The Shopworn Angel

I know I am going to sound really picky here, but the hairstyles and clothes are 1938--not WWI like the movie is supposed to be (other than uniforms). You'd think that MGM would pay attention to this detail, as it was THE top studio at the time. Yet, oddly, nearly everyone (especially the women) wear clothes that just would never have been worn in 1917--and hair to boot. And, when the folks were riding the roller coaster, they almost all had hats on--and none of them flew off! As a retired history teacher, I notice these things and felt the movie didn't try very hard to get these simple details right. So is the rest of the film worth seeing? Well, considering that it's got Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan, what do you think?!

The film is a sweet romance. Stewart is a backward country boy who, unlike all his other friends in the army, does not have a girlfriend and is very awkward around women. So, to stop them from making fun of him, on an impulse, he pretends that an actress (Sullavan) is his girlfriend. Oddly, she feels sorry for him and agrees to the ruse. However, over time, this jaded lady comes to life when she's with Stewart and eventually they fall in love for real. Where it goes next, I won't say--but I was very surprised where the film went. Some may hate the surprise but I appreciated how the writer avoided the clichéd or simple ending.

Well worth seeing despite some poor attention to details. Exceptionally acted (it doesn't get much better) and a dynamite script. See this one.

Shy young soldier James Stewart is picked on by his fellow soldiers for not being a ladies man. Jaded showgirl Margaret Sullavan agrees to help him out by pretending to be his girlfriend. He quickly falls in love with her for real but things are complicated by his having to ship out for the war and her already having a boyfriend (Walter Pidgeon).

The second of four movies pairing Stewart and Sullavan. Their chemistry is remarkable as always. This one doesn't turn out how you might think and I can easily see many viewers being disappointed. It builds up towards one thing but shifts gears 3/4 of the way through and becomes something else. I still enjoyed it, though.

This one aired on TCM the other day and was well worth seeing. Had heard about it but had never seen it. I thought it was a good example of Jimmy Stewart's work in earlier films before he became a big star.

But as much as I enjoy and admire Jimmy Stewart, I thought Margaret Sullavan took acting honors in this one. Showing depth and range, she went from cold and cynical to sensitive and caring - from a turn-off to someone to root for. I also thought the chemistry between the two was a plus.

Stories like this one have been done many times in the past - country bumpkin meets jaded big-city veteran - but this picture had a unique charm about it that makes movie-going so enjoyable and rewarding. I rated it a well-deserved seven.

James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan made four films together, the most she had with any leading man. In fact Stewart's career was given a considerable boost when Sullavan requested him in the lead of their first film, Next Time We Love. Sullavan had been married to Henry Fonda, Stewart fellow Princeton alumnus from the Triangle Club and Fonda and Stewart were a pair of starving New York actors back in the day.

The film is a sweet romantic story about a young soldier who quite accidentally comes between a Broadway actress and her playboy boyfriend. The story had been previously filmed at Paramount earlier during the last dying days of the silent screen with Gary Cooper, Nancy Carroll, and Paul Lukas in the roles that Stewart, Sullavan, and Walter Pidgeon play here.

Stewart is just perfect as the earnest young private from Texas who Sullavan while using Pidgeon's car as transportation, knocks down in a New York City street. One thing leads to another and Sullavan finds she's got two men on her hands. What to do.

As in all films in Hollywood of 1938 it all gets resolved in a poetic, but tragic way. The leads are cast quite perfectly. I'm surprised this film has not been made again. Hattie McDaniel is in this one also as Sullavan's maid of course. I doubt today though that there would be a Hattie McDaniel type role in it.

What others might say is a lack of chemistry between Stewart and Sullavan in this charming picture, is what I call "acting".

People from widely different social circles react to situations differently. It is evident that the rich talents of these two actors contributed strongly to the feeling question of their compatibility.

That is the whole point of this story! The examination of things that sometimes happen during a war between unlikely pairings.

Without trying to reveal any of the story, I will say that one never felt as if Sullavan portrayed the complexity of her character without conviction, in fact, she did it admirably. She merely expressed it in the only way that a person of another "class" from Stewart's would. What I did find refreshing in Sullavan's character, although taken from the mold of a Broadway star, she displayed none of the expected snobbery which those parts normally include. It made her character all the more likeable.

Stories about romance during a war are filled with stories that sound fantastic - but may have very well occurred. This movie is no exception and I took that perspective into account as I watched the story unfold.

I would recommend this movie to any fan of James Stewart or Margaret Sullavan. They delivered their parts with originality and a lack of staleness which is normally associated with such simple stories.