The Iron Man

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.

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.

After the success of All Quiet On The Western Front Lew Ayres was suddenly quite the hot property for Universal Studios. Following up on that film Ayres was cast in this boxing saga about a fighter, his wife, and his manager. The roles are played by Ayres, Jean Harlow, and Robert Armstrong.

As long as Ayres follows Armstrong's instructions he's a success. And one of those instructions is to get rid of his gold digging wife Harlow. It's not jealousy working here, Armstrong can plainly see the adverse affect Harlow has on Ayres and that he's not got his head in the ring when she's around.

When she's not around Armstrong guides Ayres to the heavyweight championship. But when he does become champ, Harlow comes back to bask in his glory and also to party with Ayres and her new boy friend on the side John Miljan.

Let's just say that Ayres finds out just how badly he needs Armstrong before the film is over.

Iron Man seems to be borrowing quite liberally from the relationship that Jack Dempsey had with his then wife Estelle Taylor and his manager Doc Kearns. Kearns let it be known to all who would hear that Dempsey was a bum without him when they did part. However Armstrong truly is the brains in this duo. I'm surprised that none of the real life trio sued Universal Pictures and Carl Laemmle.

The title was used in another boxing picture that starred Jeff Chandler and Rock Hudson that Universal did 20 years later. But that film has absolutely nothing to do with this picture. Nor of course has it anything to do with the superhero Robert Downey, Jr. brought to the screen in the past few years.

Tod Browning got some really nice performances out of his star trio and the rest of the cast. Iron Man ranks right up there with a lot of other classic films on pugilism.

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.