Believe It or Not #3: *Still* Hard to Believe, Even Today

So, 'Believe It or Not #3.' Is it worth digging up today? Probably yes, if you're into old-school curiosities or just want to see where the whole Ripley phenomenon *really* started. Anyone who expects modern pacing or slick production? Oh, they'll probably find it a bit of a snooze. But for the rest of us, it's a neat little time capsule. 🕰️

The whole thing feels very much like a staged interview, which, you know, it probably was. James Dunn, playing Ripley, he's got this kind of *earnest* delivery. Almost too earnest sometimes. You get the sense he's trying real hard to sell these wild tales.

He talks about, uh, people who live on trees? Or was it folks who tie themselves in knots? Hard to remember the specifics, but the *vibe* of disbelief is constant. Even Dunn himself seems to be trying to convince himself, sometimes.

Those reporters, bless their hearts, they're mostly there to nod and ask leading questions. One fellow keeps leaning in, like he’s genuinely captivated, but his eyes tell a different story. It’s a little… much. You can practically hear the director off-screen yelling 'More interest!'

What really sticks with you, though, isn't the stories themselves, but how they’re told. It's not flashy. No fancy graphics, obviously. Just Ripley, sitting there, almost like your grandpa telling tall tales on the porch. *But a very famous grandpa.*

There’s a moment, real brief, where Dunn sort of stumbles over a word. It’s not cleaned up. And that tiny bit of imperfection, honestly, makes him feel more real. It's a nice touch, even if accidental. Not everything has to be perfectly polished, right?

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of Believe It or Not #3 (1930) through its definitive frames.

The production values are exactly what you'd expect from something like this back then. Grainy black and white, simple sets. The background is just... there. It’s not trying to impress you with visuals, it’s just trying to *tell you something*. And that's okay! We don't always need CGI dragons.

I kept wondering if the audience back then actually *believed* all of it, or if it was just good fun. It’s got this charm, an innocence almost, that modern documentaries just don't capture. Everything today is so *fact-checked* to death. This one? It just kinda lets Ripley run with it. No disclaimers!

The pacing, yeah, it's slow. If you’re used to TikTok attention spans, you’ll be checking your watch. But if you settle in, it’s actually kinda meditative. You just listen. And maybe wonder about some far-off land where folks really did, I don't know, train pigeons to deliver tiny messages about giant vegetables. Could be! Compared to the dramatic flair of something like Queen of the Night Clubs, this is a quiet chat, a curiosity.

It’s a peculiar experience. You're watching something that was meant to entertain and inform, probably in a theater before the main feature. And now, almost a century later, it’s still doing that, but in a completely different way. It’s less about the 'believe it or not' and more about the 'look how things used to be.' A neat piece of history, really.

The whole thing runs for maybe ten minutes? It doesn't overstay its welcome. And for that, I'm grateful. Short and sweet, like a weird little snack. 🍿

Didja notice?

• The way Ripley uses his hands when he talks. Very expressive.
• One of the reporters kept fidgeting with his tie. Guess he was nervous.
• The lighting is very flat, makes everyone look a bit ghostly.
• No music, just talking. It really puts the focus on the stories.
• The subtle little head nods from the reporters when Ripley says something particularly wild.