![\"Parole](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Parole-Girl-bell-500.jpg\" "\\"Parole")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
DB here:<\/p>\n
If you wanted a prototype of some unique visual pleasures of 1930s cinema, you could do worse than pick this innocuous image. It\u2019s perfunctory in narrative terms, merely telling us that Sylvia Day is calling on Bill Smith. Beyond its plot function, though, it\u2019s fun to see. We can enjoy the unfussy modern edge of the doorjamb, the curve of the manicured thumb, and soft highlights bringing out the hand and knuckles.<\/p>\n
Above all, there is that starry gleam at the top of the doorbell. Who needs it? It\u2019s just a doorbell<\/em>. Why take so much trouble lighting a throwaway shot?<\/p>\n Add to this that Parole Girl<\/em> (1933) is a program picture, and from Columbia, no less\u2014the Poverty Row studio that had yet to break through with It Happened One Night<\/em> (1934). We learn from Bernard F. Dick\u2019s deeply-researched book on Harry Cohn that the budget for Parole Girl<\/em> would have been about $250,000, when MGM B\u2019s were running about $400,000. Why spend money on a shot like this?<\/p>\n Because that was the standard of good-looking moviemaking at the time. Most problems of converting to talkies had been solved, so films were regaining not only the fluent narration but the sparkling imagery of 1920s cinema. Under Cohn\u2019s leadership, Columbia was trying to compete with the bigger studios\u2019 movies, and looking classy was one way to do it. Recently I spent a day or so watching four titles, and I was reminded how pictorially sophisticated and refreshing low-end Hollywood can be. These movies also offer us an unusual window into what was already characteristic storytelling strategies of classical Hollywood. But there will be spoilers<\/strong> ahead too.<\/p>\n Welcome to 1933<\/strong><\/p>\n As so often<\/a>, I have TCM<\/a> to thank. Since their Jean Arthur tribute of 2007, they have been running a generous number of Columbia titles (all restored by the master hand of Grover Crisp<\/a>). By including less-known 1930s items along with classics like The Awful Truth<\/em> and the Capra titles, they continue their mission of serving American film culture every hour.<\/p>\n Lea Jacobs has convinced me that it\u2019s useful to think of \u00a0studio releases in those days as filling a season running from Labor Day to Memorial Day rather than a calendar year. Studio heads planned budgets and production schedules according to that time frame, like network TV broadcasters now. Unlike today, summer was not a big release period, maybe because of the competition of other leisure activities, maybe because with air-conditioned movie houses people would come watch anything thrown on the screen. In any case, the big pictures were saved for fall, winter, and spring.<\/p>\n So my frame of reference is the 1932-33 season. Columbia ushered in the new year with its best-remembered film of the season, Capra\u2019s Bitter Tea of General Yen<\/em> (6 January). The studio probably considered\u00a0Washington Merry-Go-Round<\/em> (15 October), Virtue<\/em> (25 October), and No More Orchids<\/em> (15 November) to be A projects, but the large output of Westerns, the absence of historical pictures, and the relative dearth of stars in this output confirm the studio’s status as a Poverty Row company.<\/p>\n My movies come from the winter and spring of 1933. Each was shot in two to three weeks and each runs about seventy minutes.<\/p>\n Air Hostess <\/em>(15 January, directed by Albert Rogell) tells of the daughter of a WWI ace who marries a reckless young pilot. Trying to build a new type of plane, he shops his business plans to a rich woman investor, who tries to seduce him.<\/p>\n In Child of Manhattan<\/em> (4 February, directed by Edward Buzzell), a wealthy widower falls for a taxi dancer and takes her as his mistress. When she becomes pregnant, he marries her. But the baby dies soon after birth and the wife flees to Mexico for a divorce while the husband tries to track her down.<\/p>\n In Parole Girl<\/em> (4 March, directed by Edward Cline), a department store executive sends a woman con artist to prison. She vows revenge. When she gets out, she seduces the executive, although he\u2019s unaware of who she is.<\/p>\n Ann Carver\u2019s Profession<\/em> (26 May 1933, directed by Buzzell) centers on a couple torn by career rivalry. After being a gridiron hero in college, the husband is failing as an architect. Meanwhile, his wife is becoming a celebrated trial lawyer. Eventually the husband leaves the household and takes up with a floozie, who winds up strangled. His wife must defend him against the murder charge.<\/p>\n For connoisseurs of naughty pre-Code movies, there are the usual attractions of double beds, extramarital sex, peekaboo negligees, and risqu\u00e9 dialogue. Child of Manhattan<\/em> goes the farthest, perhaps because it\u2019s an adaptation of a Preston Sturges play. \u201cYou\u2019re a fascinating little witch,\u201d says the millionaire. \u201cDid you say witch<\/em>?\u201d the dancer asks. This is the same girl, played by perky Nancy Carroll, who thinks the man is trying to feel her up when he slips a thousand-dollar bill into her garter. Later she recalls her mother\u2019s advice: \u201cNever, ever walk upstairs in front of a gentleman.\u201d And when she confesses to her Texan admirer in her mangled pronunciation, \u201cI\u2019m a courtesian,\u201d he pauses and replies, \u201cWell, religion doesn\u2019t make any difference with me.\u201d<\/p>\n Despite such pleasant moments, and two screenplays credited to Robert Riskin and Norman Krasna, these movies won\u2019t win prizes for imaginative scripting. The tone is often uncertain, with comic banter clashing with scenes of melodramatic sacrifice. The long arm of coincidence becomes elastic. In Parole Girl<\/em>, the heroine happens to meet the offending executive\u2019s first wife in prison. During the taxi dancer\u2019s stay in Mexico, she runs into the cowpoke who had wooed her aggressively in Manhattan. In Ann Carver\u2019s Profession<\/em>, the husband\u2019s girlfriend accidentally strangles herself. Yes, you read that correctly.<\/p>\n Still, you have to give points for speed. Only Parole Girl<\/em> has unusually quick cutting, at an average of 6.6 seconds per shot,\u00a0but the overall pace of most of the plots is pretty rapid. (The exception is Child of Manhattan<\/em>, whose lumbering dramatic rhythm is echoed in an average shot length of sixteen seconds.) Playing far-fetched action fast makes it less noticeable and more forgivable. Today any movie that can tell a moderately interesting story in a little more than an hour feels like a triumph. You can watch two of my pictures in the time it takes to groan your way through Funny People<\/em>. And in these movies, the opening credits flash by in less than fifty seconds. Those were the days when crafts people under contract didn\u2019t have to be acknowledged, and there were no executive producers.<\/p>\n Apart from Capra, whom do we remember as a Columbia director? Probably not my three guys. Albert Rogell, director of Air Hostess<\/em>, began directing in the early 20s and worked for Columbia, Tiffany, Monogram, RKO, Universal, and Paramount. A prototypical B filmmaker, he signed over a hundred films in twenty-five years. Edward Buzzell was somewhat more prominent. After Ann Carver\u2019s Profession<\/em>, he left Columbia for Universal and eventually moved to MGM, where he directed (as if that were possible) the Marx Brothers in At the Circus<\/em> (1939) and Go West<\/em> (1940), as well as helming Song of the Thin Man<\/em> (1947). Like Rogell, Edward Cline (Parole Girl<\/em>) skipped among studios; like Buzzell, he landed on his feet with comedian comedy, steering W. C. Fields through You Can\u2019t Cheat an Honest Man<\/em> (1939), My Little Chickadee<\/em> (1940), and other vehicles. In all, studio artisans, yes; auteurs, no.<\/p>\n Two Joes and a Ted<\/strong><\/p>\n Parole Girl<\/em><\/p>\n If you\u2019re interested in how Hollywood tells its tales, there\u2019s a fair amount to chew on in these modest releases. The scripts tend to obey Kristin\u2019s four-part model<\/a>, adapted to very short running times, with the key turning point taking place midway through the film. Despite the coincidences, the characters\u2019 goals and changes of heart tend to be planted early. In Ann Carver\u2019s Profession<\/em>, Ann\u2019s intense ambition and Bill\u2019s swaggering overconfidence prepare us for the crisis in their marriage, when each is unwilling to compromise.<\/p>\n The films make fluent use of storytelling devices that predate the 1930s but are forever associated with that decade. Sequences are linked through headline montages and wipes, recently made possible by the optical printer. There are more elaborate techniques too, particular the visual or auditory \u00a0hook<\/a> connecting scenes. We’re not surprised to see commonplace instances, as when a note pad listing an apartment number dissolves to that number on the door. In Air Hostess<\/em>, however, a spinning propeller gives way to a roulette wheel, and this association does a little more work, linking Ted Hunter\u2019s reckless flying to his gambling and his general tendency to take risks.<\/p>\n In Child of Manhattan<\/em>, as Madeleine resolves to leave her husband after the death of her child, she tearfully shakes a baby rattle, and this dissolves to marimbas in a nightclub, swiftly turning her pathos into her effort to start a new life with a Mexican divorce.<\/p>\n But what is perhaps most striking about these films is their photography. Ten minutes into Air Hostess<\/em>, the first one I watched, we get a lovely sustained track into a sunny airfield, our view guided by the walkway wheeled up to a plane door as passengers step out.<\/p>\n The relaxed play of light and shadow in this geometrical shot yields one of those fugitive visual delights that classic cinema so often supplies.<\/p>\n What’s it doing in a Columbia programmer? This Poverty Row studio realized that they could give their pinched budgets an upscale look with polished cinematography. Accordingly, you can argue that the biggest talents on the Columbia lot were the directors of photography. Our four films were shot by ace DP\u2019s.<\/p>\n Joe August<\/strong> (Parole Girl<\/em>) was the grand old man. He filmed some of the best-looking hits of the 1910s, including Ince\u2019s Civilization<\/em> (1916) and a great many William S. Hart movies (including Hell\u2019s Hinges<\/em>, 1916). In the 1920s and up to 1932 he worked at Fox on films by Ford, Hawks, and Milestone. At Columbia August would shoot Borzage projects like Man\u2019s Castle<\/em> (1933) before moving to RKO for Sylvia Scarlett<\/em> (1936), Dance, Girl, Dance<\/em> (1940), and the flamboyant All That Money Can Buy<\/em> (aka The Devil and Daniel Webster<\/em>, 1940).<\/p>\n Another Joe, somewhat younger, was no less gifted. Joseph Walker<\/strong>, the DP of Air Hostess<\/em> came to Columbia early and soon teamed with Capra; he would shoot twenty movies with the director, including the splendid American Madness<\/em> (1932), a particular favorite of mine<\/a>. Walker stayed loyal to Columbia, shooting Only Angels Have Wings <\/em>(1939), His Girl Friday<\/em> (1940), Penny Serenade<\/em> (1941), and on and on\u2014returning to Capra for the independent production It\u2019s a Wonderful Life<\/em> (1947). Walker also patented an original zoom-lens design.<\/p>\n Ted<\/strong>, sometimes known as Teddy<\/strong>, Tetzlaff<\/strong> was another Columbia loyalist, and he certainly cranked them out. Hawks\u2019 The Criminal Code<\/em> was one of eleven movies Tetzlaff was credited with in calendar 1931. But by the spring of 1933 he seems already to have become a free lance, eventually working at Paramount on a string of classics (Easy Living<\/em>, Remember the Night<\/em>, Road to Zanzibar<\/em>), then RKO (The Enchanted Cottage<\/em>, Notorious<\/em>), and occasional jobs back at Columbia. Tetzlaff became a director as well, remembered chiefly for the cult classic The Window<\/em> (1949).<\/p>\n No wonder my four films dazzle, even on TV. According to Bob Thomas\u2019s biography King Cohn<\/em>, Columbia took special care to create a phosphorescent look through careful processing that enhanced the DPs’ efforts. Hence not only the sparkle on a door buzzer but glowing applications of then-standard edge lighting.\u00a0Hence as well the use of striped shadows to suggest venetian blinds, a convention we associate with the forties but here in precise array (Child of Manhattan, Parole Girl<\/em>).<\/p>\n Trust Joe Walker to provide a little of that striped texture with a fuselage.<\/p>\n Hence too some striking depth. Here is the next-to-last shot of Walker\u2019s work in Air Hostess<\/em>, the sort of fancy aperture composition that crops up surprisingly often in the 1930s<\/a>.<\/p>\n Tetzlaff, first in Child of Manhattan<\/em> and then Ann Carver\u2019s Profession<\/em>, seems to be fooling around with faces and elbows.<\/p>\n Probably the most visually and narratively complex of my films from spring 1933 is Ann Carver\u2019s Profession<\/em>. It\u2019s possible that it was Columbia\u2019s equivalent of an A production:\u00a0Gene Raymond<\/a> was\u00a0a mid-range star known for a few Paramount and MGM pictures, and Fay Wray’s King Kong<\/em> had premiered a week before filming started. Whatever the cause, Ann Carver<\/em> has more complex plotting and more consistently inventive visuals than the three other titles.<\/p>\n From the very start, when gridiron hero Bill promises to provide for Ann the waitress, we get the sort of offhand flash that I like in 1930s movies. As Bill follows Ann into the kitchen, she\u2019s framed in a swinging door and the camera moves closer to pick up their clinch.<\/p>\n Once they\u2019re married, the circle has become a rectangle, and trouble is on the way.<\/p>\n There are fancy mirror shots, pov constructions that lead characters to the wrong inferences, and examples of the big-foreground compositions<\/a> that would come to prominence in the 1940s<\/a>.<\/p>\n The trial recesses; crane up to the clock; spin the hands to cover a couple of hours; crane back to the trial resuming. Or start with Bill\u2019s girlfriend, passed out and garroted by the necklace that has snagged on a leering chair carving. Dissolve to Bill\u2019s night on the town, before ending that fuzzy montage with a dissolve back to the chair carving.<\/p>\n Bill didn\u2019t kill her, but the pictorial logic makes him almost magically responsible, with the carving mocking him for what\u2019s to come.<\/p>\n Above all there is one of the most laconic (and cheaply filmed) courtroom montages I\u2019ve ever seen. A string of witnesses testifies, and after a newspaper pops out the first one, we get a fusillade of extreme close-ups, cut very quickly.<\/p>\n Just as striking is the coordinated sound montage, which reduces the testimony to clipped sentences, then phrases (\u201c\u201dFour-thirty!\u201d \u201cQuarter to five!\u201d \u201cBoth of \u2018em!\u201d), then single words (\u201cDrunk!\u201d \u201cDrunk!\u201d \u201cStrangulation!\u201d), all damning Bill. Why take us through all the rigamarole\u2014people sworn in and questioned at length\u2014when you can give the essence of it in twenty-eight shots and\u00a0twenty-five seconds<\/em>?<\/p>\n My 1933 quartet contains no great film; perhaps none is worth more than one viewing. But what I learned from watching ordinary movies for our <\/a>Classical Hollywood Cinema <\/a><\/em>book<\/a> is borne out by my soundings here. We can enjoy seeing a well-honed system steering us through a story, especially when gifted people like Teddy and the two Joes are shifting the gears. We can appreciate the opportunities for grace notes in what some call formula filmmaking. And we can see that this lowly studio, making films ignored in traditional histories, has something to teach filmmakers today: proud modesty. A film can radiate pride in being concise, in exercising a craft, and in telling a story that hurtles forward while shedding moments of casual beauty.<\/p>\n Most critical writing on early 1930s Columbia pictures focuses on Frank Capra, but there is good general background in Bernard F. Dick, The Merchant Prince of Poverty Row: Harry Cohn of Columbia Pictures<\/a><\/em> (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2009). My mention of budget levels comes from his discussion on pp. 119-120. An older, citation-free but still helpful biography is Bob Thomas, King Cohn<\/a><\/em> (Beverly Hills: New Millennium, 2000). In-depth information on Joseph Walker as a Columbia cinematographer is available in Joseph McBride\u2019s excellent biography <\/a>Frank Capra: The Catastrophe of Success<\/a><\/em> (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992), 189-215. Walker\u2019s engaging autobiography supplies nothing specific to these films, but he sprinkles technical information among its anecdotes. See Joseph Walker and Juanita Walker, The Light on Her Face<\/a> <\/em>(Los Angeles: ASC Press, 1984).<\/p>\n On 1934 as the end of naughtiness, see Tom Doherty’s \u00a0Pre-Code Hollywood<\/a>. For a skeptical account of the idea of Hollywood “before the Code,” see Richard Maltby, “More Sinned Against than Sinning [2003],” in Senses of Cinema<\/em> here<\/a>, and essays in “Rethinking the Production Code,” a special issue of The Quarterly Review of Film and Video<\/em> 15, 4 (1995), ed. Lea Jacobs and Richard Maltby.<\/p>\n If you’re interested in more complicated narrative strategies in films of this period, try our entry “Grandmaster Flashback.<\/a>”\u00a0For another take on low-budget 1930s films, there’s our entry on Mr. Moto and Charlie Chan<\/a>.<\/p>\n DB here: If you wanted a prototype of some unique visual pleasures of 1930s cinema, you could do worse than pick this innocuous image. It\u2019s perfunctory in narrative terms, merely telling us that Sylvia Day is calling on Bill Smith. Beyond its plot function, though, it\u2019s fun to see. We can enjoy the unfussy modern […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[117,1,84,12,6,5,60,59,57,54],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5948","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-directors-capra","category-film-comments","category-film-genres","category-film-history","category-film-industry","category-film-technique","category-technique-cinematography","category-technique-staging","category-hollywood-aesthetic-traditions","category-narrative-strategies"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5948","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5948"}],"version-history":[{"count":75,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5948\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13014,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5948\/revisions\/13014"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5948"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5948"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5948"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"Ann](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Ann-Carver-ad-300.jpg\" "\\"Ann")
<\/p>\n![\"Parole](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Parole-Girl-2.jpg\" "\\"Parole")
<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"Parole](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Parole-Girl-2251.jpg\" "\\"Parole")
As for performances, perhaps the very speed of production forced actors to play naturally. True, Fay Wray is a bit arch as Ann Carver, but Gene Raymond as her husband moves convincingly from boisterousness to self-doubt. In Child of Manhattan<\/em>, John Boles, trying to mingle with the little people, can be stiff, but Nancy Carroll has pep, and Buck Jones as her cowboy swain adds a welcome dose of naive gallantry. All three show how important distinct voices had already become: Boles mellifluous, Carroll up and down the scale, Jones slow and sincere. Reliable Columbia regular Ralph Bellamy shows up in\u00a0Parole Girl, <\/em>but more memorable is the performance, or rather presence, of Mae Clark. When she comes back from prison bent on vengeance, she’s a glowering figure in her stylishly chopped hairdo.<\/p>\n![\"Air](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Air-hostess-51.jpg\" "\\"Air")
<\/p>\n![\"Air](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Air-hostess-62.jpg\" "\\"Air")
<\/p>\n![\"Child](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Child-3-300.jpg\" "\\"Child")
<\/p>\n![\"Child](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Child-4-300.jpg\" "\\"Child")
<\/p>\n![\"Air-hostess-1\"](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Air-hostess-11.jpg\" "\\"Air-hostess-1\\"")
<\/p>\n![\"Air-hostess-2\"](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Air-hostess-21.jpg\" "\\"Air-hostess-2\\"")
<\/p>\n![\"Air-hostess-3\"](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Air-hostess-31.jpg\" "\\"Air-hostess-3\\"")
<\/p>\n![\"Child](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Child-of-Manhattan-1.jpg\" "\\"Child")
<\/p>\n![\"Parole](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Parole-girl-3-300.jpg\" "\\"Parole")
<\/p>\n![\"Air](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Air-hostess-4.jpg\" "\\"Air")
<\/p>\n![\"Air](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Air-hostess-7-3001.jpg\" "\\"Air")
<\/p>\n![\"Child-400\"](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Child-4001.jpg\" "\\"Child-400\\"")
<\/p>\n![\"Ann](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Ann-C-1-3001.jpg\" "\\"Ann")
<\/p>\n![\"Ann](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Ann-C-4.jpg\" "\\"Ann")
<\/p>\n![\"Ann](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Ann-C-5.jpg\" "\\"Ann")
<\/p>\n![\"Ann](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Ann-C-6.jpg\" "\\"Ann")
<\/p>\n![\"Ann](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Ann-C-2.jpg\" "\\"Ann")
<\/p>\n![\"Ann](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Ann-C-7-250.jpg\" "\\"Ann")
![\"Ann](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Ann-C-8-250.jpg\" "\\"Ann")
<\/p>\n![\"Ann](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Ann-9-250.jpg\" "\\"Ann")
![\"Ann](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Ann-C-10-2501.jpg\" "\\"Ann")
<\/p>\n![\"Ann](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Ann-C-11.jpg\" "\\"Ann")
![\"Ann](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Ann-C-12.jpg\" "\\"Ann")
<\/p>\n![\"Ann](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Ann-C-13.jpg\" "\\"Ann")
<\/p>\n
\n![\"Parole](\"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Parole-Girl-ad-300.jpg\" "\\"Parole")
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"