The Iron Man

When you enter into a film, you are accepting a world. You are accepting whatever God and physics and mythology that the filmmaker has created. Within that world, wheels turn and things happen.

All too often we think the movie is about those happenings. We focus on characters and the emotions they convey. But the deeper influence of a film is in how the world works.

Over time, movie watchers develop a sensitivity to this and make choices about which worlds resonate or not.

I have decided to boycott Glazier/Howard films because they are convinced that we like a world where some bad things happen as if they were rainstorms, but the entire cosmos is infused with a happy sweetness.

If you watch film deeply, this can ruin your whole day, with great expenditures of psychic energy in buying back your individuality. So instead of seeing "Cinderella Man" which is in the theaters now, I sought another boxing movie instead.

Sure, we have "Raging Bull" which is an exercise in visualizing a brutal personality. And we have "Rocky" which is sort of cold war ode to nationalism. But I chose this because it is by a director whose world I respect.

Tod Browning's world is a complex one, not catagorizable in terms of a single type of God or fate, depending on how you think. He himself comes from a circus world with some elements of risk, some of heavy fate, and others of practiced comedy tied to honor.

I credit Browning with laying the groundwork that allowed noir to take hold in the 30s, probably the strongest influence in film. So this film is about a contender, several actually. And it IS a contender, but unlike Howard's cardboard guy, this fellow has a wife that destroys the first layer of his world in order to expose and reinforce the larger world.

In the story, that's the world of honor and striving and self assurance. In the world of film, it is the world of self awareness and the link of fate to the game.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

For a boxing movie, there really isn't a lot of boxing in the movie, perhaps ten minutes total. Apparently the original ran 73 minutes and the version I saw on Youtube ran 68 minutes. I suspect the missing five minutes were boxing scenes.

This may be a blessing as Lew Ayres is certainly too handsome and collegiate looking for a boxer. Without muscles, he certainly does not physically resemble any contemporary boxers.

However, the reason to watch this story is not the boxing, but to watch a strong tale of friendship between a coach and an athlete and the selfish, sinful woman who disrupts it.

The acting is terrific. Robert Armstrong had only been starring in movies since 1928 when this was made in 1931, yet this was his 20th starring role. This was two years before his career making performances in "King Kong," and "Son of Kong," but it is easy to see why he was chosen for the lead in those movies. He gives a rock solid, believable performance here.

Lew Ayres is a bit uneven at the beginning, but eventually grows into the part. He was 23 years old and only in his fifth starring role, with the first being the classic anti-war film "All Quiet on the Western Front." It seems that Ayres was trying to develop a tough guy image after the romantic image he portrayed in that first film. My guess is that it was the studio's decision. It worked with song and dance man James Cagney, but not with Ayres. Still, he's a great actor and is easy to watch throughout.

I was surprised at how well Jean Harlow did. We should remember that she was only 21 and this was only her fourth starring role. She is quite despicable in the movie, but that was her part. She plays it with intensity and believably. I think reviewers here are criticizing her unfairly, because she doesn't show much of her comic or sexy siren side here. However, that is not the role. She is a jaded, mean, despicable woman and she plays it straight.

Again, this is a good dramatic piece and those looking for a sports movie or light comedy (although it does have moments of humor) will be disappointed. Those looking for sharp direction from Tod Browning and wonderful performances from three great actors will enjoy the movie.

While its age is showing, "Iron Man" may be worth spending just over a hour of your time mainly because of the participation of 2 major names in film history: Jean Harlow (in a very early role) and Tod Browning (who directed "Dracula"). Just don't expect anything special. View the "Iron Man" as a relic of Hollywood's early years when sound was new and (mercifully) running times were short.

I know that this Tod Browning's picture will be remade twenty years later starring Jeff Chandler, but this movie is not the best about prize fighting, it's not THE SET UP or THE CHAMPION, or REQUIEM FOR A HEAVY WEIGHT or RAGING BULL.... It must be seen as a sport drama, a character study in the sport domain. Lew Ayres was here at his peak, just one year after ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT. So, yes, from Tod Browning in a no Lon Chaney Sr like film, without any monster or twisted, weird plot, it is a worth watching item. It belongs to the best sports dramas, at least for the pre code era, I have ever seen, better than some Warner movies, which were too fast paced for my taste and above all for this kind of story.

... Todd Browning directing a movie about prize fighting?? But if you give it a closer look it really is Todd Browning's style. After all, Browning usually directed films about familiar human emotions - love, revenge, longing - in an unfamiliar setting whether it was Freaks or the Lon Chaney collaborations. So what is this film's central theme? Oddly enough it really has nothing to do with prize fighting and everything to do with unrequited love.

Lew Ayres is Kid Mason, the Iron Man that actually doesn't look much like a fighter at all. Very much in character is Robert Armstrong as George Regan, Mason's manager. Harlow is just getting started at playing the platinum blonde femme fatale, and she is pretty good here. Finally there is the unfairly forgotten John Miljan, playing the early talkie slimy villain that he did so well.

The basic plot is a familiar one - Kid Mason is all wrapped up in his wife Rose (Harlow) who is only interested in the Kid when he's on top and in the dough. At the beginning of the film she dumps him after he loses a series of fights. With Rose gone the Kid concentrates on his training and pretty soon he's won the championship. Oddly enough - or not - Rose suddenly finds the Kid irresistible again and the poor Kid, whose head more than his muscles seems to be laden with iron, is like a dog on a leash once more.

Now manager Regan has plowed a lot of time, money, and energy into training Mason, and he would have a right to be sore about all of this. However, he really doesn't act like a brother figure, father figure, or even your James Gleason style "why don't you get wise to yourself" wise-cracking kind of manager. Instead of being angry at the Kid's blindness to Rose's intentions, he acts like a man thrown over - drinking heavily after Mason deserts him surrounded by photos of the Kid.

Watch for yourself and see what you think. It's just another example of one of the odd little films that could only have been made in the precode era and probably only at Universal, a studio that would seemingly try anything in the early 30's.