San Francisco (1936)

The Worst Film Ever

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

. . . is "Blackie Norton's" idea of how to seal an engagement deal with the preacher's daughter in SAN FRANCISCO. As Billy Joel famously sang, "Only the good die young," and all of the "selfish, sinful rodent scoundrels" survive a Pre-dawn quake here in suburban Alcatraz, except for one anonymous looter summarily shot. While Today's Disaster Flicks often transpose Real Life daytime incidents into the hours of Pitch Darkness since it's cheaper to do Set Decoration, Make-up, Costumes, Hair-Styling, etc. for Dark-O-Vision, SAN FRANCISCO not only films its 5:17 AM quake scenes at High Noon, but dresses its cast accordingly: even the kids are out and about in their Sunday Best, with little care for what day of the week it might be (it is actually a Wednesday). Jeanette MacDonald sings a Gazillion songs during SAN FRANCISCO, as her admirer Clark Gable (Blackie) sulks around with a look more sour than Hugh Grant's in FLORENCE FOSTER JENKINS. Which, I suppose, is understandable, since no matter what key she's in, Meryl Streep never causes five-alarm earthquakes (killing 3,000 plus--if you count Chinese-Americans--and leaving thousands in refugee camps for two years and longer!).

What to make of this movie? It has 3 terrific stars in Spencer Tracy, Clark Gable, and the female interest and singer, Jeannette McDonald. I cannot say that McDonald's singing thrills me because she has a dated style and warbles but Tracy and Gable deliver. Especially Gable who is at his macho best.What undercuts this story is the religious message which is about the strongest outside of any movie outside of the "10 Commandments" where it is more understandable. The plot is written so you have good vs. bad, white vs. black, Tracy vs. Gable. Of course, the earthquake not only shakes the city, it shakes Gable's entire outlook and he gets on his knees and thanks God that his love, McDonald, survived. This is all a bit soppy in the 21st century. And Tracy, although a very good actor, almost is given a halo in this movie.Perhaps the star of the movie is the earthquake itself; considering this movie was made in 1936, the special effects were fantastic, even good by today's standard. Superb directing of the earthquake scene, Wikipedia says by D.W. Griffith in addition to the credited director Woody Van Dyke.Also notable are black performers, first in a contest scene (won of course by J. McDonald) and then some children as dancers in the earthquake scene. This was in 1936 so quite unusual.It is notable in a 3rd way: it is one of the movies credited with launching Spencer Tracy as a mega star. A good performance, but definitely not his best. Gable's performance here is far more powerful.So, like its theme of good and bad, this movie is a mix. It did not do well in the academy award hunt although nominated frequently (only 1 win) and I can see why: too much religion.

I watched this film to see the depiction of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, sans computer effects. I agreed with the review I had read, that it was really well done. Certainly, the depiction of the devastation, all the people wandering about, was effective.The story line was easy enough to follow. I was cheering for Clark Gable's character throughout. Not sure how great I thought his acting was, compared to other films from that era, but he was dashing enough. My biggest complaint was the singing of Jeanette MacDonald's character. Not my taste at all and rather on the hard-to-hear side towards the end.I could see it coming that he'd turn to God at the end, after all his denials. But I liked that part just the same.This film is well worth watching, especially for the effects!

There's a lot to be said about this film, most of it positive. The acting, dialog, character development, cinematography, scenes were all above par. It's a film that will hold one's attention from beginning to end and even by today's standards that's fairly surprising given that it's almost two hours long. Clark Gable plays one of his usual tough but fair and sensitive boilerplate roles but he fleshes him out very well and presents us with a portrayal of a complex individual. Jeanette McDonald is nothing short of amazing in her role of a country girl in the big city trying to make it good. Hers is another successful portrayal of a complex character torn between her strict religious upbringing and her attraction to a man that would hardly qualify as decent with the folks back home. And that voice, oh that voice!If I have any qualms with this film it is with a disturbing undercurrent personified by the Spencer Tracy character, a self-important priest who is nothing short of arrogant. Tracy is well suited to this role but there were times when his character's behavior was absolutely exasperating. The undercurrent I mentioned implies that the earthquake of 1906 that flattened San Francisco was divine payment for the sinful ways both of the wealthy and poorer classes. Only the good priest is deserving. The symbolism is clear. After the earthquake while everyone walks around disheveled, in torn and dusty clothes, the priest is the only one without a mark on him. I mean there's nothing out of place, not a hair, nothing. His clothes are spotless. He looks fresh as a daisy as if he had just left the barbershop. If it weren't for that cheap shot I would have given the film higher marks.Be that as it may, the scenes of the earthquake and its aftermath are nothing short of stunning. There's a realism to them that kept me riveted. Just about every human emotion was portrayed from the joy of finding a loved one alive to the desperation of finding him dead. I can't vouch for their authenticity but I imagine that many of the steps taken by the authorities in the event of such a catastrophe were realistically portrayed. There's even a scene of a man with a sign that reads "Shot for looting". Now there's realism for you.Highly recommended.