Movie Review: Paddy O'Day (1936)

Top o’ the evening to all of you!

Two days ago, on March 17th it was St. Patrick’s day, a day that my family has always been very invested in. In fact, when I was little if you asked me to name the most important holidays that would’ve been one of my answers. Some of you might’ve guessed that already, based on how many Irish films I’ve reviewed. Four times in my life we have not celebrated like we usually do, and this year and last year are two of those times. Nevertheless, I’ll be reviewing a film for you today in the spirit of it all the same!

My guarantee: On ALL of my reviews there are NO spoilers unless I give you warning. This is spoiler free!


Paddy O’Day (1936):

Little Paddy O’Day has traveled across the ocean making new friends while she’s on her way to the United States. There she is going to be reunited with her beloved mother! However, when she arrives an unexpected problem occurs. The immigration office decides to keep her there and she panics by running away. Will she find where she belongs and always keep a twinkle in her eye?
Genre: Comedy.
Length: approx. 76 minutes.
Script: 8. There are no bad words, but I have this lowered because the accents are atrocious! Paddy speaks with an “Irish accent” and it is so bad. Maybe I only notice this because I have heard a lot of Irish accents in my life and others wouldn’t notice how off it is.

‘“I hope it isn’t spoiled.”

“It seems alright.”’

(The context behind this was quite funny!)

Crew: Directed by: Lewis Seiler. Written by: Lou Breslow, Edward Eliscu, and Sonya Levien.
Starring:
Jane Withers as Paddy O'Day.

Pinky Tomlin as Roy Ford.
Rita Cansino (aka Rita Hayworth) as Tamara Petrovitch.
Jane Darwell as Dora.
Russell Simpson as Benton.
George Givot as Mischa Petrovitch.
Francis Ford as Tom McGuire.
Vera Lewis as Aunt Flora.
Louise Carter as Aunt Jane.
Michael Visaroff as Popushka Petrovitch.
Nina Visaroff as Momushka Petrovitch.
Robert Dudley as Robert.

“Robert, we mustn't miss the boat even if you have to drive 25 miles per hour!”

Costumes: 7. Pretty standard with nothing to say for them, but nothing to say against them either.
Cinematography: 7. There was one time where it was extremely obvious that using a mode of transportation the background was moving but the characters weren’t (just a pet peeve, it always annoyed me when I was little), but nothing bad.
Cinematography by: Arthur C. Miller.
Music: 7. There were about 4 songs in here and I didn’t really like any of them except “Keep That Twinkle in Your Eye”. It was not a breakthrough, but it was cute! One song had a reference to Bing Crosby’s music which shows that it actually takes place around year that it was made instead of earlier.
Music by: Samuel Kaylin.
Notes: There is some confusion as to whether this movie should be credited towards 1935 or 1936, but I found one source that says it was released on January 17th, 1936 so that’s what I’m going with.

Quotability: 7. My family has “quoted” this movie a lot making fun of the terrible accents, but when I watched it this last time I found that not all of the lines were bad. One line about sticking out your tongue was very amusing. In another part, Mischa gives a speech and is super confident yet uses words like “incorrupted” instead of “incorporated”. It is the context that he’s not fluent in English which is not nice to make fun, but honestly that is how I talk even though English is my first language. I always quote Much Ado About Nothing as an example of how good my vocabulary, as I say, “You will be condemned to everlasting redemption!”
Content: 7. I’m sorry to be so harsh when there is not a lot here, but it is just personal preference. One “point” that it seemed to be telling me was that smoking and drinking lead to a freer life. No way, man! This is me being really particular as it is moderately unnoticeable, but this is what I’m here to do, be a critic! This movie is so short that they decided to take a few cheap ways to make plot points happen but it just felt flimsy to me. I’m sorry that I’m being so negative right here (I’ll get to the positive in just a moment!). I have been really working on editing lately so my mind is super focused on spotting problems like this. If you don’t take it seriously it is absolutely fine! In addition to that a few characters get into a fight and throw a few punches, but it’s not too violent.
It deals with problems that occur when entering a country, and honestly I wanted to see more of that! This is something that is relevant today and could be and should be looked into more, both the good and bad together.

Originality: 7. It has cute elements, but I wasn’t blown away by a spark of something new.
Good For: Families.
Age Range: Because we have such a young protagonist (I’m guessing that she’s 6, 7, or 8) then it is probably most enjoyed by young viewers!
Overall Score: 6.5.
Worth watching?: Stick around and I’ll let you know that yes, there were enjoyable parts!
Will I watch again?: I don’t know. It’s very short so that makes it easy, but if I do it probably won’t be for many, many, years.


For the blogathon:
I decided to talk about this today for Pure Entertainment Preservation Society (PEPS)’s Luck O’ the Irish Blogathon! Their focus is on the Motion Picture Production Code in Hollywood (which was used from 1934-1968) and two important figures in its formation, Martin Quigley and Joseph I. Breen, were Irish they are hosting this in their honor! To enter you could talk about anything Irish from any era of film, but I picked this because it is in that sweet spot that PEPS really focuses on, 1934-1954.

My whole family watched this together when I was little (which was rare that all five of us would decide to do that together) and it came to be known in our house as the “Mither movie”. This is because we thought that Jane Withers sounded like she was saying “mither” instead of mother in her accent. Watching it this time I found that it wasn’t as bad as all that.

One part that I do like of this is Jane Withers’s performance aside from the accent! She is darling. I am used to seeing her in Bright Eyes (1934) where her character is named Joy, but let’s just say that that is a misnomer. She was very sweet in here!

I also liked seeing “Rita Cansino” who changed her name to Rita Hayworth a year later. Being a fan of classic Hollywood movies, I’ve heard her name a lot but had never seen a movie with her! She was only 16 when she made this, which is so young! I’ll look forward to seeing her in more.

The short part played by Jane Darnell was a surprise! I have only become familiar with her in the last year, but she’s a very recognizable actress who is always comforting.

Last but not least, the dog, Tim, was adorable! Put an animal in a movie and I’ll always think it is precious.

Overall, it is a movie that has a certain charm to it! I’m glad that I put the time in to watch it this year so I could talk about it!


Thank you to the Brannans for hosting this event! Check out the other entries HERE.

Thanks to all of you for reading! I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to type for as long as I did! Let me know what your favorite Irish movies (whether filmed in Ireland, featuring Irish actors or characters, or etc.) are. Have any of you seen this? Do any of you commemorate St. Patrick’s day in anyway?

MovieCritic

Movie Review: The Grapes of Wrath (1940)

Good day, readers!

Usually when there is a movie that is based on a book, I like to review both and compare them. Today I'll be just reviewing a movie, with some thoughts on the book later. Read on, to find all about my thoughts on my first Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath!

My guarantee: On ALL of my reviews there are NO spoilers unless I give you warning. This is spoiler free!


The Grapes of Wrath (1940):

Based on: the book by John Steinbeck.
Tom Joad returns home from the penitentiary to find that his folks are being shoved off of their land. The family plans to drive out to California where there is lots of work. They endure a lot - having twelve people in one truck over that long journey, and along the way the number diminishes. In California they find that the hardships aren't over as greed rules there. Is the only way to stop it by going on strike, or will that lead them to further trouble?

'"Is he tellin' the truth?"

"The truth for him, he ain't makin' it up."

"Is it the truth for us?"

"I don't know."'

Genre: Drama.
Length: approx. 127 minutes.
Costumes:  8, there are a few times when people aren't wearing shirts, but other than that good. Very accurate for the time frame.
Script: 10, there was not one bad word in this whole film, which was such a relief!

"My dirt. It's no good, but it's mine. All mine."

Crew: Directed by: John Ford. Written by: Nunnally Johnson & John Steinbeck.
Starring:
Henry Fonda as Tom Joad.

Jane Darwell as Ma Joad. "I ain't never gonna be scairt no more."

John Carradine as Jim Casy.

Charley Grapewin as Grandpa Joad.
Zeffie Tilbury as Grandma Joad.
Russell Simpson as Pa Joad.
Frank Darien as Uncle John Joad.
Dorris Bowdon as Rosasharn Rivers.
Eddie Quillan as Connie Rivers.
O.Z. Whitehead as Al Joad.
Darryl Hickman as Winfield Joad.
Shirley Mills as Ruthie Joad.
Frank Sully as Noah Joad.

I don't think this is a scene from the movie, just a promotional photo.

John Qualen as Muley Bates.
Roger Imhof as Thomas.
Grant Mitchell as Caretaker.
Charles D. Brown as Wilkie.
John Arledge as Davis.
Ward Bond as Needles Policeman.
Harry Tyler as Bert.
William Pawley as Bill.
Charles Tannen as Joe.
Eddie Waller as Proprietor.
Paul Guilfoyle as Floyd.
David Hughes as Frank.
Joseph Sawyer as Keene Ranch Foreman.
Adrian Morris as Hiring Agent.
Cinematography: 10, okay, so this cinemtography is incredible. The lighting is so real! Usually in movies when someone lights a match then the whole room becomes bright, which is not realistic. One scene here that really was amazing was with candlelight. Ah, I had shivers.

This was the best I could find, but it isn't even close to how good it is.

Cinematography by: Gregg Toland.
Music: 8, I liked the use of the songs within it, even if I don't quite remember the score.
Music by: Alfred Newman.
Notes: I will address this later, but I just want to mention that there are a ton of differences from the book.

"Seems like a lot of times the government cares more about dead people than livin' ones."

Quotes: N/A, as I just watched it yesterday. One quote that was revelant to today's issues, was: "Wherever there's a cop beating up a guy, I'll be there." Food for thought.
Oscars won: 2: Best Director (John Ford), Best Supporting Actress (Jane Darwell).
Content: 9, there is smoking, murder, and one suggestive thing, but believe me, this is tame! The book is chock full of many more problems. Because of that I'm giving this such a high ranking.

"...A human being couldn't stand to be so miserable..."

Originality: I'm not sure. It seems like I've seen other movies where a family moves, but not in the conditions of this. I'll give it an 8.
Good For: Black and white movie lovers, anyone who has had to move, anyone who has lost family members.

Age Range: It is clean, but what happens in the story is hard to grasp. I know I wouldn't have gotten any of it a few years ago, so maybe for people above 15? It depends on each one, though.
Overall Score: 8.5!


This is my entry in Pure Entertainment Preservation Society's (PEPS) Code Classics Blogathon!

At first when I signed up for this blogathon I wasn't sure what to talk about. There are so many options! Finally I chose The Grapes of Wrath as my subject because my mom has been telling me to read the book for forever. As I mentioned in my intro, I had planned for this to be one of my Book vs. Movie Reviews, so what made me change my mind?

Earlier this week I dove into the book and started reading. A few chapters in I hated it. When I can define that I actually "hate" a book, then that's pretty serious. It was so painful to read! The language (at one point a character said, "Now I cuss all I want, any time I want, an' it does a fella good to cuss if he wants to." and I was ripping my hair out)! The overall content! I couldn't handle it. About halfway through my mom showed me mercy. She said that I didn't have to finish it, but that I did have to watch the film. Last night, my older sister, Em, and I sat down to watch this. She read the book a few years ago, but had been waiting until I read it to watch the movie. (Note, kudos to anyone who was able to finish this book! Bravo! I salute you for your perseverance). What would I rate it if I allowed myself to rate books that I don't finish?

Po Level Zero GIF from Po GIFs

Now, the movie is very different from what I read of the book. Steinbeck alternates between the story chapters and chapters that are metaphors on life. They can be as simple as a turtle walking (one of his most famous scenes), or about guys selling cars. Let me get this straight, I actually liked those parts of the book. Steinbeck's writing style is really neat, and I would prefer to read a whole book just like that without the actual storyline. While they do have a few bad words or suggestive lines, they are squeaky clean compared to the rest of the book. Because they are so different, the filmmakers made the choice to not include that part in the movie. They did manage to work one into the plot, which I was impressed with.

Back to other differences. A strange thing, I'm not saying this is a bad thing or a good thing, is that they moved around a lot of the events of the book. Instead of A coming before B, it went B, C, A, etc. My sister and I aren't really sure why they did this, but it worked out and you could see a fluid storyline. This shows how even previously written stories are so open for interpretation and adaptations! This movie is just a little over two hours, and that's a small time frame to put a 400+ page book into. Therefore, they obviously had to cut some things (besides the metaphor chapters). According to my sister, they cut the ending. She said that the movie ended about four chapters before the end of the book! She also says that I now have to read the ending, dash it all. It seemed like a good ending for the movie, but it's weird that they cut the original. I know that in my writing, endings are really hard for me, so when I come up with a good one I really like it. I wouldn't like my ending changed, but maybe Steinbeck didn't mind because of the message it got out. This was made the year after he wrote it, so if he objected he could’ve said something, right?

They also had to cut characters, which is understandable. For anyone who hadn’t read the book (or parts of it), you might have noticed a different head count from the start. They didn’t mention when or why one of the characters (I won’t tell you which) left. That really confused my sister and me. Since we had both read that part in the book we knew why, but they never explained it, or even acknowledged it. It seems like it would’ve been easy enough to say, “------- won’t go any further.” and leave it at that. Did they mean to do that and just forgot? The world will never know.

My sister was mentioning, though, that because we don’t hear about how “bad” the characters are in the beginning, then we don’t see their full character arc. I thought that the actors did a good job of playing all of the characters and showing how they aren’t the best people that they could be, but without having to go into all of the details. This is my strong feeling on characters: (Note, we all have different meanings of the word bad. Because of that I will be putting it in quotations each time, but I am usually talking about my personal moral standards.)

It’s fine for characters to do “bad” things if they are shown as a villain/antagonist, or if they are shown as trying to do better, or if they are eventually “redeemed” (‘cause really, I want everyone to become the best version of themselves!).

When reading the book I wasn’t sure if I was supposed to “root” for Tom and others, or not. That was frustrating, because I can tell you that I wasn’t feeling like it. I’m not sure how to express this, but I feel like the film version did a better job of this because of its Code influence.

My sister to me: "You, madame, are a walking contradiction, and I find that fascinating." (paraphrase)

A few things to mention on specific characters:
Jim Casy: Em doesn’t think that his character's journey was done justice compared to the book, because of a few things taken out. I’m trying to repress what I read, so no comment from me here.

I'm green, Em's blue.

Ma Joad: I’ve heard my parents reference Ma Joad all my life. It wasn’t until my younger sister was thinking about reading the book last year that I realized she was from this! Jane Darwell definitely deserved her Oscar for this role! She made me cry, which I can guarantee that I wouldn’t have done that while reading the book. What really struck me with this story (and what I will hold onto as my impression that I got from this for years to come), is Ma’s love for her family. No matter what happens to them, or what they do, she still loves them.

"I don't want a mean son."

That was inspiring for me. I really relate to her want of keeping the family together no matter what.

This is Code era, so it is so clean! I can’t even imagine a movie version of this nowadays, but I do know that it would probably be closer to the book in content levels, which I wouldn’t like. I'm always telling Em about the Code, and she thinks it's interesting but isn't as into it as I am. After we finished watching this she said, "I appreciate the Code compliance in this case!" I can't tell you how much I do, too! I am so glad that I was able to enjoy a version of this story without all of that horrible content. Thank you to the Code for its perspective!



Well, that got really rambly at the end. Thanks for sticking through it, if you're still here! Interested in other Code films based on classics? Check out the other posts HERE!

If any of you have seen The Grapes of Wrath (1940) or managed to read the book, I would love to discuss it with you! Leave me a comment with your thoughts.

Thanks for reading!

MovieCritic