Estimated read time: 6-7 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY — In the future, I’ll spare you unnecessary introductions, but since this is the first weekly throwback article, I’d like to take a minute to explain why I’m even doing this.
I imagine somehow, in a way my brain refuses to admit, this was a case where John Clyde mentioned the idea of discussing older films in a weekly article while I wasn’t really paying attention. Then, some weeks later, while out on an afternoon jog, I frantically texted John repeating his originally ignored idea as my own.
Regardless, at some point John and I both had the idea of starting a weekly article where we discuss classic or recent-but-amazing films people forget about when looking for a Friday night distraction.
This article definitely isn’t interested in being hyper-idealistic or an attempt to convince people they need to change their movie-watching ways. Rather, we simply hope to bring awareness to a few of the great options out there that often get overlooked when “the good stuff” at RedBox is already checked out.
Why me?
To get straight to the point, it’s because John’s smarter than I am. When we talk film, he always drops movies I’ve never seen before and I’m hopelessly lost within a few minutes. This article will help me in my efforts to appreciate film while hopefully providing readers with some new material. I need to see these films, and as a result, I will be able to give an honest take on whether a classic is actually good, or if it’s one of those movies you’re supposed to say is good to maintain geek cred.
Which films?
The selection process will be all over the place. For several articles, I’ll be reviewing films movie fans try to get around to, but usually never find the time — the Chaplins and the Hitchcocks and the DeMilles. In truth, I’ve seen some, but I have a long way to go before I say anything intelligent about them.
In other cases, we’re reaching out to people of all walks of life to recommend a movie. Local filmmakers, politicians, opera singers, bloggers, you name it. If a film has really inspired someone, we’d love to include it. If you know of a film I need to see, email me. If you know of someone with a great recommendation, let me know and I’ll reach out.
What’s the first film?
This week, in honor of the recent Academy Awards, and because this is my first throwback article, I reviewed the 1927 classic “Wings.”
Like most readers, this wasn’t a film I was familiar with. In fact, the only thing I knew before selecting “Wings” was that it’s known for being the first movie to ever win Best Picture. I only learned it was a silent film a few hours before viewing it, and, though I wasn’t 100 percent positive, I had a feeling airplanes would be involved.
So, let’s be honest. Silent films aren’t for everyone.
If you saw the 2012 best picture, “The Artist,” and had no trouble enjoying it, let’s talk “Wings.” However, if you tried “The Artist,” and not even the infectious cast of Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo could keep you interested, you may want to pass on “Wings.”
But let’s go ahead and assume you’ve seen “The Artist” and you loved it. Or, you haven’t seen “The Artist” and you’re willing to give anything a go. “Wings” is actually a really interesting story and hat-tip to the aviators of World War I.
The synopsis is fairly straightforward. Two young men in love with the same woman enlist in the United States Air Force. At first they’re sworn enemies and then, through experience, become the best of friends. That’s the high-level outline. Even thought the film was made in 1927 it has some "PG-13" scenes that may surprise you.
But what’s interesting about “Wings” isn’t the fact that I needed to add a content advisory on this silent film from 1927, but rather that they chose an especially unlikable protagonist. Played by Charles “Buddy” Rogers, the character Jack Powell comes off as an egocentric boy who doesn’t appreciate those who love him, doesn’t listen, and simply expects that life will give him a handshake and whatever else he needs whenever he happens to need it.
So without a leading man to cheer on, “Wings” places the weight of the story on the supporting cast, which in this case was a really clever decision. Clara Bow, who at the time was one of the most popular actresses working, and Richard Arlen who turned in a beautifully disarming performance, carry the heart of the movie. They’re the ones who grow and learn as they try to love the self-absorbed Powell, and they’re the ones who will make audience members say at the end, “Fine, I guess Powell deserves some level of happiness.”
You might also notice, from looking at the film’s poster, that Gary Cooper is listed in the credits. This was probably a credit highlighted later since he has the most recognizable name to modern audiences. The reality, however, is that he’s in a very quick scene that the movie wouldn’t have missed had it hit the editor’s trash bin.
But there’s one reason that, for me, “Wings” was just a great 144 minutes of smiling fun. If you’re someone interested in the process of filmmaking, “Wings” is hypnotic.
“Wings” runs the gauntlet from absolutely laughable scene execution to moments where you just stare and wonder, “How did they pull that off in 1927?” The transitions between close-ups and wide shots are sometimes clunky, drawing an unusual level of attention when they’re obviously shooting a plane being riddled with bullets on another day, in probably a very different location.
But what they did pull off well still has me scratching my head with wonderment, and there was enough of that going on that I never felt bored or restless throughout the 144-minute running time.
If you're interested in slient films and are looking for that first movie to get you started, "Wings" could be a great movie to make an evening of.
One last note on the film: The amount of time and energy Paramount put into the restoration is evident in every frame of the movie. And if the visuals weren’t enough, Skywalker Sound’s contributions to the score and sound effects gave the presentation a modern feel, which will contribute to the illusion that you’re not watching an 85-year-old film.
Where can you view it?
Unfortunately for NetFlix and HuluPlus subscribers, this isn’t available for streaming. However, iTunes, Amazon Prime and Vudu offer it in HD for less than five bucks.
Travis has been writing tech and film reviews for Deseret News and KSL.com since 2010, and continues to contribute coverage for the Sundance Film Festival and other live events here in Utah. You can contact Travis at TSPoppleton@gmail.com.
