BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

VividSimon Simply Perfect

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

rdjeffers Monday January 29, 7pm, The Paramount, Seattle "Love is like the measles. When it comes, you cannot stop it." A Neapolitan orphan girl joins the circus to escape prison and falls in love with a vagabond painter. Always fearful of discovery, Angela (Janet Gaynor) hides her secret from Gino (Charles Farrell) until it is too late.The second of eight features starring Gaynor and Farrell, Street Angel (1928) had the impossible task of repeating their success in 7th Heaven (1927). Despite this insurmountable expectation, Street Angel reveals the considerable influence of F. W. Murnau on Fox Film Corporation and director Frank Borzage. Nominated for the first Academy Awards in art direction (Harry Oliver) and cinematography (Ernest Palmer), Street Angel won best actress, combined with Gaynor's performances in Sunrise (1927) and 7th Heaven.Released with an overwrought Movietone musical score, as with 7th Heaven, Street Angel relies on similar themes of poverty and romance but succeeds most capably in the first three reels with a lovely portrayal of circus life.

evanston_dad With "Street Angel," Frank Borzage's romantic drama starring oft-paired Janet Gaynor and Charles Farrell, the first phase of my movie project has come to an end.I set out to see every available movie that was nominated in any category at the very first Academy Awards. Gaynor received a Best Actress nomination for her performance in "Street Angel" along with two other films, "Seventh Heaven" and "Sunrise." "Angel" is certainly the weakest of those three. Many of Borzage's dramas were overly sentimental and full of implausible plot developments, but his touch was usually light enough to overcome these tendencies. Not so in this film. The melodrama is ladled on so thick you can barely see the movie through the syrup, and the film takes forever to get around to the resolution the viewer can see coming a mile away."Street Angel" was oddly also nominated at the following year's Academy Awards in the categories of Art Direction (Harry Oliver) and Cinematography (Ernest Palmer). Eligibility rules must have been looser back then.Grade: C

MartinHafer There is a lot to like about "Street Angel" but unfortunately the ending is so sentimental and schmaltzy that I definitely consider it a lesser film for Janet Gaynor. Now 1927-1928 was an amazing time for Gaynor--she was the top actress in Hollywood--having received an Oscar for Best Actress. Oddly, in those days you could receive an Oscar for a collection of performances that year. Gaynor was being honored for "Sunrise", "Seventh Heaven" and "Street Angel"--and the least of these, clearly, is "Street Angel". While it also features amazing cinematography that makes Gaynor seem luminous, it just doesn't rise to the same level as the other two films. Worth seeing? Sure...just understand that the end will probably frustrate you.The film, in many ways, is like a reworking of "Les Misérables" and combining it with a romance. The film begins with dirt-poor Gaynor in a dilemma--her mother will die unless she gets her medicine. However, because they have no money, Gaynor must either let the old lady die or somehow earn some money...fast. When she sees prostitutes walking the streets outside their apartment, she decides to give it a try. But, she looks so innocent and non-sexy that no one is interested. Finally, in desperation, she steals a few coins. She is caught and sentenced to a year in jail for prostitution (though there were no takers) and theft. She manages to rather easily escape and establishes a new life with a swell fellow (her perennial co-star Charles Farrell). But, she's afraid to tell this bohemian artist about her arrest, as he envisions her as the essence of purity. For a while, things are great but eventually the law catches up to her and she is imprisoned. Farrell decides she isn't the woman he thought she was and starts up life without her. So far all this is quite moving and exceptional.How all this eventually ends is sweet but very, very heavy-handed and silly. This is odd since the film in some ways is very open in discussing prostitution and is a rather adult film--making it seem very modern. But, at the same time, the ending is so corny and old fashioned it seems like a bizarre blend of the old and the new. Worth seeing, of course, but NOT until you've seen "Sunrise" and "Seventh Heaven".By the way, the version I saw on DVD was not from the Fox box set (which tends to have excellent prints) but from a minor distributor. As a result, the print was occasionally rough and could have used further restoration.

tom.hamilton As much as I love silent cinema and can usually enter into the spirit of the emotions and story telling techniques of the 20's, this film left me sorely disappointed.SEVERAL SPOILERSThe first half hour was rather grim and quite promising, as the waif like character played by Gaynor tried everything she could to save her mother, including a half hearted attempt at soliciting and a little thievery. All to no avail, and worse still she get's caught and arrested. These scenes are handled in an atmospheric and brooding way, with excellent photography and a good synchronised score.She escapes from prison, and goes to the circus where for a short time she's successful. She meets and falls for Charles Farrell, a performer in a rival troupe and all is well until one day the prefect of police and the man who arrested her happen to pass by as she is performing her trapeze act. In fright she falls and is too badly hurt to continue performing. Unable to continue in the circus she and Farrell sail across the river and set up a platonic home in town, where she must fear that arrest could come suddenly. She keeps the secret of her criminal past from Farrell for fear that he will dessert her.Up to the point they leave the circus I really enjoyed this film, Gaynor and Farrell were appealing and the sequence where he rows her across the river to safety is beautiful done, but once they set up home the film degenerated into an unbearably slow and mawkish romance, and Janet's child like (or in this case just childish) persona began to grate badly. For one thing, these two relatively adult looking people were living together in a situation so chaste it was laughable. Why they couldn't just make up their minds to be a couple was beyond me, although this undoubtedly points to the standards of the time. I can see the film is aiming for a fairy tale feel - and presumably for audiences in '28 it achieved it, but for me the result was quite different. But more importantly the sense of drama that drove the first half hour is completely dissipated by these over-long and meandering scenes. Another thing that really wore me down was the repeated motif of the film where the two would whistle sweetly to each other. The first time it was cute but after about the eighth time I wanted to strangle them.After what seemed like an eternity of this bland pair's simplistic billing and cooing I was actually pleased when the law caught up with her and she was hurled back in jail. At least they wouldn't whistle that damned tune again. But oh no, now they do it in a split screen effect. aaaargh I'm tearing my hair out!!!The last 10 minutes or so actually improved as there was a very real possibility that now Farrell knew her sinful past, he might well kill her.However by this time, the film had killed my interest and I really didn't care anymore. Maybe some day I'll see it again and feel differently, who knows. If I do you can be sure I'll review it here.