SPOILER AHEAD:
When Beery takes out his anger on Barrymore with the telephone, he says something like 'Don't strike me.' And that becomes his reason for the murder. I kept reversing the DVD but it looks like a few frames are missing because I can't see that Barrymore ever struck him. Does anyone else notice this on the DVD or do I need new glasses? (Or would I need new glasses if I wore them?)
I just watched this on TCM and noticed the same thing. He said the thing about striking him and I thought uhhh what striking. It gets choppy right at that moment so I think something is definitely missing (wonder why). Too bad because I wanted to see the guy hit at least once.
shareI just finished watching this, and I think Barrymore raised his hand, whether to strike or defend himself or what, I don't know, and that was enough provocation for the killing right there. If you think about it, if Preysing had had any bruising on him, his story could have been justified as self-defense. Without a mark on him, he's in deep doodoo, so perhaps it's just as well the Baron didn't fight back.
When life hands you apples and oranges, make fruit salad.
If Grand Hotel was re-released after 1933 or 1934, they may have had to cut a few frames to fit the Production Code, but it's a noticeable cut.
shareThose missing frames have been missing since at least the 1980s, when I first saw the film on a VHS tape.
Are we certain these scenes were in fact cut by an unscrupulous editor?
All I'm saying is, I highly doubt this was yet another nefarious post-Code cut of a pre-Code film; there are pre-Code films out there with vastly more "shocking" material which have survived unscathed by the editors (Kongo, Sign of the Cross, Scarlet Empress, etc). Barrymore getting smashed in the head by a telephone, while violent, is hardly up to the level of stuff which got by in those times -- just check out the original Scarface.
I've always felt that cut is moreso just the clumsy editing of early talkies. Action choreography didn't exist at the time. You ever notice how sometimes in those old movies fistfights are sped up to Keystone Cops speed? It was the directors "punching up" the subpar choreography so the fight would look quicker and no one would notice that the actors weren't really exchanging blows.
My guess is that Barrymore getting hit by the phone probably came out awkward on camera and so the scene was removed via "jump cut" (to instill the scene with a bit more ferocity).
Allow me to offer an alternate theory.
It is unlikely at best that the moment was cut because of violence or content. I would warrant even less so the part of sloppy film editing. My view is that it was a legitimate, if belated, decision to polish Barrymore's halo.
Barrymore's character is supposed to be viewed as a noble rogue; a sympathetic character at the last, not as a common theif.
I pose the theory that Barrymore did, in fact, raise his hand -as shown in the film- and perhaps did attempt to strike Beery. Maybe there was even a serious attempt on Barrymore's part to overpower Beery.
However, this would have made Barrymore more of a trapped thief, an aggressive criminal, a cornered rat; rather than a sympathetic character.
By snipping out the frames showing Barrymore strike Beery, it allows the sudience to retain its view of Barrymore as a "redeemed" sinner and makes his "unresisting" death at the hands of the brutish Beery more martyr-like.
In this context Beery's line about "strike me" comes across as self-serving justification. It's obvious that Beery is just a bully spoiling for a fight throughout the whole movie (where's Min when you need her?) and he takes Barrymore's flaccid hand-raising gesture as provocation to bash his skull with the telephone -and then toss down the wallet to "frame" the dead man.
the missing frames represent a last-minute character revision, a post-production spin doctor's attempt to reform a fallen character's image.
"If you don't know the answer -change the question."
I have a simple alternative suggestion that has nothing to do with 'polishing' anybody's image or trouble with the Hayes Office. This film was made 78 years ago; there probably aren't any surviving prints with those missing frames.
A perfect example to support this theory is this scene from the Marx Brothers movie "Horsefeathers" (coincidentally made in '32, the same year as "Grand Hotel"): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrEiMiJN6SA.
Watch for these moments: 2:43 when Harpo throws the ice-block out the window, 3:19 when Groucho kicks Zeppo out the door, 3:26 when Groucho puts a lamp in the window, and most obviously 4:08 to 4:15 when Chico is on the couch with Thelma Todd. I've never seen a VHS or DVD or broadcast version of "Horsefeathers" that didn't have these choppy moments in this scene.
I don't think it's a question of editing, it's just that three-quarters of a century later those frames simply no longer exist.
"Film is a mosaic of Time."
-A. Tarkovsky
Maybe this "cut" has something to do with a mysterious reference in the NY Times review of the film, written in 1932 by Mordaunt Hall:
"But it should be stated that in one scene he [director Goulding] permits an extremely gruesome idea to creep in. This will probably be eliminated at some of the future exhibitions."
If this quote doesn't refer to the murder scene---- does anybody know what it does refer to?
I would concede that the "extremely gruesome idea" does, in fact, refer to this scene simply by default because it is the only scene in the film suggestive of anything dark or violent.
However, the "extremely gruesome" bit would likely derive from one of two moments after the fact.
The first, being the savagery with which Beery bashes in Barrymore's skull (which in turn calls to mind the horror of a decade before when Barrymore's Hyde smashes in Dr. Lanyon's skull with a lead pipe -and then tears out his throat!).
The sight of the ox-like Beery bludgeoning him with the telephone must have been quite shocking to audiences of the 1930's unaccustomed to such violence on screen.
But then a minute or two later, Joan Crawford uses the same telephone to call for the police -a grisly and "extremely gruesome idea" if you stop to think that after having been used to beat a man's skull in, the instrument would presumably be covered with blood and dripping with gore.
Another possibly gruesome idea arise from the continued references to Barrymore's eyes being open; though the corpse is never shown. Few things can be more unsettling than the sight of a corpse with the eyes open and staring in death (nevermind the "look of peace" mentioned in the script); so for the characters to repeatedly speak of the eyes being open must surely have introduced a few shudders.
"If you don't know the answer -change the question."
Here's the scene from the blu-ray, if it can help : https://streamable.com/fywl
While we'll never know for sure, and there are lots of plausible responses, I just thought Beery said that to try to create a witness out of the telephone operator for his claim he was acting in self-defense. It was "gruesome"--one actually can hear him bashing in the Baron's head--very realistic. He was unscrupulous, blaming the baron for his violent outburst. As for the editing, they were carefully trying to prevent any footage of the Baron from showing. People heard the horrible sounds and would think they saw horrible sights to match. So if they cannot see John Barrymore at all, crisis averted. They weren't terribly smooth ay this sort of editing....but they did a pretty good job IMO.
shareIt looks to me like the awkward cut comes between the point where Barrymore raises his hand and where he collapses on the floor. Maybe I blinked, but it sure looks to me like we never really see Beery hit him.
shareYes, that's what I see too. Even on the Blu-Ray clip link above. It's on TCM On Demand right now so maybe I should check it out and see what they have ... although I would think they are broadcasting the same version as the Blu-Ray.
http://crewdtees.com/category/movies