Change Your Image
charles_gilkison
Reviews
Who Killed 'Doc' Robbin? (1948)
At best, it's a history lesson
Although I'd rarely missed a Saturday matinée at the local Tuxedo Theatre during the late 1940s, I first saw WHO KILLED DOC ROBBIN? a few evenings ago on a DVD from The Dollar Store. Unquestionably, the blatant racism in it horrified me. The real parents of "Dis" and "Dat" should've been sterilized for allowing their boys to undergo such humiliating abuse. From the 'nightglow" to the "scared white," the stereotypical routines are offensive, to say the least. After recovering from the shock, though, I began to view the film from a historical perspective. In 1948, Indianapolis was definitely earning its reputation as "the northernmost southern city in the country." Restaurants, schools, and even orphanages operated under the separate-but-equal" concept, which meant that those serving whites and those serving "coloreds" were different entities, and that difference was rigidly maintained. Growing up in an all-white neighborhood, I'd encountered only real black person, an aged ex-slave who totally lacked Uncle Remus's wit and warmth. Otherwise, all that I knew about "Negroes" had come from radio programs like AMOS 'N' ANDY, THE JACK BENNY SHOW, TOM MIX, THE GREAT GILDERSLEEVE, and the extremely racist BEULAH. Television was just emerging as a popular medium, but the number of black performers appearing on the screen was almost zero. And those few who did get on the air were Stepin Fetchit clones. Even the audiences at such kiddie shows as HOWDY DOODY were completely WASPish. Extremely few films at that time made any effort to depict black Americans as other than lazy, slick sub-humans with ultra-severe mental deficiencies. They all danced and sang, as well as cooked and cleaned, but none of them had jobs requiring competence or generating ambition. Of course, African-Americans were hardly the only minority to suffer from media stereotyping. Indians were depicted as superstitious savages; Asians, as cunning cutthroats; and Latinos as oversexed "banditos." Senior citizens had to endure the less-than-flattering stereotype of being crabby geezers, meddlesome matriarchs, inept relics, or simple biddies, not unlike the characters played by Gabby Hayes, Marjorie Main, Tom London, and Zazu Pitts. Though numerically a majority, even white women were usually portrayed as supportive stay-at-homes whose careers were rearing their children and surviving dress sales. So, in 1948, like most of the boys in my neighborhood, I spent my quarter every Saturday afternoon to watch the matinée at the Tuxedo Theatre. And for that twenty-five cents, I saw three boring previews (trailers), five color cartoons, one serial episode, and two Republic B-westerns. The theater manager frequently filled the second slot with Hoppy's and Gene's oaters and Tarzan's adventures. By today's standards, frankly, none of them were "politically correct" or historically accurate. (By the mid-1940s, for example, quite a number of native Africans were residing in cities and not with tribes. Moreover, contrary to Hollywood's image, the lower half of "The Dark Continent" consists of grasslands rather than jungles.) In other words, if WHO KILLED DOC ROBBIN? had appeared at the Tuxedo -- and it never did! -- I, like everyone else in that audience, would've laughed at the racist jokes, screamed at the horror routines, and not once thought about the blatant bigotry. Would I let young children today see it? NO! Should some film studio like Disney make a modernized, sanitized version of it? In view of how wretched many of the updated movies have been, NO! Probably the best use for it now would be to provide media students in college with an actual insight into the realities of post-war America.
Boothill Brigade (1937)
Johnny Saves Some Ranchers--But Not This Flick
I would like to blame the print used by MovieFlix, but the trouble with this movie lies much deeper than a choppy copy. Frankly, whether or not it was a "Poverty Row Production," the 1937 film was almost as primitive as William Boyd's HIGH VOLTAGE had been, and that talkie had appeared in 1929. First, the contrast and brightness flickered from dark to light, often in the same scene. Identifying who was chasing whom was, therefore, a considerable challenge. Second, the audio quality was tinny. The actors seemed to be shouting their lines into hidden microphones that lacked either range or sensitivity. Third, the sound effects also left much to be developed. The hoof beats, for example, didn't always match the movement of the horse--in speed, instance, or number. The pistol shots, moreover, sounded as if they'd come from .22s rather than .45s. Fourth, the storyline was--what storyline? The story was as shallow as any on the KIT Carson television series, but it lasted twice as long. The dialogue was sparse--and campy! The plot was simplistic. And the action was virtually non-existent. Finally, although the exterior sets looked authentic, the interior ones appeared "stagy." In addition, the trails tended to contain two parallel tracks, indicating they had resulted from autos and trucks instead of horses. Overall, BOOTHILL BRIGADE is only worth watching when the popcorn is stale, the Pepsi is flat, and your plans are dead.
High Voltage (1929)
Welcome to film history!
By today's standards, of course, HIGH VOLTAGE with Carol(e) Lombard and Bill ("Hoppy") Boyd would hardly qualify as more than a horribly campy C-movie. The acting is hammy, the plot is sluggish, the cinematography is primitive, and the ending is inane. Worse yet, it contains a grayish atmosphere that's depressing. Some 76 years ago, though, HIGH VOLTAGE must've thrilled the audiences. It served as a stepping stone in the film industry's transition from producing silents to making talkies. From a historical perspective, therefore, it possessed an importance that modern viewers have ignored. The acting itself reflected that transition. Everyone was still relying on exaggerated expressions and stagy gestures to communicate to the audience. The original sound system consisted of transcriptions, which the projectionist played like gramophone recordings. Because the microphones of that era lacked range and sensitivity, the actors had to congregate around hidden ones and shout their lines, which eliminated most of the naturalness in delivery and performance that we have grown through the decades to expect. I strongly suspect that pre-recorded dialogue and sound effects generated most of the "noise" in the true outside scenes. To say the least, too, the script reflected the newness of creating a full-length feature. It had so many "dead spots" that I could almost envision where the message boards of a typical silent belonged. Another clue to its antiquity was the absurd ending. If HIGH VOLTAGE had been a modern movie, both the criminal characters, played by Boyd and Lombard, would have fled to freedom as soon as the opportunity surfaced. Along the way, the snow and cold might have killed them, but that would not have been a chief concern of such (supposedly) hardened felons. Back then, however, moral conduct played a more important role, even among the "bad guys and gals." Another significant difference was the lack of sex, profanity, and drugs. If produced within these last thirty years, Boyd would have found a means of teaching Lombard the real meaning of "Hoppy," Carol's vocabulary would have made a Marine blush, and The Kid would have spent much of the story "blowing dope." HIGH VOLTAGE may not be a historical piece, but it is definitely a piece of history!
Gone with the West (1974)
May We Watch the Final Version, Please?
Unquestionably, if you think this western is bad, then you need to watch some of those old "oaters" on MovieFlix. The Tex Ritter horse operas, for example, make this absurdity seem like GONE WITH THE WIND!
Watching the film last night, I had the feeling that the DVD contained the first draft of a potentially good comedy (or satire). A careful rewriting of the script by pros would have elevated the movie into a strong spoof of "spagetti westerns."
Aside from the sloppy editing, the wretched audio/video quality, and the implausible plot, the problems included these;
1. Sammy Davis Jr.'s presence must have been in homage to either the "rat pack." or the civil rights movement. His character served no useful purpose in the story. In fact, the situation reminded me of desegregation when "white" companies would put their token black employees in or near the best window for all to view.
2. Stefanie Powers is a beautiful and talented comedic actress. But casting her as a tribeless squaw is too much of a stretch. A Hispanic or Indian actress needs to fill that role.
3. James Caan showed all the emotion of Gene Autry. In fact, some erstwhile Republic cowboy might have handled that role more skillfully.
4. Too many characters! A good rewriting would have narrowed the focus to the major figures.
5. The burning of the town looked as phony as Bob Steele's fistfights. The sets should have been better constructed so that they at least appeared to be real buildings in flame.
6. One reason for its lack of polish may have been that it was originally intended to be a made-for-TV movie. The dialogue lacked the usual profanity, the violence lacked the blood and gore of a Clint Eastwood western, and the politically incorrect image of a squaw was typical of such shows as THE WILD WILD WEST and even GUNSMOKE.
7. Then, when someone decided to complete the piece, it became much grittier in style and substance, more like a theater release.
Frankly, I'd love to see a genuine motion picture producer redo this film, hiring authentic-looking actors for the parts, paring the number of roles to a workable few, and maintaining high filming standards. If he did, the result could be a truly enjoyable straight-faced satire.