The Valiant

The organ music announcing the credits fades, the sound tracks buzzes and hums, and the camera focuses on a door at the end of a bleak hallway. A shot rings out, and Paul Muni stumbles out holding a gun. He says not a word, as he stumbles down a noisy street, tries to get the attention of a cop. While everyone around him chatters on (in the aimless way sometimes one finds in the early talkie), and life goes on, Muni is a man apart, in his own silent world, his motives a mystery, his identity a mystery, but his guilt written all over him. Muni, through the operation of the rather simple and simplistic plot, will prove himself one of THE VALIANT, but will remain almost a total mystery as he goes willingly to the electric chair.

This is a movie with a dynamite opening sequence -- which takes superb advantage of the primitive state of movie-making technology circa 1929 -- that, alas, does not live up to the opening. Paul Muni is good enough to deserve his Oscar nomination (and a heck of a lot better than the guy that got the Oscar that year -- Warner Baxter), but everyone else is wedded to the over-enunciated acting of 1929. And, as is the case with so much of the 1929 product, the pace is so verrrry slow, with the overlong scenes that suggest a filmed play. Any scene that does not feature Muni is downright terrible. He is the one that makes the movie work.

So, this is a movie you might want to see, but you might want to give up on halfway through. It is exceptionally brave plotting though, that while we do sort of settle the mystery of who Paul Muni is, we never quite find out why he did what he did, or even if the story he tells at the end has some element of truth. It's a pity this play does not seem to have been remade, when talkie acting styles had improved.

Of what interest "The Valiant' may be of today is probably mostly due to its receiving a couple of nominations from the second Academy Awards (Paul Muni for Best Actor along with one for Writing) and for those interested in surveying Hollywood's transition to talkies or Muni's career, with this being his first picture in an oeuvre that would include six Oscar nominations and one win. Three years later, he would star in two of his best roles, "I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang" and "Scarface" (both 1932). Here, thankfully, he's relatively restrained, although the line readings for most of the cast tend to be very stilted, which isn't helped by the creaky and primitive sound-recording technology. Being based on a one-act play, however, "The Valiant" is an interesting adaptation that "opens up" the play to about-an-hour-long feature-length film, while commendably leaving much of its story unexplained, or open. Looking beyond its primitive deficiencies, it's even a subtly powerful picture in its treatment of war.

Technically, "The Valiant" is superior to some other talkies from this period; although, silent cinema was at an artistic peak and remains better than these early sound pictures. The first scene makes good use of off-screen action as indicated by sound (a gun shot) and shadows. There are also a few crane and dolly shots throughout the picture. A hold-over from the silent era, the film is divided by five title cards that set-up the proceeding acts. The lack of a musical score is probably beneficial here, as it would surely be overly mawkish otherwise; what music there is consists of three diegetic musical scenes: a Jazz band in prison and a dance party and piano playing in the country house. I've seen quite a few films from 1929, and it seems that even the "silent" ones included such diegetic musical scenes. At least two other 1929 prison pictures, "Thunderbolt" and "Weary River," also include the playing of musical instruments. Evidently, it was a popular notion for exploiting the new synchronized film-sound recordings. Fortunately, the dialogue is clear, too, and the picture, overall, is relatively restrained. Even the hokey superimposed flashbacks and thoughts of the mother are forgivable compared to the over-the-top melodramatics of some other contemporary films, and they play well into the film's implications about war and the perceptions of it.

The narrative has a John Doe (he uses the false name "James Dyke") sentenced to be executed for murder after he turns himself into the police. But, he refuses to admit his true identity and, eventually, invents a story of himself dying in WWI. He also writes articles for the newspaper "warning the youth on the folly of crime." From the press coverage he receives, his mother and sister suspect that he's their long-lost Joe, with his sister traveling to meet him setting up the scene from the one-act stage version. Although rather creepy, their past of quoting "Romeo and Juliet" to each other is central to his identification.

There's the clichéd theme of the corrupting city contrasted with the idyllic country, with James/Joe killing a man in the city, while his mother oversees the wholesome coupling of her daughter, Mary, with an upstanding young man named Bob (who's so dull he spends the entire picture staring at Mary like one of her dogs waiting for attention). More interesting is the past of the Great War. The protagonist hasn't seen his family since it; at one point, he openly wishes he'd died a soldier. "The Valiant" doesn't answer every question raised in the plot. We never discover why he abandoned his family, the reason he murdered a man, or what his true involvement in the war was. It's as though the war did take away his life.

The Valiant (1929)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

This is a rather bizarre film that has been forgotten over the years but it does have some historical importance to it as it earned Paul Muni his first Best Actor Oscar nomination. As the film starts off we witness him killing a man and then turning himself into the police. He refuses to give his real name, defend himself or explain anything so he is sentenced to die. On a farm in Ohio, a mother sees his picture in the paper and believes that he is her son that went missing over a decade earlier so she sends her daughter (Marguerite Churchill) to see. THE VALIANT really isn't a good movie but there are some interesting things going on in it that makes it worth viewing for film buffs. The biggest reason are for the performances, which are all fairly good. This includes Muni who looks so incredibly young here. It's rather fun to see him in a performance like this because it's so different from what we'd see later in his life and especially in stuff like SCARFACE. What really caught me off guard was how laid back Muni was in the part and the restraint he showed by not going over-the-top or reaching for some sort of melodrama. Churchill is also very good in her role as the possible sister. DeWitt Jennings does a nice job as the warden of the prison and we even have Johnny Mack Brown playing the sister's fiancé. On a technical level the film is also rather impressive and especially the audio, which is among the best I've ever heard from an early talkie. The cinematography is also quite impressive for the time and especially some tracking shots that are seen early on. With that being said, the story itself really isn't a very strong one and you can't help but grow somewhat frustrated that there's not a better pay off to the story. There are also a few scenes that come off way too stagey and this here takes the film down a few notches. With that said, fans of Muni or early sound films will want to check this out and at 61-minutes the thing never gets boring.

...because basically he gives the only three-dimensional performance in the film as his fellow players appear as cardboard cut-outs when compared to him. However, since this was released very early in talking picture history in the spring of 1929, I can overlook that. In fact, because this is one of the first all talking pictures Fox made it makes Muni's performance all the more remarkable and his colleagues' performances all the more forgivable.

This is a very simple short little film with little back story given. The film opens with a man (Paul Muni) having just shot another man in the heart of the big city, leaving the scene of the crime, and turning himself in for murder at the local police precinct. When asked his name, he picks one off of a nearby calendar - James Dyke. When he's asked why he committed the murder he simply says that the man deserved to die for what he did and he's not sorry, but he also realizes he himself has to pay for what he did and he is ready to accept the consequences. The papers pick up the story of this mystery man, soon to be executed for murder. Out in rural Ohio, an old sick woman sees pictures and stories of this man, whom nobody has been able to identify and is unwilling to identify himself, and wonders if it isn't her son who has left home 15 years before and from whom she has received no word in all this time. Worried sick this is her son, her daughter and her daughter's fiancé make the trip cross-country to visit the condemned man and find out if he is the long lost man - Joe Douglas.

The best scene is the last scene, where Dyke meets Mary Douglas (Marguerite Churchill) in the warden's office and has time with her alone where she is sure she can determine if this man is her brother. This is where you realize where the title comes from and who it is that is being valiant here and why. I'd recommend this one primarily for those interested in the transition to sound, plus it's a pretty good example of the kind of material Fox Films specialized in at least up until 1940 or so, that being entertainment for rural audiences in which it was common for their films to warn people of being tempted by the big city versus valuing the simple charm of hearth, home, and farm.

If ever you ever wanted a definition of melodrama then this is it but don't let that put you off - it's is also a unexpectedly intelligent, grown-up and by 1929 standards, a well-made little film. A man kills another man - we don't know why, we don't know who the killer is, we don't know whom he killed. He's sentenced to death - is he resigned to his fate, does he want to die, is he planning an escape? By not giving anything at all away your curiosity is instantly engaged. It's such a clever little device - and one you wouldn't expect from a 1929 Fox Film.

In 1929 a handful of directors hit the ground running when it came to switching from silents to talkies. Most however, as was amusingly shown in the Margot Robbie film BABYLON hadn't a clue resulting in so much unwatchable awfulness. Although William Howard wasn't one of those up there with the likes of De Mille, von Sternberg, Mamoulian or even Roland West, he wasn't one the worst either. There's nothing wrong with this at all it simply doesn't have the 'wow factor' some of his contemporaries managed to achieve. He clearly knew how to make a silent film and especially his 'film parts' as opposed to the main 'stage play part' at the end (this picture is an expanded version of a very popular one-act play) are excellent. His skill is shown in the first scenes where he perfectly captures an authentic feel of pre-depression America as Muni traipses down some tatty street past tatty kids born a hundred years ago playing out their ordinary lives. He gives us a real time-machine moment.

The acting is also miles better than a lot of the very early talkies but it's still far from natural.... except for Paul Muni. His portrayal of detachment, hopelessness and quiet resignation is outstanding. Although this gets crazily melodramatic, Muni's stoic performance is both intriguing and really rather moving. He easily makes up for the shortcomings of his fellow actors....apart from Johnny Mack Brown who cannot be forgiven on any grounds. Fortunately he's not in this too much. You almost feel embarrassed for him. Whereas MGM and Paramount targeted those who considered themselves sophisticated, Fox's audience were more blue collar. Presumably Mr Brown was picked to appeal to Fox Film's rural audience in middle America but I'd imagine even the humblest of farm hands back then must have found that patronising.

I know people looked older in the past but Edith York, playing the mother looks about two hundred years old. She must have given birth to her daughter when she was about 90 which can only be explained by her daughter Mary being some sort of miracle you read about in The Bible. That's actually feasible and confirmed when you look at Marguerite Churchill because if you had to imagine what an angel looked like, you'd imagine her. She's almost too pretty to be real! You can easily forgive her slightly uneasy performance doing something completely new to her simply because she's so pretty but even so she's not just a (very) pretty face - she really can act - her emotional longing, purity and positiveness actually blends really well with Paul Muni's mysterious self-sacrificing moodiness.