• Make Way for Lucy . . .

    By Tag Gallagher

    Current_1280_fg_large

    D-day, June 6, 1944. John Ford was there. It was the most vivid experience of his life, he said. “There was a tremendous sort of spiral of events all over the world, and it seemed to narrow down to each man in its vortex on Omaha Beach that day . . . In the States, as [D-day’s Operation] Overlord got under way, the film Going My Way, with Bing Crosby and Barry Fitzgerald, was a smash hit. I had nothing to do with it, but the title was somehow appropriate when I remembered what we were starting in Normandy.”

    That anyone in the middle of the greatest armada in history would have been thinking about Leo McCarey’s Going My Way may surprise us today. Yet that movie meant a lot to people in the spring of 1944, caught up in worldwide terror and daily death. It had been made in the darkest winter of World War II and, like most McCarey movies, like Make Way for Tomorrow, was about people changing, awakening, strengthening. Which isn’t to say that a McCarey picture is a monologue. His movies try, quite consciously, to have conversations with their audiences. Like a modern commedia dell’arte, a McCarey movie plays an audience, conducts people through kaleidoscopes of melodramatic emotions, and unites people with each other. “I love it that people laugh,” McCarey said, “I love it that they cry, I love it that the story is about something, and I want the audience leaving the theater to feel happier than when they came in.” A movie could be a kind of social sacrament to create a community at that moment, there in the theater—at the same time that it would remind us each that we’re “going our way” alone.

    McCarey’s commedia draws us into each character, and in the first half of Make Way for Tomorrow, old Lucy Cooper (Beulah Bondi) is insufferable. Eventually, even her daughter-in-law Anita (Fay Bainter), the most empathetic soul in the movie, cannot help but look at her with hate indistin­guish­able from sympathy—as do we. This is what McCarey wants: that we share with characters the conflicting emotions that neither they nor we can reconcile.

    McCarey makes us complicit, which is what makes Make Way for Tomorrow almost unbearable. Even storekeeper Max Rubens has to look away.

    McCarey learned his trade in silent-film comedy—three hundred shorts in ten years: Our Gang, Charlie Chase, Laurel and Hardy (whom he teamed). Silent comedy was an extension of vaudeville humor, whose essence was inter­action with an audience. This is why vaudeville, like commedia dell’arte, depended on improvisation within an outline. The performer needed to know where he was going but, more importantly, had to be able to adjust his driving to the conditions of the road. A problem in silent-film comedy was how to make such adjustments. In cinema’s own vaudeville period, one-shot movies, like those by the Lumières, could be run slower or faster, backward or forward, depending on the reactions that day from the audience. By the teens, comics were trying to accomplish the same thing by test screening their pictures and tinkering with them in between. By the twenties, Chaplin was notorious for filming every gag a million times, until he found his solution. Body language was everything. Actors were models. McCarey is credited with introducing slow and deliberate reaction shots in his Laurel and Hardy shorts, thus slowing down the rushing pace of Sennett-style silent comedy.

    Of course, both the slow double take and the “non­reaction” of controlled dismay are as hallowed as theater itself precisely because they require a give-and-take between the player and the audience, and much of the magic of any McCarey movie occurs as his characters react (which maybe explains why Barry Fitzgerald was nominated for Oscars in both the best actor and best supporting actor categories for Going My Way but won only for supporting himself). Indeed, McCarey’s management of his sets was calculated to get improvisation and interaction from his players. He would arrive with no one knowing what they were going to do that day, which would be decided during chats or while McCarey played piano, with lines of dialogue ­sometimes handed out on tiny pieces of paper. The scene, discovered for the first time, would be the fruit of McCarey, the players, and the characters. “We never knew or cared when ­quitting time came,” said Victor Moore (Barkley in Make Way for Tomorrow), typically.

    In Make Way, Anita’s continuous reactions draw us in because they compel us to figure out what a face means, to discover a telltale gesture barely hinted at, and in making this effort, we are converted from passive watchers to offstage prompters. Half-expressed emotions oblige us to complete the thoughts. Similarly, we feel complicit when (six times in Make Way) two people make faces behind the back of a third; we take sides in the game. Or when we sneak with the maid to a keyhole to eavesdrop—and still can’t find out why Rhoda didn’t come home, or what the phone call was, unless we happen to catch a throwaway line three scenes later (“Mrs. Clare promised to keep Rhoda’s name out of the case”), and even then we have to chew on it. And we have to chew again to figure out why daughter Cora is so upset that Max brings her father soup. (She’s like Cary Grant in The Awful Truth, who accuses his wife of adultery: Cora doesn’t make soup, and Grant’s had an affair—and in both films, it’s up to us to put two and two together. These are instances of what Jean Renoir meant when he famously remarked that Leo McCarey understood people better than anyone else in Hollywood.) Indeed, McCarey’s people often do what we don’t expect. And often we want to shout at them, “Why don’t you do this? Why didn’t you do that?” (There aren’t many movies like that, are there?)

    In climactic moments, present time takes on a haunted aura: dialogue resonates, characters pose iconically, gestures unfold mythically, all their lives are encapsulated in body language that is rich, clear, and without extra movement—even though everyone appears to be behaving perfectly normally—because both they and we know these are images to be remembered always. These are the moments of change, of redemption, of grace, of revolution, of going one’s way.

    The revolution in Make Way for Tomorrow comes in three waves. Forty minutes into the picture, Lucy has been so aggravating that when Anita finally lets her have it, she speaks for all of us. Not that Anita needs words. Her adamantine assault impacts us, through Lucy, just by the way McCarey composes his frame.

    1280_a_large

    But now, suddenly, Lucy’s bathetic helplessness is replaced by iron control and an apology. She stares seemingly into the camera—at Anita but also at us. And speaks to Anita but also to us, defying us.

    Anita, in reply, also stares at us, her eyes baring her soul. It’s a collision of eyes, and we’re in the middle. We become the repository of the space (and emotions) they share. Complicit indeed. If we feel tempted to pass judgment on them, we immediately know we can’t.

    1280_b_large

    Crosscuts of this sort, 180 degrees, are extremely rare in films—with the singular exception of those of Yasujiro Ozu, who started doing them in the 1920s and never stopped, for reasons identical to McCarey’s here. Perhaps we are caught up in the story, don’t notice cuts and angles, and just accept that two people are talking. But once we do notice and feel, physically feel, their eyes thrusting their souls into our hearts, the movie’s dynamics change from a drip to a torrent. Coincidentally, Make Way for Tomorrow inspired Ozu scenarist Kogo Noda to write a similar drama for Tokyo Story (1953).

    The second wave of revolution comes at fifty-eight minutes, again in 180 degree cuts between people staring at us. Lucy tells us (and son George, played by Thomas Mitchell) that she prefers to live in the old ladies’ home.

    1280_c_large

    Neither of these revolutions, nor any of the scenes that follow of Lucy and husband Bark together in Manhattan, are in the novel from which the film derives. Josephine Lawrence’s 1934 best seller, Years Are So Long, ends with Lucy more helpless than ever, confused and dazed beside Bark’s grave—he dies three months after they lose their house—while George tells her (with resentment, because her incomprehension doesn’t make it easy for him) that her children are consigning her to a home.

    In contrast, McCarey’s Lucy changes—into a heroine. She takes charge, accepts death, all with her eyes. Her stares defy our labeling of her, of old people in general. We shriek in helpless outrage at life, but sacrifice is unrelentingly demanded of a McCarey hero, and Lucy is stronger than any of us. And wiser, though we thought she was totally out of it. So she does make it easier for George.

    1280_d_large

    “I hated to tell you as much as you would have hated to tell me anything like that,” she declares, commandeering George’s lines (the way Nickie does Terry’s at the end of Love Affair [1939] and its remake, An Affair to Remember [1957], pretending that he was the one who didn’t show up for their rendezvous). Now Lucy sits upright; George can’t stand upright. Like Velázquez, McCarey depicts the space between people; the columns affirm that Lucy is doing the only possible thing. But she’s doing it her way.

    Previously, McCarey’s compositions put Lucy in an arena of gawking disapproval.

    1280_e_large


    Now George and Anita form a proscenium, but it’s themselves they gawk at and their reflections that gawk back at them.

    1280_f_large


    The third wave of revolution is when Lucy takes charge of Bark. Like all McCarey heroes, she believes, as in the song from Love Affair, that “wishing can make it so,” which goes to the heartbeat of Western civilization. Insistently, she makes the best of the hand she is dealt. In contrast to the usherette in the theater earlier, who complains that the guy in the film playing there is a “rat,” Lucy admires the way “the girl believed . . . no matter how black things looked.” Indeed, when Lucy admonishes Rhoda—“When you’re seventy . . . about the only fun you have left is pretending that there ain’t any facts to face”—we pity her, but what we take for weakness turns out to be strength. In attending to Bark, Lucy makes their last hours joyful and full when they could have been unrelieved agony.

    1280_g_large


    And now the circle of people around them is welcoming, now they fit in.

    1280_h_large

    With moral command, Lucy accepts the inevitable defeats of life, defeats that are universal.

    And after Bark is gone, she’s shattered, but turns to go her way, alone.

    1280_i_large

    May we have her strength as we go our way.

    • • •

    Said McCarey, “I had just lost my father, and we were real good friends. I admired him so much.” McCarey spent almost a year making Make Way for Tomorrow. He worked for greatly reduced salary, refused any stars, and stayed deaf to the constant pleas from Paramount chief Adolph Zukor for a happier ending. Inevitably, the movie got admiring reviews and was a box-office disaster. Paramount let McCarey go, and he went to Columbia and made one of the decade’s top grossers, a screwball comedy, The Awful Truth, which won McCarey an Oscar and more or less invented Cary Grant. Still, Make Way for Tomorrow was always McCarey’s favorite film.

    Beulah Bondi (1888–1981) made a career of playing older women. She was forty-eight at the time of Make Way for Tomorrow, and had made her Broadway debut at thirty-seven, playing a seventy-nine-year-old. She was nominated for two Oscars, for The Gorgeous Hussy (1936) and Of Human Hearts (1938), and won an Emmy for The Waltons in 1977. Typical of her dedication, when John Ford told her she had a role in The Grapes of Wrath (1940), she bought old clothes and lived for weeks in an Okie camp, and was still there when she learned that a Fox contract player, Jane Darwell, had been given the part to save money.

    Victor Moore (1876–1962) appeared in thirty-five comedy shorts in the teens, then in dozens of talkies, often musicals, as a timid sidekick. Critics thought he had been cast against type with Make Way, but then so had McCarey, whose métier had hitherto been slapstick and screwball. The Victor Moore Arcade bus terminal in Queens, New York, is named for him.

    Fay Bainter (1893–1968) made her stage debut at five. She won an Oscar for Jezebel (1938) and was nominated for White Banners (1938) and The Children’s Hour (1961).

    Scenarist Viña Delmar (pen name for Eugene Delmar, 1903–90) was nominated for an Oscar for McCarey’s The Awful Truth.

    Josephine Lawrence (1899–1978) wrote thirty-three novels and some one hundred children’s books, and for nearly thirty years edited a question-and-answer column in the Newark Sunday Call, where the most insistent question in her mail was “Must I support my father and mother?”

    Tag Gallagher has written books on John Ford and Roberto Rossellini, as well as numerous articles, and produced video analyses of Rossellini, Ford, Ophuls, Hawks, Preminger, and Dreyer.

11 comments

  • By David Hollingsworth
    February 23, 2010
    04:28 PM

    Thanks Tag for your incredible expertise on this unjustly forgotten masterpiece. I shall hope to discover it for the first time.
    Reply
  • By Jonathan McMillan
    February 25, 2010
    01:40 PM

    Mr.Gallagher, I tip my hat. Barely into my teens, I joined a Movie Book Club in 1974, and one of the first purchases I made was John Springer's "They Had Faces Then," (Citadel Press). As a publicist he represented Marilyn, Judy, Liz among others. He also claimed the privilege of being Beulah Bondi's neighbour for a time. Out of the multitude of pictures made in the 1930's, he placed her Lucy Cooper at the top of his list of dozen Favorite Performances by actresses in that decade. From the book: "Academy Awards ceased to have their full value the year she did not get a nomination for Make Way for Tomorrow. That role alone--if she had done none of her others--would make her a screen immortal." More recently: There is a wonderful moment from the 1937 Academy Awards Ceremony; preserved on film and found in the twentieth minute of the "Frank Capra Jr. Remembers," accompanying special feature for the dvd, "You Can't Take It With You," where Capra Sr. presents the Oscar to Leo McCarey, shakes his hand, and then reaching back, grabs the statuette by the torso and with a good-natured, smiling expression, attempts to tug-of-war it away from Mr. McCarey. What Mr. Capra seems to jokingly be trying to say is that he thinks he should have won the award for his film, "Lost Horizon." The ten-second clip ends before we see who wins the match, but we know that it is indeed McCarey, as we're certain Mr. Capra would surrender it gracefully. And besides, Mr. McCarey has a hold of Oscar by the base.
    Reply
  • By Todd Britt
    March 14, 2010
    10:57 PM

    "Scenarist Viña Delmar (pen name for Eugene Delmar, 1903–90) was nominated for an Oscar for McCarey’s The Awful Truth." An odd slip-up. Wasn't Eugene Delmar the husband of Vina Delmar, who collaborated with her on many of her works? A photograph of Vina appears in one of the disk's interview extras. Great piece, otherwise.
    Reply
  • By Tag Gallagher
    March 15, 2010
    12:58 PM

    While researching my piece, I wasn't able to come up with much info about Viña Delmar, except her credits. What I did find was this line attributed to Newsweek, May 22, 1939: "Script was entrusted to the Eugene Delmars, who under the name of Vina Delmar wrote 'Bad Girl,' [and] 'Loose Ladies'." Note they spell it Delmars. I wasn't able to find any info on him, either, except a second site indicating he used Viña as a pen name. (No third site.) The fact that Viña existed doesn't resolve the confusion in the sources. If i have erred, I hope the error will lead to unknotting the mystery!
    Reply
  • By Richard Gorelick
    March 17, 2010
    10:04 AM

    You're onto something with Vina Delmar but I'm not comfortable with your conclusion. The name, we know, is an invention, and it's not surprising that someone with the unlucky name of Alvina Croter, especially a writer, would have dreamt up for herself the clever play on Vina del Mar (Chile) What seems very unlikely, though, is for Alvina Croter, in pursuit of this better name, would have either not stopped until she found a suitable Delmar bachelor. (The idea that she lucked into the name is not credible to me) So, I think, it's equally likely that Eugene Delmar was the invention of Alvina Croter (possibly an unwed mother?). [The name Eugene Delmar turns up in Web searches as a chess master, who flourished at the turn of the century, which would make his name "available" to Alvina Croter.]
    Reply
  • By Richard Gorelick
    March 17, 2010
    01:37 PM

    A little more Googling: this item from the Berkeley Gazette (1939) indicates that Eugene Delmar did exist: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1970&dat=19380406&id=CTgyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TOMFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1708,3276072 but otherwise, information about him generally comes from her (e.g., her comments about Eugene as her editor/collaborator. But it's a leap to think of HIM as the real author, she as public prop, and I'm not sure where it's coming from. In the sentence above, " “Script was entrusted to the Eugene Delmars, who under the name of Vina Delmar wrote ‘Bad Girl,’ [and] ‘Loose Ladies’.” -- -- "the Eugene Delmars" simply means "Mr and Mrs Delmar" I still think the name Vina Delmar is fishy.
    Reply
  • By Tag Gallagher
    March 20, 2010
    11:46 PM

    I just now realized that I erred in reading "the Eugene Delmars" as "Eugene Delmars." They appear to have been a couple, and she stopped writing after he died, I am told. So perhaps the explanation is that the work signed Vina Delmar is the work of the two of them.
    Reply
  • By travis willis
    July 10, 2010
    01:44 PM

    I havent seen Make way for tommarrow yet,i plan to. Im only 40yr old and recently began to get into the" golden age"movies.I have seen The Awful Truth which became instantly one of my favorite movies of all time.Irene Dunne is so funny,i laughed through this whole movie.My only question is why hasn't hollywood updated this movie with a remake?I know a remake would never be as great as the original,but they could give it a shot.right?
    Reply
  • By R Welch
    July 26, 2010
    06:24 PM

    I've been researching the Delmars and it seems someone here jumped to exactly the opposite conclusion. It was Vina (formerly Alvina Croter) who did all the writing but said in interviews that her husband Eugene was a co-contributor. She wrote novels in Spanish and English, most of which were translated to the screen. While material on her seems to be scarce, anything on him is nearly non-existent except for these few articles relating to his gambling issue with the tax board where it is mentioned that he served in the Army.
    Reply
  • By Jonathan M. McMillan
    February 12, 2012
    03:05 PM

    With the Oscars 2 weeks away, let's look back 75 years and read what reviewers of its day wrote about a picture that went completely unrecognised by the Academy; and whose producer/director chastised its members from the podium for that ignorance when he accepted the best director statue for a comedy he made the same year, saying "Thanks, but you gave me this for the wrong picture." Can you imagine anyone having that kind of intestinal fortitude today; risking their careers with such a courageous gesture? Now that speech would have been the perfect special feature to include on this already wonderful release. (And just maybe, since MWFT wasn't nominated, but voter's still had the opportunity to cast their ballot for Mr. McCarey...maybe they actually did give it to him for this picture after all.) VARIETY, Posted: Fri., Jan. 1, 1937 Rugged simplicity marks this Leo McCarey production [from a novel by Josephine Laurence and a play by Helen and Nolan Leary]. It is a tear-jerker, obviously grooved for femme fans. McCarey, who also directed, has firmly etched the dilemma in which an elderly married couple find themselves when they lose their old dwelling place and their five grown-up children are non-receptive. He keeps audience interest focused on old Lucy Cooper and Pa Cooper as they are separated, each finding themselves in the way and not fitting in with the two households (one with a son and the other with a daughter). Victor Moore essays a serious role as Pa Cooper without firmly establishing himself in the new field. He continues to be more Victor Moore than an old grandfather, and he makes the biggest impression in the lighter, more whimsical moments. Beulah Bondi, as the aged Lucy is standout from the viewpoint of clever character work and make-up. She has some of the meaty scenes and makes them real. Fay Bainter does splendidly as the wife of George Cooper, one of the sons to whose house the mother goes to live. Maurice Moscovitch, as the ardent listener to the old man's woes and who understands him better than his own children, contributes a neat portrayal. NEW YORK TIMES, May 10, 1937 Leo McCarey's 'Make Way for Tomorrow'...has three qualities rarely encountered in the cinema: humanity, honesty and warmth. These precious attributes, nurtured and developed by the best script Vina Delmar has written, by Mr. McCarey's brilliant direction and by the superb performances of Victor Moore, Beulah Bondi and the rest, have produced an extraordinarily fine motion picture, one that may be counted upon to bid for a place among the 'ten best' of 1937..." "Based upon Josephine Lawrence's novel, 'The Years Are So Long,'...the film considers, and courageously does not attempt to solve, the familiar but never commonplace problem of an old couple who, unable longer to support themselves, must depend upon the bounty of their children."...Bark and Lucy Cooper, whose home has been foreclosed...are compelled to call upon their five sons and daughters for aid. They had hoped to be kept together, preferably in a place of their own. But George and his wife have a daughter to put through college; Nellie's husband couldn't see that he ever had contracted to support his in-laws; Robert did not amount to much; Cora's husband barely provided for his own brood; Addie was out in California. "So Bark and Lucy had to be separated for the first time in fifty years. She comes to New York to live with George and Anita, sharing their daughter's bedroom; Bark goes to Cora, 300 miles away. 'Don't you worry; everything will work out all right,' the children said. 'Well, it never has,' Bark replied. And, of course, it never does. The children are not intentionally cruel, nor are the old folk deliberately being nuisances. It is just that each stands in the other's way and there's nothing they can do about it...." by Frank S. Nugent (American journalist, film reviewer, script doctor, and screenwriter) TIME, May 17, 1937 "The fact that a good story simply told is worth more than all the box office names, production numbers and expensive sets in Hollywood is one of those plain truths which the cinema industry finds hardest to assimilate...Taking a subject about which everyone has speculated -- the financial insecurity of old age -- the picture examines the case of Barkley Cooper (Victor Moore) and his wife Lucy (Beulah Bondi)...The story is presented with rare cinematic honesty. It is acted by Victor Moore, in his first serious cinema role, and seasoned Beulah Bondi with that effortless perfection which because it can come only from long experience, all younger actors lack. The result is one of the most persuasive documents about an old couple since the late Ring Lardner wrote Golden Honeymoon. NEWSWEEK, May 22, 1939 "As household editor of the Newark (N.J.) Sunday Call, Josephine Lawrence conducts a question and answer column. The two most insistent problems she encounters in her mail are 'Must I support my father and mother?' and 'Why should my children turn their backs on me now that I'm old?' "Around these questions she wrote a novel, 'The Years Are So Long,'...A Paramount producer-director named Leo McCarey read the book and saw a picture in it. That was contradiction No. 1: a bitter, tragic story picked for the films. Contradiction No. 2 was the fact that the picker was McCarey, who once turned out slapstick stuff for Hal Roach...and was nominated by Charles Laughton as 'the greatest comic mind now living.' "Contradictions No. 3, 4, and 5: McCarey wanted no box-office names in the cast; he didn't want to spend the United States Mint to make the picture; if Paramount would let him film the story, he would tear up his contract and work at reduced salary. "That last gesture was Hollywood's acid test of faith, something more impressive than enthusiasm...Script was entrusted to the Eugene Delmars, who under the name of Vina Delmar wrote 'Bad Girl,' [and] 'Loose Ladies'...Production of Make Way for Tomorrow began and ended with few of the Hollywood 'wise guys' any the wiser. "The 250 Hollywood correspondents and fan-magazine writers avoided McCarey's set. Their logic was irrefutable: if Paramount didn't think enough of the picture to give it major players, then it was nothing for them to write home about. They realized their mistake after the Hollywood preview... "Make Way for Tomorrow' is undoubtedly one of the finest films to come out of Hollywood in years. The fact that critics were quick to label it as such may encourage other producers to tread on the fragments of the rules that Leo McCarey smashed..."
    Reply
  • By MA
    February 13, 2012
    11:24 AM

    Isn't this page missing the usual link to the film?
    Reply