The Age of Consent

Gregory LaCava directed this 1932 film, The Age of Consent, starring Richard Cromwell, Dorothy Wilson, Aileen Pringle, John Halliday, and Arline Judge.

It's a precode story of kids in college, with lots of talk encouraging young women to loosen their morals, all kinds of sexual innuendo.

Michael (Cromwell) is a young man of high ideals who doesn't appreciate his buddy Duke's (Eric Linden) outrageous flirting and sexy talk, especially when it comes to Michael's girlfriend Betty (Wilson).

He confides to one of the professors (Halliday) that he's thinking of giving up college for marriage. This is evidently because of raging hormones.

When he's caught with an underage waitress, Dora (Judge), after a night of drinking, Dora's father demands they marry at once. This is one of those so subtle blink and you miss it. We are given the impression that they maybe kissed while drunk. I don't think so. She asks, are you sorry - I think they had sex. Other reviewers weren't sure.

The premise seems to be, leave college and get married rather than just shack up. In a way it's odd, since other precodes have people living together before marriage.

Anyway I have a soft spot for Richard Cromwell due to Emma and the fact that he was briefly married to Angela Lansbury. He did not stay in show business. He was a very talented artist and died at 50.

The Age Of Consent is a terribly dated before the Code film with a Victorian era plot and loaded with sexual innuendo. This would have made a great Cecil B. DeMille silent film.

The Age Of Consent began as a play called Cross Roads which had the misfortune of opening on Broadway within two weeks of the Stock Market crash. After that Broadway closed a lot of shows because folks couldn't afford the theater. Cross Roads only ran 28 performances and Franchot Tone and Sylvia Sidney were in the supporting roles that Eric Linden and Arline Judge play on the screen.

The leads are Richard Cromwell and Dorothy Wilson who are in love and going through a lot of angst. Dorothy's a good kid who doesn't want to give it up before she has a wedding ring on her finger. Richard's even ready to quit school. But when she says no he goes off with the local waitress at the college hangout Arline Judge.

Catching him alone with his daughter puritanical dad Richard Barlow says no one is going to disgrace my daughter, marry her or else because she's still a minor. Poor Cromwell sees his whole life slipping away, all the plans he had for his future, just gone up in smoke.

It all kind of works out for most of the cast. John Halliday is her as the wise science professor who acts as mentor and father figure to the college kids. Barlow's part is interesting his type is still around today, ignorant and proud of it. Look for a young Betty Grable as one of the coeds.

It's an interesting story and typical of the times. But thank God we seem to have moved away from the attitudes expressed by Barlow in The Age Of Consent.

The title and synopsis suggest that this might be some silly pre-code fluffy nonsense but it's absolutely not! This is a mature and thought provoking drama with naturalistic acting, realistic dialogue giving a shocking insight into who we were in the 1930s.

Hopefully I'm not making it sound like some dry documentary - this is pure slap you in the face type melodrama but also a real education! It explains so much about the attitudes and ideas of the time. What makes it so compelling isn't just the themes it's the likeability and the surprising realism of the characters. Even Eric Linden who's often atrocious is great in this. Likewise, pretty Arline Judge who's pretty awful in other pictures in this, with a good director, is fantastic, channeling her 'inner-Barbara Stanwyck.'

University life in 1932...or really the late twenties when this was written, doesn't seem too different to how it was in my time in the 1980s. Although nobody's arguing about whether Pink Floyd or Yes are best or what to watch on the TV, they're still a) not discussing course work and b) obsessed with sex. It's all weirdly relatable.

The plot, which as I say, explains the attitudes of so many 1930s movies centres on a student who has sex with a waitress....they're caught by her dad who informs the student that she's under-age...so he has two choices according to the law: a) go to jail or b) marry his daughter. Before the eleventh century, if you had sex with someone you were legally married.... times hadn't changed too much had they but this is the 1930s not the Middle Ages! I was staggered that this was the pronouncement of a court.

'But we don't love each other.' they'd argue. 'What's love got to do with marriage?' they'd reply ad though answering the most absurd question ever, 'Marriage isn't about love, it's about doing the right thing.' I guess this explains why so many people in 1930s pictures get married so quickly without really getting to know each other. No sex before marriage wasn't just an idea, it was part of our make-up, one of our unbreakable, unquestionable Ten Commandments.

To a lesser degree, the other topic this pokes into is class. When I was in Oxford there was a distinct line between town and gown. It was either Dr Who or Star Trek where two separate communities existed on the same planet in the same space but were separated somehow so they never knew of each other's existence - Oxford was a bit like that in the eighties but in the late twenties of this film, that segregation was even wider. Only the super-rich could afford to go to university back then so what happened between this testosterone filled student and the randy teenage waitress is an exploration of what happens classes clash - could an entitled son of a millionaire live happily ever after with an 'uneducated' working class daughter of a labourer? Society says they must!

This belongs with those other early thirties pictures such as NIGHT COURT, BABY FACE, SHE HAD TO SAY YES, BAD GIRL etc. Which make you realise that you wouldn't really want to have lived back then.

Even for pre-Hayes code cinema, this one is particularly smutty. Not to say there's nudity or whatever, but the sexuality positively drips off the screen, and very little is said which doesn't have to do with intercourse of one sort or another. They probably had fun making this one. Highly recommended if you can find it. Thanks to the American Film Institute for their preserving this film.

This is a better cultural artifact than a movie . . . but it's a very watchable movie. Catch it on TCM.

The alert is for Richard Cromwell, who plays the young man in what I'll call "a situation" with a townie waitress. He's a pretty good actor I've not seen in any other pictures -- and a 24-carat ringer for Leonardo DiCaprio! Their resemblance is beyond close; it's frightening: looks, body language, the whole package. (I am not a good judge of voices, but I don't think they're too far apart.) . . . Since IMDb is insisting on 10 lines' worth of comment even tho' I'm done, I agree w/ the other posted comments about the snappy yet smarmy pre-Code tone of this movie. That's what makes it such an artifact. If I were Robert Osborne (and we're all SO lucky I'm not), this movie would be double-billed with "The Story of Temple Drake," a bleaker look at the same good-time era starring Miriam Hopkins.