It Came from Interlibrary Loan: Beyond Christmas (1940)

Well, I took another flier on an obscure Christmas movie, and again didn’t profit much from the effort. I should note that I am an easy touch for schmaltz, like old movies, and particularly like old movies with supernatural elements (Here Comes Mr. Jordon, Topper, All That Money Can Buy, On Borrowed Time, The Bishop’s Wife, It’s a Wonderful Life, etc.). So really, I was kind of looking forward to seeing this movie when I heard about it, as it was about three old gentlemen who die in an accident and then as ghosts watch over two younger friends of theirs.

Instead…wow, what a weird picture. The three old men consists of a pixie-ish exuberant optimist, a grouch, and a bluff British guy who had naturally spent years in In-Jah. Due to the machinations of the first of these, they end up meeting two young folks, a Texas cowboy who wants to be a singer (!), and a, you know, girl. Naturally these two are instantly attracted to each other.

The five hit it off, and start hanging out. However, a plane crash puts paid to the three oldster. Meanwhile, the naïve Texan starts hitting it big as a signer, but then *gasp* starts falling for the attentions of a fancy floozy.

Here you’d think the ghosts would come in, but not really. Instead, each gets called to their fates. The Grouch was involved in some sort of scandal or other—frankly, after a while I wasn’t giving the film my full attention—and gets called to “the darkness.” Then the Brit guy is called by his dead son and goes to his heaven, which naturally looks like British In-Jah. So in the end only the pixie guy is left to actually keep an eye out for his friends. Sadly, they don’t really use the situation for much comedy—despite the ghost being able to manipulate physical items (?), he seldom does—and the ‘drama’ is pretty lame.

The big mistake is taking the three old guys out halfway through, because frankly the young romantic leads are incredibly boring. The final act dramatics are about as ludicrous as I can remember, and the ‘happy ending’ is one of the laziest massive cheats I’ve ever seen. In the end, the script is just hugely disjointed, and you have to winnow out the good stuff from way too much chaff.

The cast is good, although that just highlights how bad everything else is. Character actors Harry Carey, C. Aubrey Smith and Charles Winninger are old pros, and play their parts ably, although they are defeated by the script. The young leads are respectively blah (Jean Parker), or pretty bad, with Richard Carlson laying on the molasses for his Texas accent, and playing the character as such a naïf that he eventually seems a bit mentally challenged. Carlson, though, would go on to achieve lasting fame as the star of several ‘50s sci-fi flicks, such as Creature From the Black Lagoon, It Came from Outer Space, The Maze, Riders to the Stars and The Magnetic Monster.

Also on hand for monster buffs is Maria Ouspenskaya, who of course played the old gypsy woman Maleva in The Wolf Man and Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man. Here she plays an aristocratic refugee from Communist Russia, who is much happier now that she’s a servant for the three old men. Maybe a better movie could pull that character off, but this one can’t. However, it should be noted that this isn’t Ouspenskaya’s fault. She’s a pro, and nearly pulls the damn thing off.

Anyway, maybe it’s time to fall back on one of the holiday classics.

  • roger h

    I caught a new Christmas film for me on TCM: “It Happened on Fifth Avenue” (1947)

    Cute and fun. Not supernatural but, many of the same type of elements. Closer to “Christmas in Connecticut”. Has a young Gale storm.

  • I actually borrowed It Happened on Fifth Avenue from the library, and will be watching it this weekend. I’ll let you know my thoughts afterward.

  • They just played this movie very early this morning on TCM. Definitely a weird one. And the schmaltz in this film is quite thick.

  • I think the schmaltz seems thick because the film is poorly executed. Christmas films by definition (unless you’re going for a revisionist tone) are going to be heavy on schmaltz; that’s kind of the point. However, because the film doesn’t hang well together, the schmaltz doesn’t work any magic* and thus lays there, exposed and seeming artificial.

    [*The shot where we see the Texan’s torn up boot, and realize he returned the money despite really needing it? That’s *good* schmaltz. The film could have used more of that, and less of the group sitting around listening to Carlson sing Jeannie with the Light Brown Hair.]

  • Rock Baker

    So why did they change the title? Am I alone in thinking ‘Beyond Tomorrow’ made more sense?

  • sandra

    I think the Texan hits it big as a *singer* rather than a *signer*, unless he happens to be deaf. Hey, it could happen – anybody remember Johnny Ray?

  • Wayne

    Sorry Ken but I disagree with you. I caught this around Christmastime on TV for years when I was a kid (a local TV station always showed it then). I LOVED it back then. I recently saw it again on TCM again. I was sort of nervous about watching it thinking it would never live up to my childhood memories. I was pleasantly surprised to find that I STILL like it! It’s no classic but I find it sweet. And where else can you see Carlson sing (and pull it off!)?

  • I will brook no disagree with me! GRRRRR!