The Way of the Strong (1928) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Neglected Frank Capra classic
F Gwynplaine MacIntyre12 December 2002
'The Way of the Strong' is an excellent crime drama from the late silent era, proving that Frank Capra had a firm grasp of the grammar of film techniques before he made his first talkie. The subject matter is also unusual for Capra: this film deals with themes that are more typical for Raoul Walsh or Howard Hawks.

One of my least favourite movie plots is the old 'good crook/bad crook' chestnut. This is the one in which the 'hero' is a crook, but we're supposed to like him because he's charming and good-looking and a snappy dresser ... and because somebody else in the same movie is an even bigger crook but without the good looks and the charm. We're expected to empathise with the 'good' crook while he takes over the criminal empire of the (uglier, coarser and sloppier) rival crook ... and, conveniently, the 'good' crook is never shown robbing or cheating anyone except other criminals. ('The Sting' is a textbook example of this hoary old plot.) This plot line was already a cliché in 1928, when Tod Browning directed Lon Chaney in 'The Big City'.

Refreshingly, 'The Way of the Strong' stands the cliché on its head. In Capra's film, both of the rival gangsters are established as unsympathetic at the beginning of the film, and the 'good' crook must gradually earn our sympathy through his actions, rather than charming us with a flashy wardrobe or some snappy dialogue. Even more refreshingly, for once the 'good' crook is extremely ugly. Outside of 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' or 'The Elephant Man', I can't recall any other film besides 'The Way of the Strong' in which a character so grotesque-looking is still meant to engage our sympathy. (I'm excluding films such as 'The Phantom of the Opera', in which the deformed character hides his features behind a mask.)

Mitchell Lewis gives an astonishing performance as a bootlegger with the ironic nickname 'Handsome' Williams ... ironic because he is a spectacularly ugly man. The close-ups in this movie indicate that actor Lewis is displaying his own extremely lumpy face on screen, with little or no prosthetic make-up. Based on this film, Lewis was an extremely talented actor, yet I've never seen him in a leading role in any other film; I'm forced to conclude that his grotesque features compromised his career. He looks slightly acromegalic, although not so extreme as Rondo Hatton or William F. Sauls (an acromegalic bit actor whom Capra used in several films over the course of three decades, and who also played a gangster in 'Some Like it Hot').

'Handsome' Williams meets Nora, a young woman who is down-and-out but attractive. (A good performance from Alice Day, whose voice was unsuitable for talkies.) It's clear that Williams is attracted to Nora for sexual reasons, but we gradually see that he also feels genuine concern for her welfare. He gives her money and allows her to live in his mansion, which is also the headquarters for his bootlegging empire. We sense that Williams would like to have sex with Nora but fears rejection due to his spectacular ugliness.

Williams's enemy is rival bootlegger Tiger Louie, played by William Norton Bailey. Each bootlegger commands a gang of thugs. Eventually the rivalry between the two gangs erupts into all-out gang war, with Nora caught in the middle. SPOILER COMING. It would be nice to report that Williams is reformed by the love of a good woman, and that Nora overcomes her disgust for Williams's ugliness, and she learns to return his love. Sad to say, these things don't happen. Williams wins the gang war, but he knows that Nora could never love him. He ends up drowning. The final shot in this movie is remarkably similar to the final shot in 'Phantom of the Opera'.

I saw this movie at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, and I was distressed when other people at the screening laughed during the gang-war sequence, in which Williams and his henchmen defend his mansion with elaborate machine-guns on the staircases. I didn't see anything ludicrous about this. During Prohibition, bootlegging was an extremely lucrative enterprise, and criminals defended themselves (against government agents and rival crooks) with substantial firepower. Nowadays, drugs dealers use the most lethal weapons available: bootleggers did the same thing in the 1920s.

I'll rate 'The Way of the Strong' 8 points out of 10. The script is excellent; why did these screenwriters spend their entire careers in obscurity?
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Echoes of "Underworld"
Igenlode Wordsmith10 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
When originally rating this film I gave it 7/10, largely on account of a final plot-twist that left me unconvinced -- see my discussion board article for arguments on this score. But I'm restoring my vote to the 8 that the picture would in all other respects have rated, because in the intervening days I have found myself quite unable to forget it. When a film and its characters cry out to you to such a degree that you simply can't stop thinking about them, it is generally a very successful production indeed.

Perhaps it is unsurprising that "The Way of the Strong" shares many common elements with Sternberg's 1927 "Underworld", which also left the most profound impression on me. "Underworld" is, I think, the greater film, but one major difference between the two lies in their directors' recollections: Sternberg saw his film as an artistic experiment dismissed by the studio which proved itself as a smash hit, but in Capra's memory "The Way of the Strong" was a practice piece that 'stunk'. It's a judgement that might, perhaps, be applied with fairness to some of his Columbia pictures of that era; but I would politely beg to differ with him on this one.

"Underworld" centres perhaps ultimately on loyalty rather than romantic affection, let alone the gangster drama it purports to be: "The Way of the Strong", for all its drive-by shootings and hijacked bootleggers, is basically a love story in Prohibition clothing -- Beauty and the Beast (or more precisely, Cyrano de Bergerac). And the male protagonists are oddly parallel in both films: for Bull Weed, here read 'Handsome' Williams as the roaring brave brute, and Dan the concert pianist for Rolls-Royce the lawyer as their gentle, cultured counterparts, 'fallen' men bound by a debt of gratitude and loyalty to the gang leaders who plucked them from the gutter -- we don't get to see Dan's backstory explicitly, but it's clearly similar.

Nora, however, is very different from Feathers the gangster's moll, and her character is pivotal to the difference between the two films. Bull Weed is stripped of his bravado and brought to human vulnerability only by desperation, but 'Handsome' Williams - "the world's ugliest man, who can bear anything... except the sight of his own face in the mirror" -- has his sensitive side exposed early in the film, when we see him slip out alone to listen to Nora's music. It's an unexpected weakness that nearly gets him killed when the girl Marie reveals it to the man Handsome has cheated, Denver Louie; but when it endangers the life of the blind street musician as well, it proves to offer the prospect of salvation.

In saving Nora he has found something fragile beyond himself to treasure and to cherish -- and, it dawns on him slowly, someone who may just be able to love him for himself without the mockery of his own ugliness. She is the one woman his scarred and misshapen features will never repel... and it is his panic at this prospect that drives his fatal spur-of-the moment choice to enlist Dan to take his place when the girl presses him into letting him 'see' his face with her fingertips. From then on, she knows Handsome by his voice and actions, but Dan by his face, without guessing they are not one and the same man with whom she is falling in love.

And Dan, of course -- the only other one in the whole outfit capable of appreciating her music, a far more obvious soulmate than the incongruously tender gangster -- is falling in love in return, though he can never speak a word to her and has no intention of ever betraying his oblivious leader by letting the secret show. The scene is set for the inevitable unravelling of the deception, and for disaster.

But the film is more than just a love-triangle. It has moments of uproarious life as the gangsters celebrate or battle. It has moments that are extremely funny; for example when Handsome struggles to find an object to match the size of Nora's slender fingers -- and inadvertently terrifies a jeweller when he brings out his automatic to measure its muzzle against the ring he means to buy her! Meanwhile in Marie, lover and spy of Denver Louie, we find a figure far closer to the 'Feathers' of "Underworld", quick-witted, ruthless and resourceful as any of the men. Louie, however, is clearly tiring of her, and finally triggers his own betrayal by making a move on the captive Nora; a mistake that will cost him his life but will ultimately cost Handsome dearly.

Circumstances conspire to lead Nora to believe that it is Dan, coming late to the scene after Handsome furiously rejects his help, who has -- as 'Handsome' -- rescued her. And as the gangster, trying clumsily to revive the unconscious young couple, leans over her in the car, she feels his real appearance for the first time... and recoils from this ugly stranger to the other man's familiar features. Devastated, Handsome confides both girl and ring to his rival's devotion and drives off, drawing the police pursuit. When he aims his gun and pulls the trigger, it is on a face that he believes even a blind girl cannot love.

***

Mitchell Lewis excels as this poignant Quasimodo-figure (contemporary portraits reveal how much makeup must have gone into his disfigurement!) while the other two are also excellent in their contrasting roles. The film is not as visually rich or original as "Underworld", but it creates moments of still beauty, and empathy for all its characters; save perhaps Louie, who is pure stereotype. (In the context of a previous review, it is also worth noting that the mansion, bootlegging empire, machine-gunnery on the staircase and sexual designs in this film in fact all belong to Louie...)
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed