WINGS - another major review!

[greggnestor]

http://www.awardscircuit.com/2012/01/19 ... more-11359" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Written by: Joseph Braverman

Recovering lost films in Hollywood is a bit like treasure hunting. You never know what kind of rarities you are going to find, but at the end of the day you realize you have stumbled onto something worth incredible value. Finding and resurrecting a lost film that happens to be the first ever winner of the Academy Award for “Best Picture, 1927/1928,” and you have hit the threshold of all things valuable in cinema. Yes, after safeguarding spare negatives from the original negative prints of Wings, Paramount recently released the prints from their vaults and have restored the film with crisper picture quality, newly designed special effects, and brand new digitized sound effects thanks to the sound restoration technologies from George Lucas’s Skywalker Sound facilities. This remastered Wings is part of the celebration of Paramount’s 100th Anniversary as a Motion Picture Studio, and their project of releasing the film to a public audience at a large screening room at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences building (where I was privileged to see the film), as well as to Blu-Ray and DVD on January 24th, is one of the best gifts this studio could ever provide to lovers of cinema and its origins.
Before I dive into the epic that is Wings, I would first like to discuss a little bit about the film’s background, paraphrasing a bit from the son of Wing’s director, William A. Wellman, who spoke in great admiration of his father’s legacy in film at the restoration premiere. Wellman Jr. began by speaking about how his father had very little experience in the film industry, as he had only been with Paramount for almost a year before he was signed on to direct Wings. However, even though Paramount was skeptical to let a man who had barely turned 30 direct what would later become the highest budgeted film at that time, there was one thing that no studio head could argue against — Wellman had first-hand experience as a fighter pilot in World War I, so only he could accurately envision the air scene dogfights that became the action centerpieces of the film. Wellman also was adamant that the film be shot as realistically as possible in order for the audience to never question whether the dogfight sequences were shot on-ground or in-studio. He enforced a policy on set that all the actors who were involved in flying scenes would have mandatory flying lessons. This meant that the main stars of the film, Charles “Buddy” Rogers and Richard Arlen, were contractually obligated to fly tens of thousands of feet in a small war fighter plane at the expense of their lives just so the close-up reaction shots of the actors could be proven as actually their own — no stunt doubles or dummies. Could you imagine George Clooney or Brad Pitt doing this? I very well couldn’t, but it does leave you kind of impressed and gratified that Wellman, his crew, and his actors were so committed to making the most realistic film possible even when their death was potentially hanging in the balance. So if your brain still cannot comprehend the incredulous statements I have made, I will address it one more time: every scene you see in the film of a close-up shot of one the main actors in their fighter planes is in fact a true depiction of them flying tens of thousands of feet up in the air. Yeah, I even still have my jaw on the floor after hearing that fact from Wellman Jr.
Another historical fact about Wings Wellman Jr. discussed was that it was originally budgeted at $1 million dollars and was supposed to have a four month shooting schedule in Texas that was prolonged to a seventh month shoot and a doubling of the budget to a grand total estimate of $2 million dollars. Some films today are still budgeted at smaller amounts, and so you can only imagine the cost of such a movie in today’s film industry with inflation added. The film was thankfully a box office success, and was released in theaters over a period of two years. Yes, moviegoers still could not wait to see the grand epic even 732 days after its initial premiere. Wellman Jr. loved the analogy made from one of the Academy members who introduced this film Wednesday night at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences restoration premiere: “This film was the Star Wars of it’s day.” True, no one had seen a film with such scale of realism and effects, all intertwined with a compelling story and strong acting from the central cast. But even more important than being the first winner of Best Picture for an Academy Award, Wellman Jr. says that his father’s Wings was considered to be the last great Silent Film, and the film that spurred forth a string of aviation war films subsequently after its success.
Moving onto Wings itself, and you find yourself stunned at how such a gem of a motion picture could ever be lost. I suppose with the Great Depression approaching, it is entirely possible since all industries went through a rough economic patch, but even still, I find it hard to believe that only a spare of the original negatives would remain. From the very beginning, Wings is not your typical war film. Most war films we see begin in the midst of the action or at boot camp in preparation of readying the men for war. Wings is a film that takes a look into the lives of these boy soldiers while still in their hometown in its first act. Two protagonists are established: Jack Powell (Buddy Rogers) and David Armstrong (Richard Arlen). Powell is a free-spirited, eager kid who desperately seeks the thrills and adventures that war can offer him. Being poor and uneducated, we are led to believe being a war hero is Jack’s closest thing to a purpose he may ever have in life. As for David Armstrong, he is a wealthy, educated young man who has no intention of being whisked off to war. David is incredibly close to his parents, as is evident in a touching scene where we recognize the tight bond of family and the tragic unraveling of it as the declaration of war is forced to tear it apart. David also leaves behind a girlfriend, Sylvia, who has drawn the attraction of Jack, who believes her to be single and interested after she gives him a picture of her to take to war. Her motive was out of pity at his hopeful gaze, and her heart truly belongs to David. On the other side of the spectrum, Jack is enamored by his neighbor, Mary Preston (Clara Bow), who longs for Jack to notice and love her, but Jack is too preoccupied with Sylvia and the romanticism of war that he ignores Mary for the majority of the film. The interplay between the four characters does seem like a classical soap opera, but its genuine and realistic delivery by Wellman and his actors gives the film a degree of complexity that traditional film narratives normally do not contain.


The film is surprising less conservative and more liberal than you would ever imagine a film made in the 1920s to be. Men, even though they are soldiers, have never shown more emotion in a film than they have in Wings. Women in the film, although still having their essential goal of impressing the man, have a surprising amount of point-of-view scenes that make it impossible to argue that this is strictly a male-centric film. Clara Bow has first billing ahead of all the other male actors in the poster and in the title credits, and one can see why when you see how her character’s arc plays out. Bow’s Mary is the observer of war, seeing how men are corrupted by its fantasy of adventure when the end only leads to pain and misery where comrades and innocence become war’s sacrificial lambs. We see through her vantage point for the majority of the film, and this role becomes both an empowering and limited one. Mary never gets her dues in the film until the war is over, but she is one of the more fascinating female roles to watch on screen. Clara Bow, one of the last major silent film actresses before Hollywood converted to “talkies,” looks very much like a round-faced doll. She has loads of makeup, her eyes light up in curiosity and bewilderment, and she almost does not even appear real. This is only because Bow is one of the last full-figured women who were cast as “ideal beauties” in film. In fact, Jack’s constant dismissal of Clara in favor of more attractive women, with sharper cheekbones and skinnier waists, could be a metaphor for the way in which Hollywood was shifting the ways females were viewed as attractive. The doll-eyed girl with the round face was fading, and the skinny, alluring, and European exotic profile was slowly becoming mainstream.
As for the film’s infamous dogfight scenes in the air, I remain in awe. The restoration team did a great job adding the special effects of the gunfire and smoke without completely ruining the documentary-style shooting of the planes in the air as they pass by or crash. The film’s bombing sequences are some of cinema’s best, especially one scene where you see a close-up shot of bombs being launched from the deck of a plane, and then the movie cuts to large explosions amidst a U.S. military-supported town in Germany. The sequences take your breath away with its realistic effects, where you cannot figure out what is the effect and what is the true explosion. I almost believe there are no effects in the film at all save for the restoration methods used on the print by Paramount and Skywalker Sound.


One other element of the film that I most enjoy is the pacing. Hollywood films had a good grasp in their Golden Age about to how to pace their films, because they would parallel their pacing with that of a play, which was divided in acts. This is no different in Wings, where each act offers something entirely different to the narrative and our viewing experience of the unfolding war drama. The first act delivers us the experience of leaving home to war, the second the actual training and live battles, and the final the end of the war and its consequences for our protagonists. This may seem very clerical and standard in execution, but this type of act division is precisely what is essential for a Hollywood epic to remain successful with audiences. Any great epic should feel as if we have gone on a complete journey, where time is but the measurement of struggles and experiences we underwent as moviegoers through the eyes of our protagonists. Wings executes this flawlessly. The film may have a classical pacing, but its characterizations are complex, its action sequences are heavily detailed with documentary-like obsession by Wellman, and the conclusion is not your typical Hollywood ending. I do not want to delve into too many plot points, as the story is the best asset of the film, so I will try to remain spoiler free. All I will say is that the film’s dynamic range of emotions is surprising for such an old film, where conservative values and storytelling methods were thought to be prevalent. The film has no problem showing women in military uniform, men embracing with tears as brothers in arms, and horrific narrative twists that only make the idea of war all that more disturbing. For the first ever Best Picture winner, there is nothing conventional about the film’s narrative.
Before I conclude, I have to highlight the acting in the film, which is truly superb. We watch films like The Artist and marvel at the ways in which spoken dialogue limits the expressiveness of an actor. Wings, an actual silent film, just confirms this notion. Clara Bow, wide eyed, emotional, and tragic is mesmerizing to watch on screen. Every nuance of expression elicits a response from us, whether its pity, sadness, or unintentional laughter. We are fascinated, and don’t just see her as a bland piece to a plot puzzle. However, the great acting has to go to the leading men, Buddy Rogers and Richard Arlen. Buddy, who was only 23 at the time of shooting the film, really does act like a boy his age. How many times do we see a film where an adult is cast in a teenage or young adult role, and the actor acts far too mature for how that character’s age is believed to behave? It is infuriating to watch and disrupts our sense of escapist reality. Thankfully, Buddy makes a great transition from boy to man during this film, which is probably a similar journey he undertook while filming Wings. Never have I seen such an expressive and wide-eyed actor before since maybe Robert Downey Jr., but Rogers is more believable because he is so innocent. There is an exemplary scene, known as the “Bubbles” scene, where Rogers is intoxicated for a good twenty minutes and sees bubbles pop out from every corner in his drunken state. Most actors could not hold our interest and laughs for so long a time, but Rogers does without missing a beat. Every facial expression of drunkenness is believable. We do not find him to be a pitiful bumbling idiot, but a drunk we can relate to, both because of his age and the fact that he is on military leave in the city of love, Paris. Rogers’s innocent charm and wide-eyed expressiveness captures the beguiling allure of war as a fun adventure, and we almost buy into its seduction until the end.


As for Richard Arlen, his character of David Armstrong may be one all of my all time favorites, and I have Arlen to thank for that. When we first meet him, as I already described, he is kind of the antithesis of Rogers’ Jack Powell. He is stoic, cool, collected, and a little bit dark in expression. You can tell that David has a strong resolve, and he puts up a front that is only let down with those he considers to be intimately close with, which are not a lot of people. Armstrong slowly begins to let down his guard, trust more people, even becoming best friends with his formal neighborhood rival, Jack Powell, after they square off at boot camp. Arlen’s performance is incredibly understated, and that is what I find more powerful than an overly expressive one. Sometimes the best performances are the ones that are not loud and in-your-face, but instead are the ones who get into the inner fibers of your emotions by a simple hard stare or expression of subtle emotion. Arlen does this better than any actor I have ever seen. His childhood Teddy Bear is his good-luck charm for war, and the object not only humanizes him but makes me recall “Rosebud” from Citizen Kane, about how one really is able to tap into a character by unlocking what was most precious to him during childhood. The stuffed bear works similar in Wings, and I would argue, slightly more effectively especially when you see the ending of the film. Arlen’s performance is unlike anything I have ever witnessed, and I hope you all get a chance to see the movie in its entire duration, whether its in a theater, DVD, or on Blu-Ray, and let me know your thoughts on every micro-detail.
To call Wings an anti-war film is really just a matter of opinion. The film’s plot can be interpreted in a various number of ways. For war film buffs and aviation enthusiasts, this film will fit as smooth as a glove. For political activists, I see a number of reasons why this film could be considered an anti-war motion picture, least of all by its controversial ending. And then there are others, like myself, who simply watch a film to escape, to have their emotions heightened to the maximum, and become enraptured by an engrossing story and characters who touch all of us in deeply personal and profound ways. Wings offers every movie-goer something to take away from by employing all of these elements described. Wings does exactly what it’s title promises — it lifts us into the heavens, soaks us in, and makes us wish we could return each and every day for such a cinematic movie-going experience. Wings, like Star Wars, is the type of grandiose escapist entertainment that made me fall in love with films in the first place.

[Gagman 66]

Greg,

Great review. Now if we could just get the 1926 BEAU GESTE from Paramount as a follow-up, and with the spectacular Hugo Resinfeld score. Not to mention James Cruze OLD IRONSIDES. Both are Masterpieces.

Must say, I'm rather amazed at the reviews WINGS has been getting. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I've always considered the picture a couple notches below THE BIG PARADE. My favorite movie of all time. Warner's needs to get on the stick because WINGS reputation will undoubtedly continue to grow while THE BIG PARADE'S status due to continued unavailability is floundering. It should have been out on DVD at least 5 years ago.

Wonderful to hear that the folks at Paramount seem to have displayed a real sense of pride in the WINGS project. But they also need to be aware there are allot of other outstanding Silents in their own vaults in addition to just this one. Rowland V. Lee's BARBED WIRE (1927) with Pola Negri and Clive Brook is one of the best Anti-war films ever produced and definitely deserves the deluxe treatment. A Negri box set of FORBIDDEN PARADISE, BARBED WIRE, and HOTEL IMPERIAL is probably a Pipe Dream, but I would snap this up in a heart beat.

Ditto for a Gloria Swanson box set likely including STAGE STUCK (1925) because of the Technicolor. Not sure what the other two titles would be? Probably between ZAZA (1923) MANHANDLED (1924), and FINE MANNERS (1926). Not sure what else survived from the 1923 to 1926 period? The big loss is PRODIGAL DAUGHTERS which is a lost film. I would be remiss not to mention Bebe Daniels was a major, major, Star as well. Alas, I am not really sure what survives of her Paramount features today.

Let me tell you I have lots of friends who have waited for a Clara Bow box set since the dawn of DVD. for Bow fans CHILDREN OF DIVORCE is the Holy Grail of her surviving silent Paramount features. Since it is so difficult to get a hold of. Being that it is also the film apparently that made Gary Cooper a major Star it has twice the appeal. Esther Ralston doesn't hurt either. Besides CHILDREN OF DIVORCE, The picking s are rather slim for Bow's surviving Paramount Silents. Several reels are missing from DANCING MOTHERS the film that made her Paramount's top female. IT (1927) is no longer owned by Paramount, but Photoplay Productions. Victor Flemming's MANTRAP (1926) was just included in the Treasures From The American Film Archives 5 set. Probably leaving the title out of the running. Fleming's HULA is a very fun film. GET YOUR MAN is quite good and has Buddy Rogers, but it is incomplete as far as I know. THE RUNAWAY with it's huge cast including Warner Baxter and William Powell is considered to be lost. As are ROUGH HOUSE ROSIE (1927), and all four of her 1928 features THE FLEETS IN, RED HAIR, THREE WEEKENDS, and LADIES OF THE MOB. Hopefully, at least one or two of these will turn up someplace. Maybe in Eastern Europe or Argentina. If you could find the missing reels of DANCING MOTHERS that would be huge.

And oh by the way, Paramount also had some pretty big male Stars too during the 20's. Among them Rudolph Valentino, William S. Hart, Thomas Meghan, and Richard Dix. With Valentino MONSIEUR BEAUCAIRE (1924) is a superb choice. Boast's not just Rudy, but Bebe Daniels, and Lois Wilson as well.

[greggnestor]

Well I wish that I HAD the influence over at Paramount to cause those things to happen, but I remain basically an outsider who was employed specifically for this project by archivist Jeannie Pool there at that moment in time.

[sc1957]

Three reviews of Wings, three messages complaining that it's not something else.

[s.w.a.c.]

Three reviews of Wings, three messages complaining that it's not something else.

One thing it's not is a "lost film," which the reviewer keeps saying, inexplicably. I've owned it on VHS, and I have a DVD ripped from a laserdisc copy, and I've seen torrents for downloads of it online. Hardly fits my, or anyone else's, definition of a "lost film".

Unless he's referring to my pre-ordered copy, which has yet to show up in my mailbox. If that turns out to be a lost film, I'll be sending an angry email to Canada Post.

[T0m M]

I think the truly amazing thing about Wings is the widespread distribution of the Blu-Ray and DVD. It's the first silent I've seen carried by Wal-Mart Canada, outside them clearing some Chaplins, a few years back. The local store has five copies of each and we're a small city.

[buskeat]

Three reviews of Wings, three messages complaining that it's not something else.

I still can't believe Paramount even restored and released THIS film. I'm stunned. I may not even believe it when I hold the thing in my hands when it arrives in my mailbox this weekend. While I wish that Paramount, among other studios, would finance major restorations and release them in major Blu-Ray releases, I don't expect this.

The Internet has created this subculture of message-board creatures in every line of interest (movies, sports, TV, etc.) that is never happy about anything. Ever.

Yes, the restored THE BIG PARADE has not been released in a home video format yet. It is a reasonable complaint, but I guarantee you that when it IS made available, there will be something new to complain about, perhaps about how the reviews aren't rapturous enough, and, say why didn't Warner Bros. buy commercial time during the Super Bowl to promote it? And the music isn't good enough and there aren't enough special features, etc., etc., etc.

Anytime a corporation that values money above all other things in the universe is somehow conned into doing something awesome, I applaud.

[elliottdexter]

WORLD PEACE! EVERYBODY GETS HEALTHCARE!! LOVE FOR FELLOW MAN ABOUNDS!!!

"now if only . . . "

seriously sick of it. enough to make me "gag."

just "foe'd" "the gag".

[augustinius]

I am sure that part of the push behind Wings is that this is one of the few films of the silent era that studios think will appeal to young modern audiences. All you have to do is push it as the ancestor of Top Gun and emphasize the aerial battles and indicate that they have aged well and boom! you have interest, or so they think. Who knows, they may be right.

[Jim Reid]

I am sure that part of the push behind Wings is that this is one of the few films of the silent era that studios think will appeal to young modern audiences. All you have to do is push it as the ancestor of Top Gun and emphasize the aerial battles and indicate that they have aged well and boom! you have interest, or so they think. Who knows, they may be right.

There's a lot of reasons they would release this one, starting with industry pressure to get the first BP Oscar winner out there. It will sell well with both silent collectors and just plain DVD collectors who are completists about BP winners. With the renewed interest in silents brought on by The Artist and Hugo, the timing on this couldn't be better.

[s.w.a.c.]

Three reviews of Wings, three messages complaining that it's not something else.

One thing it's not is a "lost film," which the reviewer keeps saying, inexplicably. I've owned it on VHS, and I have a DVD ripped from a laserdisc copy, and I've seen torrents for downloads of it online. Hardly fits my, or anyone else's, definition of a "lost film".

Unless he's referring to my pre-ordered copy, which has yet to show up in my mailbox. If that turns out to be a lost film, I'll be sending an angry email to Canada Post.

I shoulda kept my trap shut. Today I got a parcel from Amazon that was supposed to include my Wings BD, among other things, and despite its presence on the invoice (which read "This shipment concludes this order" or something like that), the actual disc was not included in the mailer. ARGH.

Funnily, this has never happened to me before with Amazon. I just had to go and will it to happen.