tpatbour

First and foremost, "The Man Who Played God" (1932) is not a Bette Davis vehicle. She was still a few years away from receiving top billing and graduating into 'A' pictures. However, the mere fact that she's in this overlooked and forgotten film will only push it into wider circulation and rapidly increase its number of viewers. So much has already been said about her, there's very little one can add to further compliment her. Personally, I think she gave some of her best performances in these early 1930s B programmers for Warner Bros. Sure, the material wasn't nearly as good, which only made her performances stand out all the more. But Bette Davis has little to do with what stands out about this movie.

After losing his hearing, a well-loved and respected piano player (George Arliss) becomes a recluse. He rejects most of his old friends and companions, and is cruel to the few he does see. He learns to read lips, but grows more and more depressed at the same time. And finally when he has hit rock bottom, he finds a purpose in his life,... philanthropy. Putting aside his own problems and selfishness, his salvation comes from helping others. This is a theme that would recur over and over again to varying degrees in the Depression era 30s (especially in Frank Capra's movies).

The other thing of interest here is the act of voyeurism. Through the aid of binoculars, he's able to read lips, and essentially, spy on everyday New Yorker's. One can't help but wonder if this little movie may have had some influence or have been the basis for the idea of Cornell Woolrich's short story "It Had to Be Murder", which would be eventually adapted into Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window" (1954).

This movie, is, by no means a masterpiece, but its still an important one. With so many interesting ideas going on here, its well worth the watch.

This is a remake of the 1932 version starring the great Barbara Stanwyck. Not quite a shot-for-shot remake. This version is longer and includes some material the original left out and has a slightly more cynical ending than the original. All you need to know about the first version is Warner Bros./ First National/ Vitaphone, which equates to a mass produced, assembly line product running typically 60-80 minutes in length. That's just how most Hollywood films were in the early 30s. And often times, the movie suffered, as a result. All that being said, this version is considerably better.

Jane Wyman is great as always, and by this time in her career, she was able to be much more selective of the types of roles she chose. Sterling Hayden is pretty much the same in every role he ever appeared in: stoic; regardless of the material. Nancy Olson does a good job, but is not on screen hardly at all. The biggest problem, however, is Steve Forrest as Wyman's son. He's stiff, bland, and doesn't appear to have any acting ability whatsoever.

The most curious aspect of this picture, however, is it's director,... Robert Wise. Wise first made a name for himself early on as the editor for Orson Welles' first two films, "Citizen Kane" and "The Magnificent Ambersons". This is one of only a few directors (the other 2 who come to mind: Howard Hawks and George Cukor) who made a movie in every genre. And to go a step further, he made masterpieces in every genre except perhaps comedy and western (horror- "The Body Snatcher", "The Haunting"; sci-fi- "The Day the Earth Stood Still", film noir- "The Set-Up", "Odds Against Tomorrow", musical- "West Side Story", "The Sound of Music", drama- "The Sand Pebbles", "Somebody Up There Likes Me")

Does this sound like someone who should be directing a remake of "So Big"? (He already had "The Set-Up" and "The Day the Earth Stood Still" under his belt.) That's not to say there's anything wrong with this picture. It is what it is: an above average melodrama. The point is a much less talented director could have handled it. It always amazes me how such a brilliant man like this wasn't appreciated more. His career was filled with films just like this, sandwiched in between his great ones. It was quite common at that time for directors to be assigned to direct something, often without even having a chance to read the script before deciding whether they wanted to or not. Saying 'No' to the studio bosses wasn't much of an option either, if you wanted to keep working. And I can't help but wonder if that was the case quite frequently with Wise as well, directing whatever he was told to. As a result, he's never mentioned with the great directors, and that's very unfortunate. If you haven't already, make it a point to start watching his movies. Not just his masterpieces, all of them. This is a great director who deserves to be more recognized.

Included in Warner Home Video's Tennessee Williams boxed set, this 1973 quasi-documentary consists mainly of interviews of Williams himself and actors acting out in some cases actual scenes from his plays/movies ("The Glass Menagerie" and "The Night of the Iguana") or scenes that never actually occurred, but that Williams imagined to be extenuations of his characters thoughts/emotions (Jessica Tandy, who played Blanche in "A Streetcar Named Desire" on Broadway but was snubbed in favor of Vivien Leigh for the filmed version, recites a scene) and (Burl Ives acting out a younger version of his 'Big Daddy' character from "Cat On a Hot Tin Roof").

Overall it is a disappointment. The interviews with Williams, while informative aren't all that interesting. The acted out scenes are very dull (compare the two reciting from "Iguana" to Richard Burton and Deborah Kerr-- the difference is day and night). Although with an extremely low budget, one should probably not expect too much. Not a total waste of time, but nothing too insightful either, and something you'll quickly forget.