La suerte de una compañía de disfraces de Broadway sube y baja según quién la dirija y si los espectáculos de sus clientes tienen éxito o no.La suerte de una compañía de disfraces de Broadway sube y baja según quién la dirija y si los espectáculos de sus clientes tienen éxito o no.La suerte de una compañía de disfraces de Broadway sube y baja según quién la dirija y si los espectáculos de sus clientes tienen éxito o no.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
Lilian Bond
- Sewing Girl
- (sin créditos)
Buster Brodie
- Little Man in Vassily's Prologue
- (sin créditos)
Charles Coleman
- Laffingwell
- (sin créditos)
Helen Jerome Eddy
- Delman's Secretary
- (sin créditos)
Douglas Gerrard
- Toreador with No Pants
- (sin créditos)
June Gittelson
- Miss Hemingway
- (sin créditos)
Ethel Griffies
- Mrs. Beacon
- (sin créditos)
Opiniones destacadas
I'm sure that some who see this movie will be very unimpressed and a bit put off by its style, but I had a great time watching the film even though it could never be mixed up for Shakespeare due to its decidedly low-brow approach. While the film is essentially a drama about a company that provides costumes for Broadway productions, there is a lot of far from subtle comedy that made me laugh in spite of its very modest pretensions. Many of the laughs came from the legendary Vaudeville team "Smith and Dale"--who were reportedly the inspiration for Neil Simon's THE SUNSHINE BOYS. There jokes are corny and pure "Borscht Belt" (i.e., very stereotypically Jewish) but I liked their act--though I am sure many might find them annoying or very old fashioned. I think the reason I like them so much is that although they had a very long career together, they did almost no films. This and the great short WHAT PRICE PANTS? are two wonderful examples of their comedy--and I am a huge fan of early comedy (silent and sound). However, if you aren't a fan, I could see that you might just find the act bizarre.
The other funny act in the film was Bobby Watson in the role of "Paisley". His was perhaps the most stereotypically gay performance in films during the Pre-Code era--so named because a loose and unformalized Production Code often meant that taboo topics such as adultery and homosexuality were included in films. His gay designer "schtick" was great and very funny, though I am sure some might find his mincing manner offensive. Considering the time and context, to me it didn't seem offensive--just a time capsule of the era and its attitudes. Incidentally, because of Watson's performance, this film was spotlighted by Turner Classic Movies for their salute to homosexual images in film.
As far as the plot goes, it wasn't all that subtle or believable, but it was fun--though a tad over the top and silly. Once again, it was not great art but due to a lot of energy by everyone concerned the film is likable and nearly earns a 7--especially if you (like me) are a huge fan of Pre-Code Hollywood. The Watson performance plus a plot involving adultery make this a film you could not have seen post-1934 due to the restrictiveness of the code. An excellent historical curio.
The other funny act in the film was Bobby Watson in the role of "Paisley". His was perhaps the most stereotypically gay performance in films during the Pre-Code era--so named because a loose and unformalized Production Code often meant that taboo topics such as adultery and homosexuality were included in films. His gay designer "schtick" was great and very funny, though I am sure some might find his mincing manner offensive. Considering the time and context, to me it didn't seem offensive--just a time capsule of the era and its attitudes. Incidentally, because of Watson's performance, this film was spotlighted by Turner Classic Movies for their salute to homosexual images in film.
As far as the plot goes, it wasn't all that subtle or believable, but it was fun--though a tad over the top and silly. Once again, it was not great art but due to a lot of energy by everyone concerned the film is likable and nearly earns a 7--especially if you (like me) are a huge fan of Pre-Code Hollywood. The Watson performance plus a plot involving adultery make this a film you could not have seen post-1934 due to the restrictiveness of the code. An excellent historical curio.
"Manhattan Parade" unspools like the libretto of one of those silly musical comedies of the 1920s except without the songs. Imagine something like "No, No Nanette" without the Youmans-Caesar score or any of the Busby Berkeley musicals without the songs and dance numbers. Plot elements abound but few are developed. The one consistent thread involves the blunders of a pair of bickering, ridiculously naïve Broadway producers played by the exhaustingly verbose vaudeville team of Smith & Dale who get mixed up with a floundering Broadway costume company run by a married couple (Walter Miller and Winnie Lightner) whose staff includes Charles Butterworth (a perfect blend of Stan Laurel and George Arliss) as a bookish researcher and Bobby Watson as an extremely effeminate costume designer (a character type he would repeat a couple of years later in "Moonlight and Pretzels"). Dickie Moore has some excellent moments as Miller and Lightner's neglected but self-reliant little son and Luis Alberni gobbles scenery as a mad Russian director. There are a couple of interesting shots of Times Square in 1931 (including a partially visible marquee for the Capra feature "Ladies of Leisure" which starred Barbara Stanwyck).
10crnewsom
My vote of 10 out of 10 does not mean this is a 'great' movie in any traditional sense. In fact, from the point of view of standard film reviewing, it's lacking in almost all the qualities of a well-made, polished Hollywood film.
The film feels haphazardly made, but there are so many bizarre, surreal moments that proponents of non-traditional criticism will love. Take this one: for no stated reason, a elephant's head and trunk are being painted with a large question mark; minutes later, a woman in a nude suit walks by with a large question mark covering her body. Both the elephant and the woman are part of a theatrical production, but these two scenes have no motivation.
But even for those who don't particularly care for what I've said above, pre-code fans will be delighted by the film's several risqué moments.
This film has only 9 votes at the time of my writing this, but seeing as TCM aired it last night in its 8pm prime-time slot, perhaps the gave many (like myself) an opportunity to watch this film which is available neither on VHS or DVD.
The film feels haphazardly made, but there are so many bizarre, surreal moments that proponents of non-traditional criticism will love. Take this one: for no stated reason, a elephant's head and trunk are being painted with a large question mark; minutes later, a woman in a nude suit walks by with a large question mark covering her body. Both the elephant and the woman are part of a theatrical production, but these two scenes have no motivation.
But even for those who don't particularly care for what I've said above, pre-code fans will be delighted by the film's several risqué moments.
This film has only 9 votes at the time of my writing this, but seeing as TCM aired it last night in its 8pm prime-time slot, perhaps the gave many (like myself) an opportunity to watch this film which is available neither on VHS or DVD.
Could Mel Brooks have seen this before he wrote his screenplay for "The Producers"? The two films sure have a lot in common. Unfortunately, "Manhattan Parade" is a shout-fest -- apparently, the movie director didn't trust the microphones to pick up normal conversations, and when the movie was converted from its live stage form, nobody told the actors to stop playing to the balcony. So much is screamed it becomes tiresome quickly. If only the lines were memorable enough to be screamed.
But I liked the moxieness of the wife, the elegant solutions of the research director, and, yeah, the limp-wristed gayness of the artistic director, a walking dictionary of practically every gay cliché there is. All of this stuff became impossible once the Code kicked in, so the movie does have its interests, if perhaps mainly for film and cultural historians.
But I liked the moxieness of the wife, the elegant solutions of the research director, and, yeah, the limp-wristed gayness of the artistic director, a walking dictionary of practically every gay cliché there is. All of this stuff became impossible once the Code kicked in, so the movie does have its interests, if perhaps mainly for film and cultural historians.
A great example of the liberated woman is found in Manhattan Parade with Winnie Lightner who is the real brains behind the John Roberts Costume Company. Husband Walter Miller just takes advantages of the perks of the business, one of them being to run away for a little romp with a chorus girl while Lightner is both mother and breadwinner for their kid Dickie Moore. In the end Miller with his dalliances should have been more discreet, he had it made and didn't appreciate it.
But the real strength of Manhattan Parade is in the outrageous and zany overacting of Luis Alberni as an eccentric Russian producer and the great vaudeville team of Smith and Dale as a pair cheese manufacturers who want to become theatrical angels. What a merry chase Alberni leads Smith and Dale on.
Also in the cast are Charles Butterworth who works for Lightner in his droll kind of slapstick and Bobby Watson who later played Adolph Hitler in a dozen or so films. He plays an outrageous gay stereotype also working for Lightner.
I'm torn as far as Watson's character is concerned. It's offensive yes, but under the Code gays became practically invisible. You can see why Stonewall was needed watching him.
Manhattan Parade is a nice pre-Code comedy, very outrageous in many spots.
But the real strength of Manhattan Parade is in the outrageous and zany overacting of Luis Alberni as an eccentric Russian producer and the great vaudeville team of Smith and Dale as a pair cheese manufacturers who want to become theatrical angels. What a merry chase Alberni leads Smith and Dale on.
Also in the cast are Charles Butterworth who works for Lightner in his droll kind of slapstick and Bobby Watson who later played Adolph Hitler in a dozen or so films. He plays an outrageous gay stereotype also working for Lightner.
I'm torn as far as Watson's character is concerned. It's offensive yes, but under the Code gays became practically invisible. You can see why Stonewall was needed watching him.
Manhattan Parade is a nice pre-Code comedy, very outrageous in many spots.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaAlthough it was filmed in 2-strip Technicolor, 35MM surviving material is in black & white, but UCLA holdings include a 16MM color print. Two songs by Harold Arlen and Ted Koehler, "I Love a Parade" and "Temporarily Blue," were cut before release, although "I Love A Parade" is heard over the opening and closing credits. "I'm Happy When You're Jealous" by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby was also cut before release.
- Citas
Herbert T. Herbert: Henry the VIII wore night gowns. No, pajamas weren't introduced into bed - into England - until much later.
- ConexionesFeatured in Thou Shalt Not: Sex, Sin and Censorship in Pre-Code Hollywood (2008)
- Bandas sonorasI Love a Parade
(1931) (uncredited)
(From the first "Cotton Club" revue)
Music by Harold Arlen
Played during the opening and end credits
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was Manhattan Parade (1931) officially released in Canada in English?
Responda