09/23/2002 Entry:
"Only Angels Have Wings - Howard Hawks (1939)"

I wish I had written about this fantastic piece of work from Howard Hawks closer to the time that I saw it, because I know I had some insightful comments to make and they've been forgotten. I just stumbled across this when I had a couple hours to spare and saw a Hawks film on Turner Classic Movies. My knowledge of Hawks is pretty sparse (The Big Sleep, To Have And Have Not, His Girl Friday) and he's one of those directors I always meant to catch more films by. I should also note that my knowledge of Cary Grant is pretty sparse as well, basically limited to the Hitchcock films.

I was impressed by this film from the very beginning, when it introduced a major character, allowed you to get to know and build up some feelings for him, then kills him off. It sets the tone for the rest of the film in a perfect way. From there the tension slowly builds as the story comes at you from multiple angles. When the climax finally arrives and you feel like maybe just maybe Hawks will let the heroes live and get through to safety, its a totally random act which tragically brings them down. Given the rest of the film, it seemed like there was no way they could possibly be allowed to get through, but I really wanted them to. Its not easy for a film to do that, get you to pull for someone then yank the rug out like that (even when it seems predestined.) The movie is billed as a Cary Grant/Jean Arthur picture, but its really an ensemble work and all the characters play their parts well.

The flying sequences are really the core of the movie, and although from a special effects standpoint they are somewhat cheap they are still exquisitely executed. Those scenes where Richard Barthelmess is dropping the boxes of nitroglycerin. They are perfect first off because they are flawlessly directed, with each explosion perfectly times, but also because they show the birds flying after the noise, whic sets us up for the end in a completely sutle and unobvious way. Again, Hawks allows these scenes to be paced in such a way that they really build tension and anxiety, you find yourself on edge because while you might think you know whats going to happen, the film has been setup in such a way that you really don't know what to expect. Thats one sign of a great thriller, because if you know what to expect then it isn't thrilling anymore. This is where Signs got it wrong, it never built any tension because I never believed for a second that M. Night was going to let anyone die. In this film I totally believed Hawks would have killed anyone to serve the story, and because of that I was on the edge of my seat and my heart was pounding.

The photography is great too. Regular reader(s) must get sick of hearing that from me, sorry. The print TCM has of this is in really nice shape, with deep blacks and midtones. The group compositions are put together really well too, especially the scenes in the bar. Attention seamlessly shifts from one person to another as the scene warrants, even in long shots without cuts or in the case when Arthur is playing the piano, without even a camera move. Everyone hits their marks, and the scenes just flow. Really a great film that caught me off guard. Must see more Hawks.

Replies: 3 comments

If you're looking for some good Hawks, I recommend Ball of Fire (written by Billy Wilder), Twentieth Century and Sgt. York, in that order. You've got some good viewing ahead of you! Posted by stennie @ 09/30/2002 06:23 PM CST

Those are interesting choices, why those in particular? Usually when people are talking of Hawks, I hear films like Red River and Scarface being bandied about. Posted by gdd @ 09/30/2002 06:30 PM CST

Probably because my own tastes run more towards comedy (exception being Sgt. York here, obviously). Hawks was a very talented director in all genres but I think he had a particular flair for comedy. Posted by stennie @ 09/30/2002 10:38 PM CST