Back Pay

A reviewer has said "Back Pay is Griffith's only surviving talkie so it's impossible to tell if she was playing a part or if her voice was really her voice." I would like to answer that. In the late '70s I was at a film event that had King Vidor as a guest of honor (at least I think it was him, to the best of my memory). Mr. Vidor (or whoever it was) said that Corrine Griffith wasn't successful in talking films, "because she had a southern accent, and so it was good-bye Corrine!" That part I remember distinctly. This would indicate to me, that the voice in the film is really hers, and that is how she actually talked. As to the opening scene, I get the impression they have her singing "They Didn't Believe Me" in order to establish the period in which the story was supposed to be. That song was a huge hit during the teens and 1930 audiences certainly would have understood the time frame by that--since the clothes don't give anyone a clue. Finally I would like to say that no matter how good or bad the film is--any time we have a talking film of a silent star, it is priceless in the sense that we can know what they sound like. I think of how Mabel Normand and Fatty Arbuckle made so many pictures together. Fatty made several shorts in the 1930s just before he died, so we can know what he sounded like. Mabel never did make any talkies, and so we don't know how she sounded. Now someone might say, "Well who cares how they sounded?" Well, I like to know what people sound like, don't you? I think that's just natural curiosity and it's nice when it can be satisfied.

This movie is not the disaster some have made it out to be, and although only 55 minutes in length it felt like a well-made, complete picture. To my mind Corinne Griffith was quite good, even singing during a charming early scene. Her costars ranged from adequate to good, but never bad enough to sink the picture. Because this may turn out to be her only surviving sound picture, it is a must see for film historians. I cannot thank the studios enough for making so much of their old inventory available for viewing, and I encourage everyone to show your appreciation by continuing to purchase titles from any archive collection.The plot of this one was probably dated even in 1930, but it is earnestly acted nonetheless. I do agree that there appear to be anachronisms throughout, mostly relating to clothing/vehicles, but that was not fatal to the picture for me. Overall, a charming curio, nicely photographed. The print has some damage but is surprisingly good overall. I think I'd give Back Pay 3 stars out of 4.

The copy of "Back Pay" that is being shown now on TCM is apparently a very truncated version. Over 20 minutes is missing--as some studio types thought this change would make for a better feature. It also is often a sign that a film is in trouble and the studio was desperate to make it more marketable. So, this review is only for this short version.

"Back Pay" starts with one of the most unintentionally funny musical scenes I can recall. Corinne Griffith is singing to her boyfriend but it seriously looks as if she is a zombie!! I have NEVER seen anyone sing with less energy or conviction. Heck, her lips barely even move nor does she even twitch! And, her boyfriend lies there as if he is dead! Seriously--you just have to watch this opening to believe it. Now I know this is an early talking picture--but even by the standards of 1930 it's pretty awful. And this gets me to the single biggest problem that ruins the film. Although I might have expected an early sound film to be stilted and have lousy acting, by 1930 this was NOT a problem in most films. So, had the film come out in 1928 or even 1929, I might have cut the film some slack. However, the director must have either been insane or totally incompetent as the actors (particularly but not exclusively Griffith) had poor delivery and many of the scenes should have been re-shot. Surely any sane director would have noticed the zombie-like delivery at the film's beginning--but this one apparently did not. And, repeatedly, the actors seemed to have little in the way of delivery--and they were allowed to give such lackluster performances. They either talk too fast, too soft or look stilted. As a result, the movie sucks. I know this sounds mean, but it irritated me that Miss Griffith was allowed to give such a bad performance--along with a cast of folks who seemed to have little idea how to act in a talking picture.

I you STILL decide to see this film, a few things to look for apart from Griffith's awful singing is the masseuse who can barely be understood, the scene with her old boyfriend where the actors keep talking over each other's lines as well as when actors inexplicably talk too fast in some scenes. Some might blame the actors, but isn't it the director's job to notice this and re-shoot these awful scenes?!

A rare talkie for silent film legend Corinne Griffith (and the only one of her sound films that gets any circulation today), BACK PAY is an agreeable soap opera about a dreamy small town girl Hester Bevins (Griffith) who loves her unambitious but decent local boy but she knows There's A Big World Out There. The ward of her slovenly aunt who owns a run-down boarding house, she impulsively abandons the sticks when a traveling salesman proposes to take her to the big city. Beautiful Hester practically overnight becomes a rich man's mistress but has she really pulled out her small-town roots or gotten over the boy back home? This little movie has received some harsh reviews by some IMDb posters but I felt it was acceptable very early talkie. Griffith is a vision although she was nearing the end of her days as a screen star after over a decade of top stardom. Her speaking voice is quite pleasant if unmemorable. She sings the song "They'll Never Believe Me" in a lovely moment with beau Grant Withers leaning against a tree that opens the film. There are a few brief moments where the naturally refined Hester's clashing with the crude world of low-income South are brilliantly captured, Corinne and Grant's romantic interlude interrupted by the loud, gossipy sarcasm of their boorish friends ("little people, little lives eeewww" Corinne hisses in disgust), and slightly later walking home in a romantic daze and brought sharply down to earth by her vulgar gum-chewing aunt ("always in that filthy pink kimono"), a leering boarder, and most vividly, a sink full of long unwashed dishes and discarded beer bottles that all would have turned Pollyanna into an advocate of the primrose path as it does Hester.

...but for the rest of you out there seeking pure entertainment I'd pass on this one. Every single star of the four I give it are for the chance to observe in one 50 minute film almost everything that went wrong with early talking pictures - that is, when things did go wrong. You can't learn this stuff by watching "Singin in the Rain" folks.

The film opens in an interesting fashion with Ms. Griffith singing a nifty little ballad entitled "They'll Never Believe Me" wearing a dress and head gear with so many bows she looks like a Christmas present, but it's downhill from there. The story is that of your basic fallen woman (Corinne Griffith as Hester Bevins) and how she fell and why she chooses to remain fallen and if and why she is ever redeemed. Hester is a clerk in a small town department store in Demopolis, Virginia who is loved by Gerald (Grant Withers), the department store bookkeeper. She is apparently subject to ridicule by the other members of the town and she lives on the wrong side of the tracks - literally. She goes home to her aunt's boarding house one day, sees her aunt in her dingy kimono entertaining some man whom she calls "The Boss" - who this guy is exactly is one of many things never explained - looks at the kitchen full of dirty dishes and walls splattered with food and sees her future, and she does not like the view. She high-tails it out of town with nothing but her hat and the clothes on her back accompanied by a splashy traveling salesman who takes her to New York. She immediately trades up from the salesman to being the mistress of wealthy Charles Wheeler (Montagu Love), and from there I'll let you watch and see what happens.

Everyone reviewing here is very hard on Ms. Griffith, but to be honest every single player in this production is acting like they are reciting lines from a high school play. Everyone, that is, with the exception of Louise Beavers who is the only performer in the film who acts like they have a pulse and an idea of who their character is supposed to be. Then there is Grant Withers who I actually liked in a couple of the early WB precodes with his snappy delivery, but here he is saddled with a ridiculous blonde wig and gee whiz dialogue that makes him seem like a twelve year old in a grown man's body.

As for the art design, forget about it. The movie opens in the year 1913 or 1914 - not exactly sure which - yet everybody is dressed like it is 1930 through the whole film, including the women wearing dresses that partially show their knees which would have gotten you arrested at the time. When the film opens everyone is driving horse drawn carriages, but by four years later - 1917 - when Hester revisits her hometown of Demopolis with her New York gang, they are driving Model A's, which weren't' even produced until 1927. And yes, I freeze-framed the film and looked it up.

The title cards would have you believe Hester is living a most debauched life with hammy sentences like "while some lay down their lives others laid down their honor" but other than her being the mistress of a rich man and partaking of some light Prohibition era drinking, I can't see anything wild going on here. Believe me, the so called "party scenes" would put that master of cinematic orgies, Cecil B. DeMille, fast to sleep.

I'd like to lay this entire mess at the feet of the director, but, alas, there is no director to blame! There is no director listed in the credits of the film and this database has William Seiter listed as only the uncredited director. I don't blame him. I wouldn't want my name associated with this either.

If you like film history, then you know that there is no such thing as bad film history, and I advise you watch this film for all the reasons I've given. I'd certainly like to know what Jack Warner thought when he saw it.