Dirigible

Aside from featuring Fay Wray BEFORE she became famous in King Kong, the movie has value as historical record, because of the scenes of the U.S. Navy's dirigible, LOS ANGELES. The LOS ANGELES served a dual role in the film, first as the fictional PENSACOLA, destroyed in a storm at sea, and then as her real self. The loss of the PENSACOLA is prescient in a way, because her successors, the very real AKRON and MACON, which had yet to enter service when the movie was made, were subsequently both lost at sea in storms, bringing an end to rigid airships in the U.S. Navy. A predecessor, the SHENANDOAH was lost in 1928 in a storm over Ohio.

When this movie was made, only the LOS ANGELES was in service. The movie shows excellent closeup film of the ship mooring at Lakehurst N.J. as well as her experimental trapeze which allowed an aircraft to moor to the ship while in flight. This feature was incorporated in AKRON and MACON, along with a hanger to stow the planes aboard. These two, the biggest in USN service at 800 feet could each carry 3-4 planes. The planes could be "captured" on the trapeze, brought inside and then launched from their trapeze. An amazing sight to see!

Okay, I know, they are not blimps. They are Zeppelins. "Airships" was the preferred term by the U.S. Navy.

This is a very exciting action film for 1931. Apparently made with quite a high budget. I saw model shots, large sound stages filling in for Antartica, thousands of extras, real airships, and a gigantic ticker tape parade shot on location in New York City. All of these things cost much money. The U.S. Navy's use of airships was so brief that this film also marks one of the few stories about this chapter in our military history.

This film proves that Capra was also adept at high intensity action directing (for 1931) as well his usual character-driven morality plays that he became so well-known for.

The one thing that is the most striking to me about (some) early talking pictures, of which this is one, is that they have hardly any music score. This is true here, and only adds to the isolated feeling in the scenes of the doomed expedition struggling to escape from the frozen tundra. Plenty of sound effects in the scenes of the doomed Pensacola going down, but no music. In fact, the film even uses a few silent film style narration cards.

Anyway, in spite of this film dating from 1931, it has aged really well and doesn't seem too dated at all. A nice action/adventure film. The print they showed on TCM on television was in very good shape, even the sound was strong in most places. Yes, the love story seemed tacked on, but there are thousands of films in the history of Hollywood that could have survived artistically with their romantic subplots (probably inserted at the insistence of cigar-chewing studio bosses to get "the female market") jettisoned. In any case, this movie is quite entertaining and Worth checking out.

Return to the heady days of the 1920s, when the strategic bombers of World War I were still seen as a viable alternative to the rickety airplanes of the day. While the acting is wooden and stereotypical (brave fly boy, conservative large "ship" commander, frail stay at home wife), just seeing the footage of the long-gone rigid airships is worth the tariff.

The best shot is near the beginning, when the camera pans upward, past round naval observation balloons, surprisingly modern non-rigid 'blimps' flying in formation, and then (above them all) the massive (larger by a factor of five or more) dirigible of the title.

Scenes of the real dirigible flying, landing, dropping naval "parachute men", and hooking up to the mooring mast are also worth the time.

Not so much the rest of the movie. Period special effects do not hold up well under modern scrutiny, and the silly pining away of Fay Wray really gets in the way.

(Odd too is the fact that the Review Board passed on a plot line involving an obviously cheating on her husband woman, including a racy scene at the beach where the two have been sharing an afternoon swimming, barely clad by 1930s standards). Perhaps this was during the Hays to Breen transition period, and it slipped under the radar.)

Note that the poor USS Pensacola (a mythical Navy airship; there was a cruiser by that name but never an aircraft) doesn't catch fire, despite the dramatic breakup of the structure. US airship were filled with helium (due to the almost monopolistic corner of the world's supply of helium by the US), and although they suffered through a series of dramatic crashes (Shenandoah, Akron, Macon), none of them caught fire a la the Hindenburg.

Buy it in the newly released DVD for the flying, and try to ignore the rest. (Oh, and Fay Wray looks far better as a brunette than she ever did as a blonde.)

This is a must-see film for people like me. I am a history teacher and love aviation and especially dirigibles. Despite how amazingly large and spectacular these airships were, very few films were ever made about them. Here, fortunately, is a homage to America's rather ill-fated dirigible service operated by the US Navy. Additionally, fans of naval aviation will also be thrilled by the airplanes and aircraft carrier (USS Lexington) featured in the film. However, to those out there that could care less about these things, there is little that will interest you about the film--particularly since the romance in the film seems "tacked on" and confusing.

But first, a bit of background. In the 1930s, the Navy purchased some of these airships from the Germans and also made some their own--all of which eventually crashed! Some of this was due to pilot error and some of this was due to the weaknesses of the American designs. So, since the use of these enormous gas-bags was limited to a very short period of time, there just isn't all that much information about them. In hindsight, they were a very cool idea that was already impractical and outdated--at least as far as military use goes. One of the airships in the film (the Pensacola) did not exist, while the Los Angeles was an actual airship.

So back to the film. The aerial sequences are generally quite good and a lot of actual footage was rather seamlessly integrated into the film--in particular, the amazing Aviation Day sequence where two dirigibles and many non-rigid airships fill the screen. Also, while a bit ponderous, the Antarctic scenes were well made and interesting. BUT, the gratuitous romance just got in the way of the film and made no sense. Because Fay Wray loved her husband so much, she wanted to leave him? And then, when he's nearly killed, she calls off her plans to run away with his ex-best friend and returns! It's convoluted and senseless and a major distraction.

A reasonably decent motion picture for its time, the one attribute that makes this film stand out from its standard storyline, is its footage and scenes regarding dirigibles. When this film was released in 1931, it was the golden age of zeppelin travel, and the crash of the Hindenburg, which doomed this type of transportation, was still five years in the future. There were numerous scenes shot at Lakehurst Naval Air station, where ironically the Hindenburg crashed, that was the center of dirigible activity at the time for the U.S. Navy. As someone who is interested in this subject, I found this part of the movie fascinating as well as the part of the story that took you behind the scenes of airship travel and how much danger could be involved. The riveting scene dealing with the crash of a dirigible in a violent storm brought to mind the U.S. Navy zeppelin Akron, launched the same year as this film, which was destroyed in a similar storm only two years later. It was also interesting to see actress Fay Wray two years before she would gain fame with her role in King Kong. I had the opportunity to catch this film recently during an airing on the TCM cable channel and would recommend it for anyone with a similar interest.