Hmmm, that sounds really interesting--but then again, I've liked everything I've heard about King Vidor.
I've seen three of his silent movies and I recommend all of them: The Big Parade (1925), The Crowd (1928), and Show People (1928). The first two are straight-up great movies; the third isn't a great movie, but it's a fun piece of Hollywood meta and it shows off both the comic talents of Marion Davies and the force of charm that is William Haines, an incredibly appealing, lively, naturalistic silent star whose career ended sharply in 1934 when he refused to trade his longtime boyfriend for a beard at the request of MGM; he never made another movie after that year and he lived with his partner Jimmie Shields until his death in 1973, famously "the happiest married couple in Hollywood." So that part is a happy ending—considered Hollywood's first openly gay male star, he never let himself be stuffed into the closet he'd never been in—but, man, I'd have been interested to see his talking pictures. That was less about King Vidor than you asked for and more about William Haines, but seriously, if The Crowd ever stops being painful to think about, I'll praise it extensively. Vidor also directed the Kansas sequences of The Wizard of Oz (1939), but I didn't know that until recently.
My local BMV has three copies of The River. Would you say it's worth the buy?
I would: I saw it in 2011 and loved the hell out of it, I just utterly failed to write about it at the time and wouldn't mind seeing it again before I tried. Among other things, it has beautiful cinematography, a drifting plot that never feels pointless, several interesting non-romantic relationships, a non-tragic biracial character, a serious treatment of a girl's evolution as a writer, a refreshing amount of female interiority and agency in general, really good work by nonprofessional actors, an intelligent understanding of colonialism, and a terrific dance sequence retelling the story of Radha and Krishna. Esmond Knight and Arthur Shields play supporting roles and I am always glad to see both of them. Satyajit Ray scouted locations for Renoir, who in turn encouraged him in his work on Pather Panchali (1955). The film was shot in Technicolor and must look amazing on a big screen; I rented the Criterion DVD from the library. And I'm sure it's not perfect, but I remember it did an solid job of avoiding Orientalism, which considering that it's a story made by a French filmmaker about an English family in Raj India (the frame of the voiceover is contemporary, but the action of the film takes place in the 1920's; rushthatspeaks could place it within two or three years by the clothes) might be some kind of record. Anyway, in answer to your question: enthusiastically yes.
no subject
I've seen three of his silent movies and I recommend all of them: The Big Parade (1925), The Crowd (1928), and Show People (1928). The first two are straight-up great movies; the third isn't a great movie, but it's a fun piece of Hollywood meta and it shows off both the comic talents of Marion Davies and the force of charm that is William Haines, an incredibly appealing, lively, naturalistic silent star whose career ended sharply in 1934 when he refused to trade his longtime boyfriend for a beard at the request of MGM; he never made another movie after that year and he lived with his partner Jimmie Shields until his death in 1973, famously "the happiest married couple in Hollywood." So that part is a happy ending—considered Hollywood's first openly gay male star, he never let himself be stuffed into the closet he'd never been in—but, man, I'd have been interested to see his talking pictures. That was less about King Vidor than you asked for and more about William Haines, but seriously, if The Crowd ever stops being painful to think about, I'll praise it extensively. Vidor also directed the Kansas sequences of The Wizard of Oz (1939), but I didn't know that until recently.
My local BMV has three copies of The River. Would you say it's worth the buy?
I would: I saw it in 2011 and loved the hell out of it, I just utterly failed to write about it at the time and wouldn't mind seeing it again before I tried. Among other things, it has beautiful cinematography, a drifting plot that never feels pointless, several interesting non-romantic relationships, a non-tragic biracial character, a serious treatment of a girl's evolution as a writer, a refreshing amount of female interiority and agency in general, really good work by nonprofessional actors, an intelligent understanding of colonialism, and a terrific dance sequence retelling the story of Radha and Krishna. Esmond Knight and Arthur Shields play supporting roles and I am always glad to see both of them. Satyajit Ray scouted locations for Renoir, who in turn encouraged him in his work on Pather Panchali (1955). The film was shot in Technicolor and must look amazing on a big screen; I rented the Criterion DVD from the library. And I'm sure it's not perfect, but I remember it did an solid job of avoiding Orientalism, which considering that it's a story made by a French filmmaker about an English family in Raj India (the frame of the voiceover is contemporary, but the action of the film takes place in the 1920's;