In Old Arizona

This film has been of interest to me for some time now, for a number of reasons. I finally managed to get a copy and saw it yesterday. I now understand why it is not currently generally available-it is dated, of, at best, average quality, not without charm or appeal, to be sure, but the interst here is for a relatively small audience. Not a bad film, by any means, just not terribly engaging. I will say that a knowledge of Spanish greatly enhanced my own enjoyment of this film, as two or three very good lines were delivered in Spanish.

I have now seen three of the five Academy Award Picture nominees in their entirety (and am unlikely to ever see one, The Patriot, as it is reportedly a "lost" film) and part of Alibi. I now understand how Broadway Melody won that year. Of the choices I've seen, it is clearly the best of an average lot. The Patriot may well be better, but I'm unlikely to ever be able to judge that point.

I enjoyed the film, warts and all, but it is rather dated. But, for my money, any movie that gives the leading man the nickname, "El Conejito" (Little Rabbit) can't be too bad. Worth watching. Recommended to old film buffs and film historians.

How the heck do you rate this movie?

In its day it might have gotten a 9 or 10; but if this were a contemporary movie, perhaps a 2 or 3, with points for cinematography and a decent plot. Compare it to the Marx Brothers' The Cocoanuts - 1929, which is far more entertaining, though the acting is also rather rough, and the plot ... what plot?

The acting is sometimes quite bizarre, with very wide-eyed expressions and rapid gesticulation. It is overacting that is an obvious remnant from the silent days. The dialogue is mostly rough. The Cisco Kid's is good, but the rest sounds stilted. Oddly, the captain is generally not overacting, and seems to be ad libbing his lines, but they still don't seem realistic, though they are interesting. Are his expressions accurate to the 1890s or the 1920s? Either way, it is an interesting fly in the amber.

I can imagine the studio heads, perhaps watching the audience reaction, saying, hey, maybe we need to hire real actors? But the key players went on to successful careers, so the fault seems to lie with the direction.

Accents? Was there, is there an Arizona accent? For some unknown reason, Sergeant Mickey Dunn talks with a fake New Yawk accent (he is the only one that I noticed). In the O. Henry story, there is no mention of being from NYC. And Edmund Lowe was born in San Jose, Calif., so it was presumably Raoul Walsh's decision. Oh, and Lowe taught English and elocution before becoming an actor, so don't blame Lowe. Perhaps it had something to do with NYC having the special sound on film projectors needed to show the film?

What they did with sound was nothing short of astonishing for the time. The opening scene of ringing the bells shows the sound syncing, and also a lack of speed fluctuation - wow and flutter. There is a lot of ambient sound in the movie, but because of modern noise reduction anything too far off is usually inaudible in the remastered sound track. There are points where an actor leans over into a hidden mic, perhaps accidentally. There are only one or two moments where an actor fades to inaudibility.

All this is astonishing for location shooting long before tape recording. Perhaps the coolest part is filming the sound of the old Edison cylinder phonograph, the best they could do for providing a musical sound track at the time. This was the first film with an optical sound track, and it clearly is the reason it became the dominant system until magnetic sound tracks decades later. Watch The Cocoanuts to hear the problems with sound on disk films -- the sound quality varies a lot through the film.

The film is set somewhere between 1897 and 1901, as there is a line mentioning President McKinley, but the setting seems older. This makes it only about 30 years before the date of the film. Does 1983 sound like the olden days to us? Their sense of the passage of time seems different from ours (see the nostalgic Meet Me in St. Louis, for example), but why? Was it a shorter lifespan, or more rapid, dramatic technological progress? Those 30 years saw the invention of airplanes, automobiles, highways, buses and trucks, radio, moving pictures, and now talking pictures. The 19th century must have seemed long ago.

The best part about In Old Arizona is the cinematography. Not only are the scenics beautiful, but the buildings are full of character, as though it was filmed in Daguerrotypes.

I love old movies, perhaps because they were so hard to find. Growing up outside of New York City, there were several independent TV stations that showed old movies, though in the Sixties, that would have meant movies from the Fifties and Forties -- 10 to 20 years old! The best way to see old movies was to watch the Late Show on WCBS channel 2, which as I recall usually started around 11:30 p.m. When that movie was over, they would show an even older movie on the Late Late Show, perhaps around 2:30 a.m., always introduced by Leroy Anderson's The Syncopated Clock.

If the first two movies were short, there might be an even older movie on the Late Late Late Show, perhaps starting around 3:30 or 4 a.m. That is where I would have seen In Old Arizona, on the time slot for people with acute insomnia, a real challenge for a kid to stay up for. But I probably encountered it as a kid, amazed puzzlement that anything so ancient had ever been put on film, as though my TV had been turned into a time machine. (And for those early risers, next was the Sunrise Semester, Sunrise Sermon, or The Modern Farmer, depending on the day.) Now it is my computer that is the time machine.

There are some very old movies that I like to watch now and then, such as International House or Duck Soup. But I doubt I will ever watch In Old Arizona again, except perhaps in 15 years, 2028, when the movie turns 100. It will probably put me to sleep. It almost did this time.

"In Old Arizona" was made in 1928 at a time when sound was still a novelty in films. As such you can see in this film sequences that purely demonstrate sound but add nothing to the story. For example, in the opening scene after the stagecoach leaves, the camera moves to a mariachi band that appears out of nowhere to play a song, and later a scene begins with a quartet warbling a little ditty before moving over to the principle characters.

The story centers on the Cisco Kid (Warner Baxter) who is a likable rogue who robs stagecoaches (but not the passengers) and has a price on his head of $5,000. It seems that everyone knows the kid on sight except the town barber. His girlfriend Tonia Maria (Dorothy Burgess) is an obvious pre-production code prostitute, who "entertains" him when he is not robbing stagecoaches.

The army is asked to do something about all of the robberies. They send Sgt. Mickey Dunn (Edmund Lowe) to investigate. Along the way he meets Tonia Maria who seduces him (off screen of course) and the two plot to capture the Kid and claim the reward. Naturally the Kid uncovers the plot and prepares a surprise for the sergeant and his unfaithful girlfriend.

This film is rather dated when watched today. It is over talkative and has just awful acting in many of the supporting roles, particularly the actor who plays the stagecoach driver. But you have to remember that this was the first year of sound movies. Director Raoul Walsh used outdoor microphones for the first time in a major studio production. You'll notice a few "silent spots" in the out door scenes.

The three leads are OK but the Mexican "accents" of Baxter and Burgess are laughable. Actually as hard to believe as it was, Baxter won the 1929 Academy Award for his role. Walsh was supposed to play the Lowe part but lost an eye in an accident about this time.

J. Farrell MacDonald appears early in the film as an Irish stagecoach passenger.

Although this film was released in January 1929, it was filmed in 1928. That makes it truly amazing when you think that the first all-talking picture wasn't even released until July 1928 - "Lights of New York". As others have mentioned, this film does not have lots of action - much screen time is spent with characters just talking in specific locations. There are no exciting shoot-outs or chases as you would expect in a western made just five years later. This is probably due to the motion constraint of the early sound cameras. However, you do get some tremendous long shots of some stunning western vistas. This was because Fox was an early adopter of sound-on-film versus sound-on-disc. This gave Fox the ability to shoot outside and made the studio an innovator in the production of newsreels - they could take their cameras anywhere.

As for the film itself, I'd recommend it only if you're interested in early sound films. Otherwise, you'll probably be bored stiff due to the lack of action. Warner Baxter's portrayal of the Cisco Kid is quite good. He doesn't get too campy with a role that could have been over-the-top in the wrong hands. I do have to wonder - why is every single member of the army that is pursuing Cisco speaking with a Queens accent and why are they using urban New York slang? Was there a mix-up at central casting that day? Was the cast of this film supposed to show up for a Bowery Boys film or a gangster picture and wound up here by mistake? In 1928 there were dialogue coaches, but probably not many coaches on regional dialect. It's a shame to think that if John Wayne had tried out for this early sound western he would have been turned down because he didn't sound like he was from Brooklyn.

I have heard so much about In Old Arizona that I truly was anticipating a genuine 'western' experience since this was a Fox film . I know the production values and story lines in their silents were always entertaining . I kept waiting for a western but it never came .

One has to be able to be able to imagine the newness of sound to comprehend the audience reaction to this film at its release . The frying bacon scene has been recounted in several different publications . The newness of sound was evident throughout the picture with songs , continual dialogue (sometimes very inane ) , sound effects ,etc. The film tried to overload the senses of the viewers with sound that seemed to come in waves to awe the viewers.

The direction receiving an Academy nomination escapes me completely . It appeared the director knew it was sound , but used tried and true 'silent ' techniques . The constant smiling , grinning and bon vivant attitude of Baxter was reminiscent of second tier silent western stars ala Buddy Roosevely , Wally Wales ,Bill Cody , Bob Custer et al. They all used this carefree , devil-may care attitude constantly .

Probably the most noticeable 'throwback ' methods were the exchange between Baxter and Burgess at the end . Both had a double meaning for their phrases which could have translated into a very delightful scene . However both of them resorted to 'silent' facial expressions that let the audience in on the meaning , but not the other character . Cummings showed his lack of knowledge and faith in sound as well as subtlety in expressions , but it understandable given his background and the newness of sound.

Baxter handled himself very well , yet you wonder if the Oscar was for the sound element tied to his performance rather than the strength of his acting alone . He always did a creditable job in any picture . Burgess is another story . Her attempt to portray herself as a Hispanic vamp left a lot to be desired . Still you cannot help but see the definite ' borrowing ' for Pearl Chavez in Duel in the Sun . There is no mistaking the copy that Jones used .

Finally , the O. Henry ending for the film was a little different . You reap what you sow is very prevalent in Edmund Lowe and Burgess . They sowed deceit and reaped their just desserts . However , Baxter just goes on his outlaw ways with no consequences . He admits it will come one day for him, but we don't see it . So there is morality and amorality . Where there is no dialogue , I was fascinated how some outdoor scenes took on a John Ford Monument Valley look .

The scene where Burgess goes into the saloon to meet Lowe is priceless . She walks in and she and a customer start exchanging ' let's do business ' glances . Then she meets Lowe and begins to condemn the women who work there and castigates Lowe for comparing her to them . Her self-righteous air is her best piece of acting in the entire movie.

You knew this was precode with some of the dialogue . When Baxter tells Lowe he is known as " Conejito " , Lowe 's line asking ' is he that fast' is priceless . The allusions abound .

Still this is well worth the time to view . First for the historical as to the use of sound . Then there is the introduction of the Cisco Kid . You have to have this film to trace the evolution of the character in film . When Baxter was talking about Yaqui being his best friend , you almost expected a pan to Pancho based upon preconditioning to the pair .

The morality and the love triangle dominate this film . There is no issue to be resolved as none ever existed . You have a story of 3 people - interesting , but slow moving and slower developing . Glad I own it and watched it