Let's Make It Legal (1951)

Directed by Richard Sale. Written by F. Hugh Herbert (screenplay), I.A.L. Diamond (screenplay), Mortimer Braus (based on a story by)

Starring  Claudette Colbert (Miriam Halsworth), Macdonald Carey (Hugh Halsworth), Zachary Scott (Victor Macfarland).

Bottom line: Let's Make It Legal is a perfectly good movie to watch if it is 2:30, and you're trying to feed an infant, and it's on TV.

1.5/4

It was about 2/2:30 in the morning, and my infant son started to stir. He was hungry. It seems he eats well when people are talking or there is background noise so I flipped on the TV to find 1951's Let's Make It Legal.

I'll be honest with you, I didn't watch the entirety cause I was busy getting bottles and formula ready but, I don't think I really missed anything. Let that give you an indication of what type of movie it is. 

But, that said, let me piece together what I can parse. Mariam and her husband Hugh are getting a divorce. At the same time, an old flame of Miriam comes to town - a financer named Victor. Cue farcical comedy!

Something that surprised me about this movie is the subject matter, given it's a movie from the '50's. Heck, I didn't realize that divorce was like a thing then let alone showing it in movies. Everything else in the movie is pretty standard: the acting is good, the pacing is good, the cinematography is nothing special. 

It's an amusing, light little romp. If you are doing something and can't pay 100% attention to Let's Make It Legal, that's a-ok. I, for example, went into the kitchen to get a fresh bottle during a seemingly benign argument between Miriam and Hugh and, when I came back, the movie was over!

Did it spoil the movie? No. When I looked up the ending on Wikipedia, did it surprise me? No. I'm sure you can guess what happened.

So, in summary, I would recommend Let's Make It Legal if it's on. I don't think I would actively seek it out but, if you're flipping through the stations and you are dithering between a rerun of Star Trek and Let's Make It Legal, I'd go with the latter.

Oh, one more thing, Marylin Monroe plays a minor role in this movie. I guess I'm used to seeing her in major roles. When I saw her, I thought, huh, they totally cast that woman cause she looks like Marylin Monroe. She plays a woman who wants to marry Victor because he is rich, so, you know, a standard role.   

Thanks for reading! Do you know of any other movies that you'd recommend to have on in the background? Not because you've seen them a million times but because they are just that light? Let me know in the comments.

Alright, now, mind yourself of spoilers - I've just got one point.

I couldn't help but laugh when reading the Wikipedia summary. So we've got this whole movie with Miriam falling for Victor and hating Hugh. It turns out that twenty years prior, the last time she saw Victor, the two men played a game of craps, Hugh won. Charming, right? Naturally, Miriam is furious, especially cause it was Hugh's idea (the gambling addict, mind you) to play. According to Wikipedia:

Back home Miriam explains to Hugh that she was so angry because Victor told her that twenty years ago Hugh won her hand in a game of craps. Hugh admits this, and still has those two dice with him. He asks her to throw. It turns out the dice were loaded; they always throw three and four. Hugh admits he cheated because the stake was so high. Miriam is pleased with this explanation and they reconcile.

I couldn't but laugh; "This pleases me! Let us get married again." Oh, how simple things can be!

I suppose there is something to be said that a movie that I sleepily, half-watched got me to read about it and now write about it. Well done, Let's Make It Legal.

Victor Frankenstein

Directed by Paul McGuigan. Written by Max Landis (screenplay) and Mary Shelley (novel). Starring Daniel Radcliffe (Igor), James McAvoy (Frankenstein), and Andrew Scott (Inspector Turpin). Bottom line: Victor Frankenstein is so bad it makes me wonder if filmmakers (actors or otherwise) regret participating in movies from time to time; it’s not fun bad, just bad bad. .5/4 Daniel Radcliffe provides the voice over introduction to Victor Frankenstein. “You know this story. The crack of lightning. A mad genius. An unholy creation.The world, of course, remembers the monster, not the man. But sometimes, when you look closely, there's more to a tale. Sometimes the monster is the man.” Did that just blow your mind?! But, wait, isn’t that kinda the whole point of the book? Now, I’m not knocking the movie for attempting to do something different but what Victor Frankenstein is doing feels really lazy. It’s not like they are reinterpreting the story or some of the major themes, it’s mostly just a recasting of superficial elements.. Now, the crux of the movie is, well, about Victor Frankenstein (McAvoy) and Igor (Radcliffe) as they struggle with the technical and ethical quandaries of reanimating life. In this iteration of the story, Igor is an abused clown in a steampunk circus. In his free time, he studies medicine. One thing leads to another and the young medical student, Frankenstein, recruits the clown to be a laboratory assistant. The graphics and special effects are perfectly ordinary. Style-wise, we have a steampunk feel. If you aren’t familiar with steampunk, it’s Victorian England with, potentially, futuristic technology; it has a lot of bronze work and pipes and steam. Fine. Whatever. I’m as big a fan of steampunk as the next guy but it feels like a marketing ploy here. I mean, Victor Frankenstein is big budget flick aimed at us millennials. Let me tell you, we love steam-punk. So it just feels like the decision of the marketing department to stylize the movie this way. There are other decisions that make me feel like this was marketed towards millennials but I’ll get more into that later. The dialog is dismal and it doesn’t help that everyone phones in their performance. Well, everyone except for James McAvoy, he’s just overacting the heck out of his role. He was so pleasant in X-Men: First Class why is he doing this? The story itself, at least the direction in this film, was disappointing. I’ll go into detail in a bit but, without spoiling anything here, it will suffice to say that it was a let down. Overall, I would recommend that you actively avoid Victor Frankenstein. It’s bad acting in a bad adaptation with tired art direction. Go and see Van Helsing if you want a supernatural but light and fun movie. Now, let’s discuss this movie in a little more detail -- so mind yourself of spoilers. I mentioned that this movie was geared towards millennials. Let me describe the plot a little more. So we have Igor, the character to whom we are supposed to relate. He’s just a guy who is really interested in medicine. Unfortunately, he’s trapped in an abusive world (the circus). He’s saved by Frankenstein and given the opportunity to do great things. We have Frankenstein whose all for science; he’s the “God is dead because science is awesome!” type of guy. I get the feeling that he’s supposed to be “cool” because he’s an atheist but he gets a little too carried away with his experiments for us to gravitate towards him. Meanwhile, a dogmatic, fundamentalist Christian inspector (Scott) pursues the protagonists. The inspector is definitely bad because he’s like our parents. This leaves us in the middle with Harry Potter (Igor, that is). He wants to study medicine and science because it’s interesting. He’s neither an angry atheist nor a Christian; he’s more of an agnostic. This moderate quality of the main protagonist is something I’ve noticed about other millennial movies. Consider Premium Rush starring Joseph-Gordon Levitt. He’s a Law student who doesn’t really want to be an attorney. He’s doing what he wants; and that means being a bicycle courier. But then the movie ends with the statement, “Maybe someday I’ll have a suit and tie job, but today I am going to ride.” Pick what you want, dude. I don’t want to hear any of this, “I’m young so I’m going to play and then I’ll grow up tomorrow,” nonsense. Victor Frankenstein is a lot like that too, particularly with Igor. This quality of the plot reminds me of what I understand of the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. In his one book, he describes a shift in power dynamics in society. In the medieval period, we had knights and dukes and lords - the “nobility.” The nobility had the power because they took it and fought to keep it; they were like hawks. They were to whom we were to aspire. Hence, being “noble” is a positive trait. But, if they were so great and powerful, why did the system topple? It failed because of what Nietzsche calls “slave morality.” The slaves who opposed this feudal system didn’t actively rebel they just passively shuffled their feet until the system crumbled. In the metaphor where the nobles are the hawks, the slaves are the sheep. It’s a sort of passivity or apathy that characterizes the sheep. Before I get into how this ties into the movie, I feel like should note that one of the things about Nietzsche is that there are problematic ways to interpret his ideas, case and point, the Nazis. For our purposes, I’m pointing out some of the characteristics that he describes with respect to the movie. Igor, for example, wants to do science because it’s cool. He’s ok with reanimating animals but he mildly objects to reanimating a human. He says that he doesn’t want to participate anymore but he doesn’t really give a reason why. His reasons certainly aren’t the same as the fundamentalist inspector. He doesn’t actively support or oppose the experiments either. He just says, ‘I’m going away with my girlfriend.’ After all, it’s a whole lot easier to abstain than to give a definite answer. We have these driven characters but are left with the one standing still. Consider the final lines of the movie. Frankenstein writes Igor saying, “I’m continuing with my experiments… Be ready because I’ll call on you someday…” Frankenstein’s experiments are where it’s at, that’s where I want to be. I don’t want to be with Igor as he just shuffles about. Gah! There’s the rub. Maybe the reason I’m writing and thinking about this so much is because it hits close to home. The reason it’s frustrating though is because the film doesn’t provide anything satisfying. There’s no insight or direction or call to arms. It’s just a character that resonates with a target audience and that’s that. In a way, it reminds me of the phenomenal Italian movie Il Posto. It’s about a kid who gets a job at a big corporation. If you get a job at this corporation, you are pretty set for life; it’s a career that pays well. Sure, you’re stuck doing meaningless, boring work but it’s safe. II Posto is wonderfully thought provoking. Victor Frankenstein, on the other hand, feels like most of the decisions regarding message and plot were created for marketing purposes. It feels cheap and lazy. So, in summary, don’t see Victor Frankenstein. It’s a stupid movie and writing about it has made me mad. Stupid Victor Frankenstein… >:| In any case, thanks for reading! Have you made the mistake of seeing Victor Frankenstein? Please do let me know what you think in the comments!