Gilbert Gottfried February: Of Mice and Men (1939)

In 2020 during the pandemic, Rodney introduced Samantha to Gilbert Gottfried's Amazing Colossal Podcast, which became a source of companionship and comfort. Gilbert often spoke of his appearance with Robert Osbourne on TCM and the films he chose to run. This month we honor Gilbert's and his co-host Frank Santopadre's birthday month by reviewing those titles.

RODNEY BOWCOCK: While his reputation may have been for, ahem, bawdy humor, Gilbert was a true monster kid and film fan. This should be a fun month. Our first feature is one that doesn't need to be summarized. The book was assigned reading in my high school English/Literature class sometime around ninth grade and it was parodied in countless cartoons throughout the 40s and 50s. Still, for the same of full disclosure, here we go:

In the 1930s dust bowl, we follow the path of two men, George and Lennie (Burgess Meredith and Lon Chaney Jr.) trying to survive and build their dream of owning a small ranch of their own and their experiences on a ranch near Soledad, California. Disabled Lennie has a penchant for getting himself into trouble which adds complications to George's attempts at settling down and earning money for his dream. The film centers on their experiences with the other people working on this ranch. If that's all you know about this movie, 'nuff said. Go see it.

SAMANTHA GLASSER: My cousin bought me a few classic novels for my birthday once in middle school, and among them was Of Mice and Men. It sat on my shelf for years, seeming full in comparison with the fluffy nonsense I preferred to read. Then one day I picked it up and couldn't put it down. I read it in one sitting. The book is relatively short, but it has depth and power. This film adaptation is a little longer than average, but it doesn't waste screen time.

RB: Some reviewers did complain about the length of the film, which is interesting to me when you consider that Gone With the Wind was still in regular release in neighborhood theaters at this time. That would've been an exception to the rule, but I agree with you that Of Mice and Men moves efficiently and every moment is important to the complexities of the storytelling and the ultimate climax.

SG: James Shelley Hamilton, reviewer for National Board of Review magazine, said of director Lewis Milestone, "He has put an intensity into it, a tragic sense of doom, and a prevailing, understanding compassion, that Steinback, with all his violent sympathy with his creations, never quite achieved." He also called the scene with Candy's dog, "prolonged agony."

The scene with the dog made me cry. He was an old mutt, the only real friend of the crippled man doing menial tasks at the farm, who needed a bath and some extra care. For anyone who loves animals, it was heart-wrenching to watch the men browbeat Candy into letting them shoot his dog, not really giving him a say. His reluctance to fight back shows what a beaten man he is, working his life away on a farm for people who don't appreciate him and only keep him around for the guilt they feel for causing him to lose his hand. The scene doesn't just exist to rip your heart out; it has significance later in the film.

RB: Hal Roach had initially wanted D.W. Griffith to direct the film, and the story about what happened here is subject to some controversy. What we know for sure is that Griffith disagreed with Roach and departed the production. What we don't know is what prompted that departure, although Roach did fancy himself quite a director and may have interfered in that process. Roach claimed that some scenes that were directed by Griffith wound up in the finished film. However, cast members have said that he was only present on set during screen tests and costume tests. Always one to capitalize on a name, Roach still advertised Griffith as a producer, which led to Griffith's demands that his name be removed.

SG: It is odd that Hal Roach produced this film, because it is a far cry from the comedies he is closely associated with. Griffith probably would have given the film a slower pace, but I can only speculate.

Charles Bickford is worth noting, an actor who always provides strong support. He is a no-nonsense character with integrity working for men who have none.

RB: There are so many characters here who have been used and abused in one way or another populating this ranch. Yet, in spite of their maladies, they do their best to try to find simple joys out of life, be it a dog or a trip into town for a raucous evening.

SG: You're right. One man remembers a time going to a nightclub and getting swindled out of a chunk of money by a pretty waitress years before, but he has no regrets.

Lon Chaney won the part of Lennie in the stage version when Broderick Crawford dropped out. Chaney was Gilbert's favorite actor and he spoke of him often on his podcast. He was especially proud of the time when his son was very young that he declared that a fellow diner in a restaurant resembled dad's favorite actor. I've never been passionate about him, certainly not more-so than his genius father, but Gilbert's frequent mentions of him did make me pay more attention when he pops up in films. He is excellent in this film, a performance that is at once authentic and extreme, toggling from the heights of childlike delight at getting to pet soft fur to the violent fury of a man who doesn't know his own strength. I wouldn't have called Chaney Jr. loveable before seeing this movie, but I came away wanting to protect him the same way George tries to.

RB: You may also remember the controversy that surrounded Katrina Longworth's podcast You Must Remember This. She had misguidedly taken umbrage to Chaney's acting abilities, specifically regarding another excellent performance of his, that in The Wolf Man. I concede that she may have had a point if she were discussing Spider Lady, but these early appearances are really wonderful. Seeing Chaney's handling of Lennie in this film shows just how good he could be when he was really trying.

"You ain't got no troubles except what you bring on yourself."

SG: Betty Field plays Mae, the girl who eloped with a man she didn't know just to get away from her mother. She begins the film seeming shrill, a nuisance. As the film progresses, though, we see her loneliness and the dreams she never had a chance of achieving. She is a beautiful actress made to look cheap with her artificial curls and homemade dresses.

RB: In a 1942 puff piece, The Salt Lake Tribune opined that Field had a difficult time getting parts because she was deemed "not pretty." This seems ludicrous to me. While they may have tried to make her look dowdy in this film, their tactics hardly worked.

SG: Ridiculous. She is gorgeous.

The theme of loneliness continues with Leigh Whipper as Crooks, a black man who has his own room in the barn because he isn't allowed to bunk with the white men. His quick hostility is only a protection against bullying, because any genuine interest immediately makes his barriers break down. He is bent over from years of hard work but can't afford to retire.

RB: We very recently saw Whipper in The Ox-Box Incident, and I found his performance here even more powerful as he touched on how some people and institutions will use you for all you're worth, leaving you broken but still will not consider you an equal. I found his performance very moving in a movie full of those such moments.

Roach always wanted to get a little more high-brow and this time period, after he had eschewed the production of two-reel comedies, provided evidence of his best attempts at this, although there were some comedies more along the lines of what he was familiar with, such as The Housekeeper's Daughter with Joan Bennett and Adolph Menjou. He had also attempted fantasy films, like One Million BC with Carole Landis, Victor Mature and Lon Chaney Jr. (again). Before long, he was making short 40 minute "streamliner" films and had limped his way into financial troubles that the studio never recovered from.

SG: It's too bad. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could visit the Hal Roach Studios on a tour today? No matter how many mediocre things they churned out in their tenure, the studio will always be at the top of my personal list for the many excellent shorts it produced.

The Movies... magazine wrote of Of Mice and Men, "It is not an entertainment film in the usual meaning of those words. It is not a show to make audiences relax into enjoyment. It is a film to give the subtler and more abiding satisfaction of deeply felt human experience interpreted with clarity and understanding and artistic integrity." I was prepared for a heavy experience, but I liked this film more than I expected to. It will linger for a long time in my mind. Four stars.

RB: The local theaters had mixed ideas regarding the film, usually centering on the extremely serious subject matter. "Grand acting but no business. Terribly long. Can only be played as part of a double with something very hilarious and light or else taken too seriously," was a typical review.

J. Baldwin of the Tosa Theatre in Wauwatosa, WI seemed to agree. "Great acting. Well produced. Very sad. No box office."

Some exhibitors completely missed the point of the film, as seems to be a trend around this blog these days. "I don't want any part of this type of picture... Steinbeck or no Steinbeck, when they have to build a picture around a half-wit, they are damn hard up for subjects," said A.A.E. Hancock of the Columbia Theatre in Columbia City, Indiana.

"Positively a disgrace... should never have been made and should be kept off the screen," said R.C. Metzger of the Ritz Theatre in Winner, South Dakota.

Well, those guys were fools. This is an extremely moving film that will stick with me for a very long time. Four stars.