Film Review: Apocalypse Now

"Apocalypse Now"
*** (out of ****)

[Note: This review is in reference to the 1979 theatrical released version]

The film begins with an image of what is supposed to be the jungle of Vietnam. An explosion goes off and the jungle is now in flames. Is this a metaphor for Vietnam? Is it a country imploding? Or is it a metaphor for the soldiers fighting? Are they self destructive? As the scene continues the song "The End" by The Doors is heard on the soundtrack. The lyrics begin "this is the end". Is that another comment on Vietnam?

Depending on who you speak to Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" (1979) is either one of the greatest movies ever made or the beginning of Coppola's downfall. At the end of the 1970s Coppola would never again find the critical success he achieved in the decade he released "The Godfather" (1972), "The Godfather Part II" (1974), "The Conversation" (1974) and this film. It was a decade that saw Coppola nominated three times for a best director Academy Award, winning once for "The Godfather Part II". Each movie even received an Academy Award nomination for best picture with both Godfather movies winning.

I have struggled with "Apocalypse Now" over the years. I have seen it numerous times. I have watched the 1979 theatrical released version and the 2001 "Apocalypse Now Redux" version which added 49 additional minutes to an already two hour and 27 minute film. I own a Blu-ray that features both versions of the film. It would be the recommended copy to buy of this film.

There are astonishing images in "Apocalypse Now" and memorable characters yet emotionally I have never been drawn into the movie. I interpret the movie has a commentary on the mental state war has on men. If that interpretation is correct I believe there are better examples of this on film, namely Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" (1987), a film that as the years pass I find I admire more and more viewing after viewing. That is a film I would call a masterpiece and one of the greatest anti-war films ever made.

But as I say "Apocalypse Now" has its defenders. The late Chicago Sun-Times movie critic Roger Ebert, when reviewing the "Redux" version, wrote "more than ever it is clear Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" is one of the great films of all time. It shames modern Hollywood's timidity. To watch it is to feel yourself lifted up to the heights where cinema can take you, but so rarely does."

Coppola decided to base "Apocalypse Now" on a novel written by Joseph Conrad, "Heart of Darkness", which had nothing to do with the Vietnam War or Vietnam. The novel was published in 1899 and was about a voyage up the Congo River. It was meant to be a commentary about civilization and imperialism.

In Coppola's version we follow a Captain Willard (Martin Sheen), a man clearly suffering from Posttraumatic stress disorder. In some ways, every character in the movie is. In our introduction to Willard he confesses now that he is no longer in the jungles of Vietnam, he misses it. He is still haunted by the experience and is on a drunken binge when we see him but he wants to go back. He can't adapt to civilian life. He gets his wish when he given a mission to kill Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a soldier the U.S. Army says has gone rogue and may be insane. He is now in Cambodia where some of the locals treat Kurtz as a God. And so Willard makes his own journey down a river to find Kurtz.

As I watch "Apocalypse Now" I find myself agreeing with Kurtz. He doesn't seem crazy to me. Many of the other soldiers seen in the movie seem off the deep end to me but Kurtz appears lucid. Why should the U.S. Army want him dead? That creates some distance for me as I watch the movie because I begin to question the movie's and by extension the lead character's motives. Or, is that the whole point? Are we to believe Kurtz is right? Does he clearly recognize what the nature of war is? Does he convince us when he speaks of the horror he has witnessed?

These may be interesting questions but I never feel as if Coppola is really using Willard to counter Kurtz. Are they two sides of the same coin? Have they both experienced the horrors of war but come away with two different meanings? Some may say yes, Coppola does show that. Is it the nature of the movie. I would say you are really added a lot of you into interpreting the movie. You are creating things that aren't so visible on-screen. What, if anything, is Coppola telling us about war and the Vietnam War in particular?

Perhaps the answer is found in the three most distinct characters in the movie. As I said each is suffering in some way from PTSD. You have Captain Willard. In the first scene of the movie, Willard, doing a voice over narration, explains he is in Saigon, always Saigon. He feels being out of the jungle is making him soft. He explains he has divorced his wife. They barely spoke. He has been unable to adapted to civilian life.

Robert DuVall, who received an Oscar nomination, plays Lieutenant colonel Kilgore. Kilgore, who famously loves the smell of napalm in the morning, acts as if the war has no effect on him. It is life as usual. In the midst of fighting he talks about wanting to go surfing. This man has been deeply affected by the war. Kilgore will not be able to function either outside of combat. Life in not "normal" in Vietnam. Sooner or later that fact will hit Kilgore.

And finally there is Kurtz. To me the only sane character in the movie. He fully realizes what war is. That is the horror he speaks of. Kurtz may have his moments which reflect a disturbed mind but that may be the point. How can war not mentally affect you? I may describe Kurtz as sane but look what I am comparing him to. Willard may be narrating the movie, thus making it his story, but in some ways Kurtz is the movie's moral center.

There is one scene that really sticks out in my mind more than others as I feel it serves as a commentary on the Vietnam and may even reflect the opinion of those of the time period. As Willard and a Navy crew travel they notice a small boat with peasant. The captain of the Navy boat approaches this boat and asks one of the crew to inspect it, fearful there may be weapons on board. The crew member glances over, moves around a couple of things and believes everything is fine. The boat captain won't accept that answer and demands the search continues. Tempers start to flare. The Vietnamese passengers become frightened and shots are fired and people die. It seems as if Coppola is saying this is Vietnam. Everyone is tense. You don't know who you can trust. Situations escalate out of control and needless causalities are the result.

Stories of the movie's production are now legendary. Martin Sheen suffered a heart attack, a typhoon destroyed sets, a civil war broke out on the shooting location, the Philippines, the movie went over budget, Marlon Brando wasn't prepared for shooting when he arrived on set and Coppola struggled with finding an ending. This was all documented in "Hearts of Darkness" (1991) a documentary on the making of the movie. Watching that documentary really gives you an appreciation for this movie and what Coppola had to go through to get it done.

"Apocalypse Now", which won the Palm d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, was nominated for eight Academy Awards and won two. One for Vittorio Storaro's cinematography and for best sound. It was also nominated for four Golden Globes and won three including best director for Coppola. The movie's worth has been proven by lasting the test of time. It is well remembered today and his considered among Coppola's grand achievements. Many feel it would have been a much more worthy best picture Oscar winner than "Kramer vs Kramer" (1979).

This is a movie I believe needs to be watched more than once. Each viewing should offer something new. That is usually the sign of a good movie but I still don't think it is great cinema. Some of the ideas don't seem clearly defined but it gives you something to think about.

Film Review: A Summer's Tale

"A Summer's Tale"  **** (out of ****)

It's a summer fling in Eric Rohmer's "A Summer's Tale"  (1996).

Of all the great French filmmakers that were part of the Nouvelle Vague (the French New Wave) Eric Rohmer was the romantic. His films, almost exclusively, dealt with the trial and tribulations of young love. Any one of Rohmer's films would serve as an excellent example and "A Summer's Tale" is just as charming as any of Rohmer's other films.

"A Summer's Tale" was part of Rohmer's "Tales of Four Seasons" series and was the third entry coming after "A Tale of Springtime" (1992) and "A Winter's Tale" (1994). All four stories are love stories taking place in the season their title references. Each one is a masterpiece.

For "A Summer's Tale" we follow Gaspard (Melvil Poupaud), a young musician on vacation in Dinard, a seaside resort. Though if asked Gaspard would say he is merely on vacation he actually is waiting for the possible arrival of Lena (Aurelia Nolin). A girl he believes may be "the one". I say possible arrival because Gaspard and Lena have no definite plans to meet. She does not have a phone and is on her own vacation with her sister traveling through Spain. She mentioned to Gaspard her plans to arrive in Dinard, which he took as an encouraging sign. Maybe he will have an opportunity to tell Lena how he feels.

Of course in order to tell Lena how he feels she must show up first. The days go by and there is no sign on Lena but Gaspard is filling his time with Margot (Amanda Langlet), a waitress at a nearby restaurant. Together they walk and talk about love as Gaspard reveals his true intentions for visiting Dinard. The two seem to have chemistry between them and clearly enjoy each other's company.

Before you can say you have figured the movie out Rohmer stirs the pot just a bit more. At a party Gaspard attends with Margot he meets Solene (Gwenaelle Simon). Margot tells Gaspard he should pursue Solene and forget about Lena. Gaspard takes her advice and pursues Lena but has he really forgotten her? And is he starting to have feelings for Margot? And if he is, does Margot like him back, despite mentioning she has a boyfriend.

Gaspard doesn't have time to find out the answers to these questions because after weeks of waiting for Lena, she finally arrives. Their meeting is everything Gaspard had hoped it would be. Lena is very affectionate towards Gaspard which only reaffirms his belief she is the one. But what to do about the other two women whom he may have been leading on?

If you've ever been young and dumb you can probably relate to "A Summer's Tale" and relive your own days when you were in your 20s and love seemed to be full of possibilities but also a complicated mess.

Rohmer captures both of those feelings perfectly and plays up the complicated mess aspect for plenty of laughs.

"A Summer's Tale", to be clear, isn't a slapstick sex farce. No one is running in and out of bedrooms but the movie does keep raising the stakes. With the appearance of each women what will Gaspard do? Eventually he must choose one. Naturally he fears making the wrong choice.

Like so many other Rohmer films the charm of the movie lies in its dialogue. There is nothing cinematically "splashy" about Rohmer's films and "A Summer's Tale" in particular. Basically we see characters talk and express their ideas about love and romance. The charming factor is their words ring true. There isn't anything "Hollywood" about the movie. The characters speak as we do. There isn't witty banter with sharp one-liners being tosses back and forth. Most people don't speak that way on a date, do they?

The acting is also very low key and naturalistic. No one is acting it up. If you aren't familiar with French cinema, you would easily believe these characters are real people. There is nothing phony about any of these performances. We genuinely come to like these people and are happy to spend time with them. We want them to find happiness and sincerely want a happy ending. How often can you say that?

Some though may feel that makes "A Summer's Tale" sound boring. Rohmer has a reputation for only making movies where people talk. You'll hear some say "nothing happens" in one of his movies. His naysayers describe his movies as "watching paint dry". That isn't fair however. A lot is happening in "A Summer's Tale". Characters, the lead character in particular, are emotionally growing. The plot is moving forward. And why should we be so quick to dismiss dialogue driven movies especially when the dialogue is this good?

And you really need to pay attention to the dialogue here and catch all the nuances of the words and the performances. It is amazing that Rohmer was 76 years old when "A Summer's Tale" was released in theatres and even at that age he was able to capture the frustration of young love in ways younger filmmakers can't.

"A Summer's Tale" is a smart and observant film. Rohmer knows these characters and understands human relationships. We can see ourselves in these characters. This would be a fine film to serve as an introduction into the work of Rohmer. All of his traits are on full display. If "A Summer's Tale" doesn't win you over, Rohmer may not be for you. "A Summer's Tale" made my list of the best films of 1996. It really should not be missed.

Tenth Anniversary!

This month marks 10 years I have been writing reviews on this blog. It has been an amazing experience. It all started with a simple idea. I wanted to introduce people to classic movies. 

It started when I was a college student at Columbia College of Chicago. At Columbia I studied journalism and film and noticed my fellow classmates in my film classes didn't know much about the history of cinema. Now, I know that may make me sound like an arrogant, obnoxious SOB, who am I to make such a statement about my classmates, but I was bothered by it. How could these students claim to love movies, go to college to study it and not know about the classics? It wasn't that they hadn't seen the classics, they hadn't even heard of them!

I grew up watching movies with my grandparents and my grandmother in particular. She grew up in the 1920s and remembered, with great fondness, the movies of the 1930s & 40s. I would sit and watch movies of the era with her. She would tell me all the Hollywood gossip of various stars as we sat and watched movies. That was my introduction to the classics. By the time I was old enough to go to school I knew all the great stars from Hollywood's past.

With that knowledge in mind, I thought it would be a good idea to create a blog and discuss these movies. I believed if my fellow students would watch these movies they would enjoy them. It was my understanding they weren't necessarily against watching these movies (though some were) they just didn't have someone in their life that could introduce them to these movies. I wanted to fill in that gap.

That was the original intention of this blog. I envisioned my typical reader as a young college student that truly wanted to learn about the classics. My goal was to introduce at least one person to a movie they never heard of. If I could do that, this blog would be a success.

Over the ten year period writing this blog I did hear from people who told me I introduced them to movies. I've had people thank me. And, to be fair, I've had my share of hate mail. I'm just a stuck up, old-fashion four letter word that is stuck in the past. Not to mention, I have terrible taste in movies. I've always heard, why would someone want to write about "old movies". What's the point? Movies are a part of our culture. There is value in movies. Movies even have some wisdom and can teach us about our society and other cultures. Cinema has a rich history. Plus, if you truly love movies, you should want to watch everything. Don't categorize  movies as "old" or "new" but instead "good" or "bad". Watching the classics will give you a deeper understanding of the movies of today. Just as history repeats itself so do movies. A lot of what you see today in movies has already been done. Knowing that will give you a deeper appreciation of movies. That is why it is important to write about classic movies and to keep them fresh in our minds.

But this blog has also served other purposes. Because of this blog I have been able to find work writing for various publications. A big thrill for me was being published in a Hungarian newspaper (I'm Hungarian if you didn't know). Because of this blog I attended my first press screening, interviewed directors and producers, was quoted in a movie trailer and met some interesting people.

In the course of ten years I have tried my best to write about the diverse history of cinema. I have written about silent movies and international movies across all genres. I have even written about modern movies that I felt deserve more attention. I don't write about every movie I've ever seen. I am selective. What can I say about a movie that hasn't already been said? Why is it important someone know about this movie? If I can't answer those questions, I won't review it. So far I have written nearly 1,000 post as a result.

After ten years I sincerely want to thank those that have read my reviews. Your support has kept me going. Here's to ten more years!

The Top Ten Films Of 2017!

It was quite a year. In 2017 we saw many major figures in movies and media be accused of sexual harassment including Harvey Weinsten, Dustin Hoffman, Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose among them. America had to get used to Chancellor Trump and a new daily controversy involving him or his administration. It has become "the new normal".

When the world gets a little crazy, some of us turn to movies as a distraction. But, as I always say, movies don't exist in a bubble. Movies are a reflection of the world we live in. Some filmmakers want to make social and political commentaries. They want their movies to be relevant to the moment. A great example of this is Steven Spielberg's "The Post" (2017). Although based on a true story it also was meant to parallel today and the current attack on the media.

I mention this because it is difficult (not impossible mind you) to escape reality in the movies. At least, as I grow older, those are the movies I find myself most absorbed in. Sure I love "Hollywood escapism" as much as the next person. I have my guilty pleasures, some on this list, but movies that say something about the world we live in have been the movies I've begun to cling to. I believe this has given to the rise of documentaries. Documentaries have been turned into political tools. So, has the movie business changed or just me?

This was also the first year I noticed Netflix released some good movies. Not all of them made my list but there was the charming "Our Souls at Night" (2017) with Robert Redford and Jane Fonda, the unique "Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond" (2017) and a few political documentaries like "Get Me Roger Stone" (2017).

And Netflix proved helpful for me as, is usually the case, I struggled to find ten movies that really stood out to me and made a lasting impression. Every year the movies that the critics (sheep) hype leave me indifferent. And so I have to search under every rock to find an ignored gem. On this list you will not see "The Shape of Water" (2017), "Dunkirk" (2017), "The Darkest Hour" (2017), "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" (2017), "Get Out" (2017) or "Lady Bird" (2017). I saw all of them. Some I thought were good but not great.

I was also struck by the lack of quality non-English language films released this year. Usually there is a standout. I often try to create a diverse list of more than ten dramatic American movies and add a few international titles. Not so this year but there are some films from the United Kingdom on my list.

Looking at my list a lot of the movies are socially aware. I don't know that there was a major theme to the movies released in 2017 but my choices focused on the class system, racial justice, love, discrimination, family, tradition and dolls coming to life. Just a typical Saturday night in Chicago. 

Here are my favorite movies of 2017!

1. I, Daniel Blake (Dir. Ken Loach; U.K.) - I love and hate this movie at the same time. I hate it because of the horrible truths it shows in our society and love it because of the characters, each of whom I wish I could give a big hug to. How and why this movie has been ignored by the American mainstream media and public is a mystery to me. It even won the Palm d'Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival.

Although this movie, directed by the legendary British filmmaker Ken Loach, takes place in England the social conditions it depicts of the working class should be recognizable to Americans as well. It shows us a government system that only makes things harder on the poor, the people it is supposed to help.

This movie began a social moment in the U.K. maybe the threat of that prevented the media from giving the movie more praise in the U.S. however this is truly a movie of our times. We are all Daniel Blake.

2. Saving Capitalism (Dirs. Jacob Kornbluth / Sari Gilman; U.S.) - Capitalism may be a fine economic system but it leaves out the Daniel Blakes of the world. It is a system that works for the few. Is there a way to improve it? That is what this Netflix documentary asks. In some ways it is a follow-up for director Jacob Kornbluth who gave us "Inequality For All" (2013). That documentary, like this one, follows former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich as he discusses the flaws in our current system and how to save it.

3. Molly's Game (Dir. Aaron Sorkin; U.S.) - The directorial debut of Aaron Sorkin just knocked me out with its screenplay (also by Sorkin) and the performance given by Jessica Chastain. How unfortunate she was snubbed of an Oscar nomination. It was a tour-de-force performance.

4. Loving Vincent (Dirs. Dorota Kobiela / Hugh Welchman; Poland / UK ) - An Oscar nominee in the best animated film category "Loving Vincent" is a bio-pic, of sorts, on the life of Vincent van Gogh. The movie is comprised entirely of hand drawn paintings, done in the style of van Gogh. Structurally the movie resembles "Citizen Kane" (1941) and Oliver Stone's "JFK" (1991) as a young man is given the task to deliver a final letter written by van Gogh to his brother, Theo. Trying to locate Theo the young man meets a variety of people, each with a different opinion of the great painter, and a conspiracy begins, did van Gogh really commit suicide?

This is a beautiful looking movie done with amazing artistry and depth.

5. Roman J. Israel, Esq. (Dir. Dan Gilroy; U.S.) - Another movie the critics ignored. From the reviews I have read, even the positive ones, it seems like no one "got" this movie. Here is a movie about a man that loses his moral center. He has devoted himself to civil rights, working as a lawyer for more than three decades. But he has nothing to show for it in terms of material possessions. Life doesn't reward us for being noble or selfless. So what do you do when you work hard your whole life for a cause you believe in but see nothing change and no reward?

Some complain the narrative is confusing and loses focus. These people, for whatever reason, couldn't relate to the dilemma the lead character is in. I perfectly understand him and all the choices he makes. The one thing that we can all agree on is Denzel Washington gives a great performance and was rightly nominated for an Oscar.

6. Wind River (Dir. Taylor Sheridan; U.S.) - Another quality movie ignored by the critics. This murder mystery, starring Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen taking place on a Native American reservation, was beautifully written by Taylor Sheridan. Very engaging movie featuring two strong performances.

7. Alone in Berlin (Dir. Vincent Perez; U.K.) - Based on a true story of a German couple that learns their son has died fighting in WW2. Filled with grief and anger they decide to leave postcards all over Berlin with messages exposing the lies and corruption of the Nazi government. How can the story of an individual standing up against a corrupt government not seem relevant today?

8. Coco (Dirs. Lee Unkrich / Adrian Molina; U.S.) - I really enjoyed Pixar / Disney's "Cars 3" (2017) but "Coco" was their best movie of the year. A charming, humorous story about family and tradition. I am amazed at how Pixar often finds wonderful new ways to tell us familiar stories with the same themes. This is one of those animated movies adults and children can both enjoy.

9. Lady Macbeth (Dir. William Oldroyd; U.K.) - This British Victorian drama has nothing to do with Shakespeare but instead was based on the novel "Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District" by Nikolai Leskov about a woman forced into a loveless marriage but has a sexual awakening when she meets one of the work hands on the estate.

10. Annabelle: Creation (Dir. David F. Sandberg; U.S.) - Last year I praised David F. Sandberg's "Lights Out" (2016) as the horror movie of the year. Sandberg has done it again. The remake of "It" (2017) might be a more popular choice but the movies coming from the "Conjuring Universe" have impressed me greatly. Sandberg is going to be a great talent to watch out for.

HONORABLE MENTION: "An Inconvenient Sequel", "It Comes At Night", "The Dinner", "Wonder Wheel", "On Body and Soul", "Lady Bird"

Film Review: The Love Parade

"The Love Parade"
*** 1\2 (out of ****)

It is a parade of laughter in Ernst Lubitsch's musical / comedy "The Love Parade" (1929).

If any movie fan ever needed to be reminded of the genius of filmmaker Ernst Lubitsch "The Love Parade" would serve as a nice reminder.

"The Love Parade", Lubitsch's first sound picture, is one of the master filmmaker's charming, adult, sophisticated, playful musical / comedies made at Paramont. Lubitsch made four films at the studio and each one of them is perfection or near perfection. The movies include "Monte Carlo" (1930) and "One Hour With You" (1932).

Maurice Chevalier stars as Count Alfred Renard, a Sylvanian military attache stationed in Paris. He has gained a reputation as a playboy engaging in one love affair after another and sometimes with married women. One such affair goes too far and Alfred is ordered to report back to Sylvania to meet Queen Louise (Jeanette MacDonald).

When we first meet Queen Louise she has awoken from a dream. She dreams of love and romance and proceeds to sing a song, "Dream Lover", suggesting her dreams will always remain that, a dream. However the queen has also been under pressure to find a husband. Marriage is something she appears to have no interest in. Perhaps because no man seems to meet her standards. It has gotten to the point that the royal counsel has simply given up. Initially this pleases Queen Louise but after she find out why they have given up she becomes upset. The queen's eventual husband would be a prince consort, a man with no power. He would only be her husband. A man would not find this appealing.

As soon as Queen Louise and Alfred meet there is an instant attraction. Queen Louise is not put off by Alfred's long list of love affairs. In fact she seems intrigue by the idea of him. Perhaps she wonders, what have so many women found intriguing about him?

The word "sex" is never spoken in "The Love Parade" but the entire movie is about it. If the movie were made today that may make it sound like a cheap, vulgar raunchy rom-com. In the hands of Lubitsch however a sex comedy can be smart, witty and charming. Although "The Love Parade" was made before the production code began to be strictly enforced the dialogue is full of double entendres and sly innuendos.

Take for example a scene filled with sexual tension in the air. Alfred and Louise have dinner after their first meeting. Everyone at the palace is amazed the queen has taken such a liking to Alfred. Could it lead to marriage? The scene is humorously played out as everyone is spying on the couple narrating what is happening off screen. They enter the room, they smile at each other, they laugh, they begin to drink champagne and soon the both of them are in the queen's boudoir. Had the scene ended there, it would be implied they spend the night together.

Lubitsch however doesn't leave the scene there. Now we can see Alfred and Louise together. Louise tells Alfred to forget she is a queen and treat her as he would any other woman. Alfred sits next to her, he takes her hand and kisses it and then kisses the inside of her palm. He places his arm around her. Louise stops him and tells him, if this is how he behaves with a woman on their first night meeting, what could be left for later. "Plenty" Alfred replies.

In this scene pay close attention to MacDonald, who makes her film debut. Look at her facial expression, the look in her eyes, the trembling quality in her voice. You completely buy into her character in the moment. You believe she is aroused by Alfred and her flirtation is real.

In this regard "The Love Parade" feels a little bit ahead of its time. You didn't often see characters you could actually believe were sexually active beings in American silent films and sometimes even into the early sound era. You can envision the two stars of this picture as being sexually involved. That helps keep an audience engaged.

These moments are countered with scenes involving Alfred's manservant, Jacques (Lupino Lane) and one of the queen's maids, Lulu (Lillian Roth). Jacques admires Alfred and likes to believe he has learned a lot about picking up women from Alfred and so Jacques courts Lulu. Their courtship is played for laughs and features a lot of comical musical numbers. One very good one is a duet between Jacques and Lulu called "Lets Be Common", which looks at how the common folk view romance compared to their royal counterparts.

For the most part the songs by Victor Schertzinger and Clifford Grey are entertainging and have some catchy melodies. The lyrics by Grey match the witty quality of the screenplay's dialogue.

The screenplay, which was based on the novel "The Prince Consort", was written by that great Hungarian playwright Ernest Vajda and Guy Bolton. Vajda wrote several screenplays directed by Lubitsch as well as "The Guardsman" (1931) a charming but sadly forgotten gem directed by Sidney Franklin. Bolton had written vehicles starring Joe E. Brown, the comedy team of Wheeler and Woolsey and Will Rogers.

The message found in "The Love Parade" is every man must be king of his castle. In today's world that is a very old-fashion sentiment and it may turn off some modern viewers. They may go as far as calling the movie "sexist". I can't deny the unappealing nature of the movie to modern eyes but I still enjoy the movie. For me it is a harmless piece of Hollywood escapism.

The musical was still in its early stages when Lubitsch directed this movie but his musicals really stand out against the other musicals of the time and what was to come afterwards. The musicals of the time, understandably, placed great emphasis on the songs and were usually back stage musicals revolving around characters putting together a show on Broadway. Lubitsch on the other hand made musical comedies that were comedies first. "The Love Parade" could function just as well as a straight comedy. If every song was removed from the movie the sparkling dialogue would still shine through. Not many musical comedies of the period could pull off this feat as well.

For its trouble "The Love Parade" was nominated for six Academy Awards including best picture, best director and best actor. Unfortunately it didn't win any awards. It lost the best picture Oscar to "All Quiet on the Western Front" (1930) and the movie's director, Lewis Milestone, won best director. Chavalier lost the best actor award to George Arliss for his performance in "Disraeli" (1929).

"The Love Parade" is a wonderful, entertaining and charming musical directed by Ernst Lubitsch. Its old-fashion message hopefully won't turn off too many younger viewers. Hopefully they can still be able to appreciate the witty dialogue and the performances given by Chavalier and MacDonald. This is truly a wonderful comedy.