb has rated it. Any leads would be sincerely appreciated.

Addendum, 12/13/11-Since first posting my comments on this film almost one year ago I now have in my collection two DVD copies originating from different sources. One very kind reader sent me a copy which was obtained from a private source. Another thoughtful user alerted me to the current commercial availability of this item. Unfortunately the purveyor of this DVD is Alpha Video which should likewise alert prospective purchasers as well as seasoned DVD collectors as to precisely what to expect. While I've not screened the entire disc at this juncture I can report that both this title as well as the other film on the DVD (CAREER GIRL, P.R.C., 1944) are both lacking original studio logos (which most certainly do exist) and adding insult to injury they are unnecessarily burdened with Alpha Video's logo throughout the totality of both the opening and ending credits of each film. This is a nasty little habit that Alpha Video has and something which has been in evidence on every item I've ever seen emanating from them. Given the overall quality of their arcane public domain offerings with respect to both their movie choices as well as the general print quality of the films from which their DVD's are struck, it's astonishing to me that they are so eager to display their logo with such pride and for so long. The other side of the coin is that Alpha Video offers a great number of items which despite varying quality are unavailable elsewhere. Thus, even though the P.R.C. logos are presumably missing from the prints they used for their transfers FOLLIES GIRL is now available in what a cursory examination reveals to be a reasonably good copy from an acceptable print. In short, it will have to suffice pending the unearthing of a better copy. Oh well, any old port in a storm. I realize that the issue of missing studio logos seems to be niggling and trivial and probably of interest to no one but myself but as both a historian and enthusiast with respect to Hollywood's lower echelon studios I find this omission to be a bit unsatisfying. I'm nonetheless glad to have this film despite the negligible imperfections in the DVD. Now if anyone has a line on the whereabouts of my 16mm print.....

addendum to 12/13/11 addendum, 12/24/11

I am unhappy to report that while the material used for the FOLLIES GIRL transfer is fairly good as far as picture and sound quality are concerned, the print used is at least 12 minutes short of the 16mm print I had as well as the DVD copy (derived from a private source) which was sent to me by a fellow collector. Sort of makes my lament of the missing P.R.C. logo seem rather trivial. Since I'm evidently the only person who has any interest in this movie my hope is that someone on the Alpha Video staff will read these remarks. Why did they use an altered print? Surely it's not the only one available as is evidenced by the source material of my "other" copy. Did they think this would go unnoticed? As I said in my original remarks this is a lousy film and my presumption therefore is that anyone purchasing it must have some knowledge of it, a fairly compelling reason for buying it and would thus have no difficulty in recognizing an incomplete copy. I'm not suggesting Alpha Video did this knowingly and deliberately misrepresented the film. I do feel however that the presumption that the purchaser will be receiving a complete copy of the film in question is not too much to be expected. I will carefully consider any future purchases of DVDs offered by Alpha Video.

This is not an easy film to see but if you turn over the right rocks you may be able to. It's fun to watch devout Jew Robinson and lovely Mexican Lupe Velez play orientals (it was o.k. to use that term back then; don't understand why it no longer is....). This is possibly the second of Robinson's Asian portrayals; "possibly" as Robinson's Cobra Collins in OUTSIDE THE LAW is of somewhat ambiguous ethnicity although his mother in that film is clearly of Asian extraction. Seeing Robinson in virtually any film in which he appeared prior to LITTLE CAESAR is both fascinating and of cinematic historical significance. EAST IS WEST is no exception. Don't let your viewing and possible enjoyment of the film be marred by revisionist thinking i.e. it being racially stereotypical and thus now more than 80 years later we should deem it offensive etc. It was a different if not necessarily a better time. Just accept this film at face value as well as in its proper historical and chronological contexts and you might have some fun with it. It's clear to see Robinson was enjoying it all; much more so than he did the somber hatchet man he played 2 years later in a film of the same title. Hope you can find a decent, watchable copy as did I.