Mad Love (1935)
Really interesting, slightly campy, beautifully photographed. Far from perfect—mostly because the story is too contrived—it still has a lot going on in just over an hour and you should give it a look.
Some curiosities to start with. The director, Karl Freund, was the cinematographer for "Dracula" as well as scores of other films before that (and a long career ending with some key shooting for "I Love Lucy"). This was his last film, and he's probably the reason this one looks good and isn't quite pulled together in other ways. (He also directed "The Mummy," but little else. "Mad Love" was his last.)
The leading man is none other that Peter Lorre, who should need no introduction ("M" and "Casablanca" should cover that). Second to him is the leading man (the doctor) from "Frankenstein," Colin Clive. He's never a great fit for realistic acting, but he has screen recognition here.
Oh, and one of the two cinematographers is none other than a very young Gregg Toland, of "Citizen Kane" fame.
So there is a lot under the hood here. The story is set in Paris, and there are backstage, onstage, train, drawing room, dark street, and behind curtain situations that keep it intriguing. Lorre is a more complex figure than you expect at first. He's the villain, of course, but also a brilliant doctor who saves lives. And he wants most of all to experience true love, which you can't hold against him.
The object of his affections, played by Frances Drake (famous for a key role in "Les Miserables" shot that same year (but for Twentieth Century, in the last film before it joined with Fox). And she's great at holding the various pieces of the movie together.
Trivia aside, there is a constantly changing quality to the film that's really fun and engaging, and if the overall idea copies some ideas from Frankenstein (acquired traits) and makes them a little gimmicky, you find there are so many other things to enjoy it still works.
Really interesting, slightly campy, beautifully photographed. Far from perfect—mostly because the story is too contrived—it still has a lot going on in just over an hour and you should give it a look.
Some curiosities to start with. The director, Karl Freund, was the cinematographer for "Dracula" as well as scores of other films before that (and a long career ending with some key shooting for "I Love Lucy"). This was his last film, and he's probably the reason this one looks good and isn't quite pulled together in other ways. (He also directed "The Mummy," but little else. "Mad Love" was his last.)
The leading man is none other that Peter Lorre, who should need no introduction ("M" and "Casablanca" should cover that). Second to him is the leading man (the doctor) from "Frankenstein," Colin Clive. He's never a great fit for realistic acting, but he has screen recognition here.
Oh, and one of the two cinematographers is none other than a very young Gregg Toland, of "Citizen Kane" fame.
So there is a lot under the hood here. The story is set in Paris, and there are backstage, onstage, train, drawing room, dark street, and behind curtain situations that keep it intriguing. Lorre is a more complex figure than you expect at first. He's the villain, of course, but also a brilliant doctor who saves lives. And he wants most of all to experience true love, which you can't hold against him.
The object of his affections, played by Frances Drake (famous for a key role in "Les Miserables" shot that same year (but for Twentieth Century, in the last film before it joined with Fox). And she's great at holding the various pieces of the movie together.
Trivia aside, there is a constantly changing quality to the film that's really fun and engaging, and if the overall idea copies some ideas from Frankenstein (acquired traits) and makes them a little gimmicky, you find there are so many other things to enjoy it still works.