The Royal Family of Broadway

The Barrymore lineage has been one of the most documented theatrical families in the history of acting. The performing dynasty dates back to its patriarch, Maurice Barrymore, a London stage actor before moving to New York City in 1875, and stretches to present day Drew Barrymore, who first gained notice at seven for her role in 1982's "E. T." Several books have been written about this talented group, including James Kotsilibas-Davis' 1982 'Barrymores Royal Family in Hollywood." Cinema has also paid homage to the Barrymores, leading off with the first talkie that presents a thinly-veiled portrait of them in December 1930's "The Royal Family of Broadway."

When the New York City play which the Paramount Pictures movie was based on first came out, Ethel Barrymore was incensed by it. 'The Royal Family' stage drama, co-written by Edna Ferber and George F. Kaufmann, became an instant hit with the Broadway crowd, running 345 performances at the Selwyn Theater beginning in December 1927. Compounding Ethel's angst was when she saw the Herman Mankiewicz-scripted movie. Both the play and the movie focuses on a fictional acting family, the Cavendishes. Its matron, Fanny Cavendish (Henrietta Crosman), loves the stage and never wants to retire. Her daughter, Julie (Ina Claire), never enamored with acting, wants to get out of the profession and is anxious to marry a South American millionaire. Julie is clearly Ethel. Her brother, Tony (Fredric March), is based on John, who is quite a rebel-rouser loving life to the fullest and is equally talented on stage and in film. Most of the actors in the stage version appeared in the 1930 film.

Ethel hired a high-power lawyer to sue the producers of both the play and the movie. Once reviewing the screenplay, her lawyer said her brother, John, had more of a case for libel than she did. John saw the play with March playing his character. After the performance, Barrymore went backstage and "walked into March's dressing room with a glowering look," according to inside sources. "Then suddenly relaxed, he waxed charming and agreeable, and congratulated the jittery actors on a fine performance." So ended Ethel's thoughts of lawsuits.

March earned an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor. The actor had played the role of Tony Cavendish on the stage, film and on television. March claimed it was one of his favorite roles, mainly because it was spoofing another person, which didn't stress him to interpret a character where he was forced shape it to his own style.

"The Royal Family of Broadway" also gave future director George Cukor the opportunity to become familiar with film production. Shot at the Paramount Studios in Astoria, Queens, New York, he designed the stage settings and blocked the actors before director Cyril Gardner filmed the scenes. Cukor's roots on the stage began in 1920 as a manager and he worked his way up to directing his first play, 'The Great Gadsby,' on Broadway in 1926. He signed with Paramount Pictures in 1929 on the basis of his stage work, and was instrumental in making the movie "The Royal Family of Broadway' a critically acclaimed film, although not totally embraced by the public. The members of the American Film Institute regard it as a great comedy, nominating the movie as one of 500 feature films considered for the Top 100 Funniest American Movies.

"The Royal Family of Broadway" (Paramount, 1930), directed by Cyril Gardner and George Cukor, is a screen adaptation based on the popular 1927 play "The Royal Family" by George S. Kaufman and Edna Ferber. Like so many films from the early talking period with similar titles as "The Gold Diggers of Broadway" (Warners, 1929), "The Shannons of Broadway" (Universal, 1929) or "Lord Byron of Broadway" (MGM, 1930), this extended title is not a musical nor of British royalty of the American stage, but a comedy-drama about an theatrical acting family often classified as one thinly disguised version of the Barrymore (Ethel and John). Though not essentially a biography of any of the Barrymores, it's a fictional narrative of the three generations of the Cavendish acting family of Broadway and how their family tradition has been disrupting their personal lives.

The story begins as Julia Cavendish (Ina Claire), star of ROMERO AND JULIET, leaves the theater at the end of another performance, returning home with her mother, Fanny (Henrietta Crosman), in their limousine driving down Broadway bound for home. Along the way, Fanny notices the movie marque bearing her son's name, Anthony Cavendish, starring in "MAN AGAINST THE GODS," in what she describes as "All talking, all color, ALL terrible." As the narrative progresses through its plot and character development, where it is rumored that Julia plans to retire from the theater and have her daughter, Gwen (Mary Brian) take her place, Julia, having acted most of her life, feels she would be restless away from the theater and her actor friends. Later that evening, she receives a telephone call from Gilbert Marshall (Frank Conroy), a millionaire bachelor and old friend arriving from South America, hoping he could interest her in leaving the theater and become his wife. Gwen, however, wants to break family tradition by marrying Perry Stewart (Charles Starrett), a young businessman, but finds herself pitted against family tradition and true love. As for Anthony (Fredric March), "The Great Lover" of the talking screen, having secretly arrived from Hollywood, also wants to give up acting for a trip to Europe. Situations occur when Fanny is unable to perform on stage, leading to the play for which she is appearing to either close or have a family member sacrifice his or her happiness to fulfill theater tradition of "the show must go on." Others appearing in the cast include: Arnold Korff (Oscar Wolff); Elsie Edmond (Della, the Maid); and Herschel Mayall (The Doctor).  

As with most 1929/30 film releases being talky,stiff with some or no underscoring as well as occasional inter-titles in the silent film tradition, "The Royal Family of Broadway" is no exception, yet succeeds remarkably well through its camera treatment and style in some of its scenes. The most notable one in the entire production turns out to be where Fredric March's character shows no modesty or shame as he slowly disrobes one piece of clothing at a time while talking to his family and walking up the stairs at the same time. The camera captures every movement until his last peace of clothing is removed before entering the shower to wash up in front of both his sister and mother after following him to the bathroom resuming their discussions.

Though Ina Claire's name heads the cast and is the sole figure throughout its 82 minutes, it's Fredric March's performance in general that is singled out with his John Barrymore-type performance that was good enough to earn him an Academy Award nomination as Best Actor. March's character, first appearing 20 minutes into the story, disguised heavily in fur coat, hat and sunglasses, is quite eccentric to say the least, especially when using eye-brow gestures and speech mannerisms in the John Barrymore style. March's swashbuckling on the stairwell comes across more like March doing a Douglas Fairbanks than that of the great profile. Though March's role is secondary, he makes every moment count in his favor. Henrietta Crosman, who gives more of an middle-aged Ethel Barrymore performance than the youthful blonde Ina Claire, also stands-out in her talkie film debut. Yet in spite of Claire's youthful presence, she plays a mother of a grown daughter (Mary Brian), something most actresses of her age and time-frame would refuse to do. It's also worth noting Charles Starrett, who would achieve fame years later as a cowboy actor in matinée westerns, in one of his earliest movie roles, along with Frank Conroy giving a sincere performance as a businessman who loves Julia but not sure whether or not he can ever have her as part of his life to share in South America.

Though March did appear in the stage version to "The Royal Family" and years later in the television 1958 retelling opposite Claudette Colbert and Helen Hayes, the 1930 screen adaptation should be of historical significance as one of many Broadway plays, whether it be musical or not, recaptured on the motion picture screen. Other than rare television revivals, notably on public television's WNET, Channel 13, in New York City during the early 1980s, "The Royal Family of Broadway" did become one of several movie titles selected as part of its film preservation society on American Movie Classics cable channel in 1993. After its final broadcast in 1994, "The Royal Family of Broadway" has become and remains very much now an underrated gem from the early age of talkies. (***1/2)

Well the Print I watched this motion picture was scratchy and a little bit blurry I could barley hear most of the actors talk at time but I and persevered continue watching the film. While I have admiration for early talkies this film was intriguing when it came to film history I watched solely on it portraying the Barrymore family. Ina Claire and Fredric march make the movie entreating as it may seem slow at times. Fredric solely steals the show and the film becomes more fast paced and is no wonder he was nominated during the 4th academy awards in 1931. While Not a spoiler I was taken back from the first few minutes of the film of a piano reciting "Sobre las olas" a mexican piece.

The Royal Family Of Broadway whom everyone in America knew to take as the Barrymores was a successful play on Broadway written by George S. Kaufman and Edna Ferber of the Algonquin Round Table. It ran 345 performances in 1927-28 and was immediately snapped up by Paramount once it was decided sound was here to stay. The wit of Kaufman/Ferber just would not have cut it on the silent screen with cue cards.

The family currently consists of grand dame Henriette Crossman, daughter Ina Claire, son Fredric March and granddaughter Mary Brian. Crossman is the kind that will carry on the theatrical tradition of the Cavendishes come what may. The theater is a religious calling and she's instilled that in her offspring. Ina Claire whose resemblance to Ethel Barrymore was unmistakable carries on, but she's starting to yearn for a quieter existence and she might have it with millionaire platinum king Frank Conroy. Her daughter from a former marriage Mary Brian is an eager young hopeful who has young playboy and future Durango Kid Charles Starrett panting after her. In real life Ethel did marry into the Colt Arms Manufacturing company and her daughter did pursue a stage career as well.

But the part of Tony Cavendish whom everyone took as John Barrymore provides the real spark in this work. Fredric March got his first Oscar nomination for this wonderful satire on a most outrageous man in John Barrymore. Barrymore's dissipation came later on, the result of the high flying, high living that you March brag on here. The tabloids of the day were filled with the doings of the Barrymores/Cavendishes and John provided most of the copy.

There's no Lionel equivalent here. Not that Lionel wasn't colorful in his own right, but he managed to keep his vices out of the public eye.

Ethel who took her position as First Lady of the American Theater quite seriously considered a law suit against any and all who had something to do with the play and film. But John who saw Fredric March do a stage version in California as well thought the play outrageous and funny and he congratulated March on getting him down so well. I guess without a Barrymore united front, Ethel really couldn't consider a lawsuit.

I saw the film years ago and then just saw it and I remembered back then how March just dominates the film, it's that kind of part. You enjoy Tony Cavendish when he arrives and you just wait for him to come back.

Although the play's been revived a lot, I doubt will see a remake of this film. The hijinks of the Barrymore clan are really not known to today's movie-going public and a lot of the jokes will be dated except to people like me. Still seeing this sparkling comedy might make you want to find out about the American theatrical tradition known as the Barrymores.

...but don't let that stop you from enjoying this film. Specifically, Fredric March's second billing on top of his Oscar nomination for Best Actor for his role of Tony Cavendish in this film might lead you to believe that you are going to be treated to a big dose of March as a thinly disguised version of John Barrymore, as in fact the whole Cavendish family is supposed to be a parody of the Barrymore clan. That is not the case. I'd say March's role is a supporting one and his billing is probably due to the fact that he has the biggest role of any male in the film. That is because this film is in fact a close study of the hopes and angst of three generations of the female members of the Cavendish clan as they try to find a balance between the homes they want to have and the profession they love. It really is more of a drama examining the theatrical life from a woman's point of view than anything else.

The real star of the show is Ina Claire as Julie Cavendish, a 40ish actress who realizes mid-life is upon her and this has caused her to reflect upon her life. Specifically she is wondering if it is time to settle down with a long time somewhat bland but stable male acquaintance and leave the theatrical life behind. Julie's daughter Gwen is beginning her career on the stage and is contemplating marriage to a stock broker with old-fashioned ideas. He doesn't really want her to even start down a career road that he feels has ruined her mother's life. Julie's mother Fanny is considered a grand dame of the stage, but her dependence on a cane for walking has robbed her of the spotlight, and it is a hole in her life that she feels mightily. Much of this film thus focuses on these three women contemplating life in conversations with their significant others and each other - there is not that much action.

That's where Fredric March comes in. With his larger than life portrayal of Tony Cavendish/John Barrymore he periodically invades the ancestral home bringing the residual troubles of his wild life with him. He's either hiding from process servers fearing a breach of promise lawsuit or practicing his dueling with the servants. It is truly an inspired and hilarious performance, and if the Academy had supporting actor awards in 1930, March likely would have been nominated for that award instead and probably won. He really balances the film, keeping it light and preventing it from turning into pure soap opera.

Without March I'd consider this a well acted but a somewhat archaic 6/10. With March as Tony Cavendish it rises to an entertaining 7/10.