Call of the Wild (1935)

Load of rubbish!!

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Clark Gable meets Loretta Young in this 1930s adaptation of Jack London's The Call of the Wild, which takes place in Alaskan territory. I've never read the book, but I can only imagine that this was probably not very faithful to the novel, due to its emphasis of comic relief by supporting actor Jack Oakie. This is the movie that changed Clark and Loretta's life, as they fell in love during the making of this film, and she went away in private to have his baby - a fact she never told the public. While that may be neither here nor there, in reviewing this film, it's pretty evident that something was going on, by their quiet scenes together, which are very intimate and deep, considering this is a 1930s film. The plot revolves around a map that is needed to find a gold mine. Her husband, yes her husband, was the owner of the map, but Clark and Jack go after the gold mine, with Jack's memory and a rough sketch of it to use. They find Loretta alone, after her husband has been lost in the wilderness looking for help. Reginald Owen is very good and memorable as a nemesis in trying to find the gold mine too, when he learns of it. The production values and performances are solid and deliver the goods, but its corny comic relief mars the film's attempt to hit the mark with viewers, especially with its abrupt ending. I thought the novel was mainly about the dog, but, while the dog, who Clark is attached to, does have some screen time, the film doesn't feel like a dog film. The producers were probably thinking that would alienate some viewers, so they centered on pairing attractive leads Clark and Loretta together and Jack Oakie's one-liners. While I liked the film on the whole for Loretta's loveliness, memorable love scenes between her and Clark, and Reginald Owen's credible contribution to the film, I still feel it misses the mark for a completely fulfilling movie experience.

The last time Clark Gable got loaned out for a film was the year before and he won an Academy Award. This time Louis B. Mayer got a good price for him from Fox for Call of the Wild.Fox also did something unusual in that the film was shot on location with the mountains of Washington state serving as the Canadian Rockies. Some really stunning cinematography is done for this film, especially in the river scenes. Too bad color was not in use back then.Watching Gable, Loretta Young, and Jack Oakie on a raft pulling it to shore in what must have been freezing water reminded me so much of the stunts Gable did for The Misfits. Of course back then he had the youth and vim and vigor to do such things.The film served as the meeting place for Gable and Young they carried on a torrid affair that resulted in Loretta Young giving birth. Back then it would have been a career death sentence for a star to give birth to an out of wedlock daughter, especially for the very Catholic Ms. Young. A whole elaborate charade was concocted with Loretta adopting her own daughter as a single mom.No Oscars this time for Gable, but a good strong performance as a rugged prospector up in the Klondike during the gold rush. Of course being involved with Loretta sure helped in the love scenes. Young plays a woman apparently abandoned in the snow by her husband who's presumed dead.Jack Oakie as Gable's sidekick and Reginald Owen as the English villain engaged in some claim jumping are the best two of the supporting actors. Of the human variety.Then there's Buck, Gable's trusty St. Bernard who he rescues from Reginald Owen. In that rugged country good sled dogs can come in mighty handy and Buck sure proves his worth. Up there, they are indeed man's best friend.

This is my first exposure to anything regarding THE CALL OF THE WILD. Meaning that I haven't read Jack London's original novel, never saw any of the earlier film versions, and did not see any of the later remakes. Even as a Charlton Heston fan I've so far avoided his 1972 edition because it's said to be pretty bad; even Heston begged his fans not to see it! But all that may soon change, as I enjoyed the 1935 version, starring Clark Gable and Loretta Young.Gable is well cast as Jack Thornton, a rugged and adventurous type who travels the Yukon on a hunt for gold with the aid of his comical sidekick Shorty (Jack Oakie) and man's best friend, Buck the dog. In the midst of their quest they stumble upon a shaken woman (Young) whose husband has disappeared in the wilderness and may or may not be dead. Fearing the worst, Young joins the expedition and the expected romance with Gable gradually takes shape.For me, one of the highlights of the picture was British actor Reginald Owen who scores high with his portrayal of a nasty rich man who's also competing with Gable for the loot. Never short on snobbish insults, and harboring a personal vendetta against Thornton's dog Buck, Owen is a delight in every scene he's in. The same cannot necessarily be said for Jack Oakie, however... as Shorty, his goofy shenanigans sometimes verge on the overbearing.A nice mixture of adventure, villainy, romance, and some comedy that occasionally works, makes for a mostly good time. I was a little let down by the convenient ending. *** out of ****

There are some brilliant things in CALL OF THE WILD, such as the vivid portrait of frontier life at the turn of the century. This is, though, largely a disappointing version of Jack London's novel. Much of his anti-capitalism is here, but reduced to the emotional progress of Clark Gable. The theme of tame/wild is invoked - dog, woman, nature - but the crucial Buck plot is sidelined and made cute. The acting irritates in its refusal of depth, although Loretta Young's entrance could be straight out of Cocteau. The landscape is beautiful to look at, but there is little sense of nature as devouring or malevolent.