You didn’t see this at the start of my fourth paragraph?

“That’s unfortunate, as Brown — though not one of my favorite filmmakers — did display a remarkable visual flair and technical virtuosity in most of his films that I’ve seen.”

Actually, there were many times in my studies of classic film where I’d be discovering a “new” old film on TCM or having checked out a half-dozen films starring an actor of interest, and I’d think, “This is a visually extraordinary scene” because of the camera’s virtuosity, or use of visual metaphor to convey the emotions of the scene, and mostly because it is a unique or unusual set-up, and lo, it will be a Clarence Brown film. This occurred while viewing the early “Possessed” with Joan Crawford (you know, the scene in the train-yard as the cars go by, presenting a moving vignette of life in each of the windows), and during Anna Karenina with that incredible shot of the banquet; not to mention moments in “Chained” (the ranch scenes), “The Rains Came” (the raging waters as allegory to Loy’s pull on Power’s good doctor), and “Wife vs Secretary” (besides the beautiful, understated performance of Jean Harlow denying her attraction, yet demonstrating it with every action, take a look at the phone booth scene, the dinners at the young boyfriend’s house, the hotel room in Havana) where the emotions from despair to deep love virtually transcend mere script and screen. Borzage was able to do this, as was McCarey and La Cava.

Maybe it’s a gender thing. Women tend to “feel” and appreciate this sort of magic more than the intended thrill that action and battle scenes offer. Some men often find any classic film’s romance scenes “heavy handed” and sappy. And granted many are. But compare the majority of Brown’s with Wyler’s “Wuthering Heights” or Capra’s “Meet John Doe.” THOSE are heavy-handed and usually without the visual interest and creativity that Clarence Brown gives us.

I almost forgot… How great is the set-up in “They Met in Bombay” with Russell’s “Lady Anya” readying herself for the evening’s con, and Gable having picked up her scent. The first 15 minutes has very little dialogue and is shot with dual POV’s, and very effective.

Gee, thanks.
But… how could you have gotten it all wrong?

Did you bother reading the follow-up paragraph to the one you quote in your comment? Did you read the previous paragraph?

Wasn’t it obvious that I’m pointing out that *film historians* are the ones who tend to be short-sighted and sexist — and that that’s why Clarence Brown’s work isn’t well-remembered today? Didn’t you read my paragraph praising some of Brown’s work with actors?

These posts may be of interest:

http://www.altfg.com/blog/actors/honorary-oscars-bypass-women/

http://www.altfg.com/blog/actors/george-cukor-top-oscar-directors-for-actors-iii/

By the way, I’ve seen 25 of Clarence Brown’s 50 or so films. That gives me a pretty good idea of the kind of director he was and the types of films he made. I’m hardly “ignorant” when it comes to Brown’s career, even if my assessment of it may not match yours.

I found your comments “he lacked a distinctive visual or thematic style. In other words: No auteur; no nothing. Compounding matters, Brown’s films usually focused on women — mainly Greta Garbo, Joan Crawford, and Norma Shearer — and their issues” ignorant, short-sighted and incredibly sexist. There was nothing show-offy about Brown;s style — it served the story, instead of being a showcase for “visual style.” After seeing INTRUDER IN THE DUST, Faulkner himself commented, “I like the way Mr. Brown used bird calls and saddle squeaks and footsteps in place of a lot of loud music telling you what emotion you should be experiencing.”

As for your implication that films about women and their problems are inherently less valuable, that says more about you than about Brown. It also shows your ignorance about Brown’s body of work and his versatility.