User reviews

A wonderful musical comedy, fitting in well with 42nd Street, Golddiggers of 1933, Footlight Parade, and Golddiggers of 1935. Of the five, I would place this one tied for second, behind Golddiggers of 1933, equal to Footlight Parade, and just a hair better than 42nd Street. If you have seen none of them it would be good to start with this one. Then I would go to 42nd Street, Footlight Parade, saving the masterpiece Golddiggers of 33 for last. (Golddiggers of 1935 is quite a bit inferior.)

The first strong point is the excellent comedic plot, better than that in 42nd Street, about the same as Footlght Parade. Guy Kibbe is wonderful as always, Hugh Herbert and Zasu Pitts are great. The three of them really steal the show, at least as far as acting and plot go. The jokes come quickly and can easily be missed. I would hazard a guess that some viewers will no longer get the joke in the name of Hugh Herbert's character, "Ezra Ounce."

Joan Blondell is gorgeous and smart as always. Dick Powell is the same as in all the movies - which is absolutely fine! I love his voice.

I find Ruby Keeler a delight to look at and watch. It's true, as others have commented, that she really doesn't do a heck of a lot in this one, though she is on screen quite a lot. Some people seem to love to put down her acting or dancing. OK, so she's not going to star in King Lear or Antigone. So what? Get over it! That's not the point. She is very appealing. Similarly, I like seeing her dance. She doesn't have to be as good as Cyd Charisse. Get over it!

The real appeal of all five of the movies I've mentioned here, and the real star, is Busby Berkeley. It is amazing to read one or two of the reviews written here in the last decade by people who, I suppose, are rather young and set in their ways. How anyone with half a brain can watch this movie and not be absolutely blown away is unbelievable to me. Truly, such a person is blind. Maybe not in the sense of passing the eye test for a driver's license, but blind nonetheless. Surely Busby Berkeley was the most unexpected creative genius in the history of film.

Let me echo something another poster has written. Though I was born long after the great depression ended, it was still a living reality in the minds of my parents, and something I absorbed somehow when growing up. Maybe a byproduct of the difficult economic times we are living through now will be a greater sensitivity on the part of some people to those times and the culture produced in those times. It does seem that some of the negative reviewers here need to broaden and deepen their appreciation, not just of movies, but of humanity.

But I digress. This is a wonderful, fun, eye-popping movie, full of great songs and fantastic choreography. Enjoy.

• henry

No one who lived through the Great Depression could possibly take seriously negative comments on the quality and content this film written by youngsters with no sense of its historical context. To lament its silliness or find fault with what seem now to be crude mechanical cinematographic devices just begs the question.

This movie could not be recreated in the twenty-first century even in the smallest part. In the first place, musicals are now passé. The drag parody of the title number "Dames" in 1988's film Torch Song Trilogy is proof of that. Moreover, its stock characters (Hugh Herbert, Guy Kibbee, Zasu Pitts) were simply reprising common comedic roles of the day, completely unsuited to the harsher and more cynical models now in vogue. And Ruby Keeler's numbers lack totally the athleticism of our contemporary dancers.

What we can appreciate about the movie is how it fits nicely into the Busby Berkeley oeuvre. After his huge successes of 1933, this example is a fitting continuation to his development as a moviemaker. The catastrophic effects of the Great Depression like mass unemployment, hunger, wholesale uprooting of communities, and abject poverty affecting the lives of millions of ordinary Americans could be forgotten for a few pennies spent in the local movie house. It played to the needs of its time.

Interestingly, the packaging of female pulchritude in the film also fits with that time. What today seems borderline pornographic or insulting to women was accepted without much fuss in 1934. Indeed, any student of Freud could have a field day deconstructing some of the Berkeley images.

As to the music, it is simply classic. Dick Powell's phrasing is a model of tenor sensibility in an age of Big Band baritones. One has to accept that continuity or theatrical presentation is not a factor. Each number stands or falls entirely on its own as seen through the lens of the camera. As an early prototype of the Hollywood musical, Dames was and is a smash hit.

Dick Powell and the music of Warren and Dubin is reason enough to watch this otherwise average musical. Busby Berkley's choreography is an aquired taste - I prefer the elegance of Hermes Pan/Fred Astaire and the expert tapping of George Murphy and Eleanor Powell, or even the highly entertaining Bill "Bojangles" Robinson and Shirley Temple duets. But these all came later than DAMES and Berkley's eye-candy style is highly entertaining and, sometimes, memorable.

I never thought Ruby Keeler was terribly talented and her lack of acting ability does show, especially in the company of such accomplished players as Joan Blondell, Powell, Hugh Herbert, and Guy Kibbee. Keeler's acting is passable, if a bit clumsy, and I find her dancing adequate. (She was called, in some 1930s circles, "The Stomper" for her heavy-footed tapping.)

What makes this film a winner is the music. The title song is wonderful and the splendid "I Only Have Eyes For You" is one of the best songs ever written for a movie. That song is fully performed twice, once about midway into the film and, differently, near the end. The later performance is fine, the former one of the screen's greatest musical numbers. Powell sings it with his beautiful high tenor and Berkley provides probably his best ever production. I dare the viewer to not get goose bumps when watching this.

Take away the music and Busby Berkley and you're left with not much except a (mostly) great cast. I give "DAMES" my highest rating for the music and production numbers and a solid middle ranking for the plot. One could do a lot worse than spend 90 minutes with DAMES.

...from Warner Brothers and directors Ray Enright and Busby Berkeley. Ultra-wealthy Ezra Ounce (Hugh Herbert) promises to bequeath $10 million to his relatives Horace (Guy Kibbee), Mathilda (Zasu Pitts), and Barbara (Ruby Keeler), as long as they live a "just and moral life", which includes no show business. Barbara's boyfriend and distant cousin Jimmy (Dick Powell) wants to put on a big musical show, and he teams with brassy showgirl Mabel (Joan Blondell) to make it happen, even if Ezra won't approve.

The story is silly, the characters are one-dimensional, and it takes a long time to get to the musical numbers. The song "I Only Have Eyes for You" has become a true standard, although the dance number here features chorus girls wearing Ruby Keeler masks and it gets kind of disquieting. Blondell has an oddball number singing to men's underwear, while the title number features a smirking Powell espousing the virtues of dames. This wasn't bad, and probably lots of the deficiencies were caused by the production code, which began to be enforced just a month before this film was released.

Busby fans have to wait until the last part for their guy to do his stuff. But then it's a real eye-popper. The dames keep comin' at yah one after another, blondes, brunettes, and in- betweens. What a line-up of 30's cuties. Then there's Berkeley's trademark: feminine geometry. That's enough to give Freud analytic overload and others x-rated dreams. Good thing those fluid figures were too abstract for the censors to erase. Speaking of blue- noses, '34 was the first year of Code enforcement. So, wouldn't be surprised the plot was jabbing at our watchdogs of public morality. After all, ridding the city of stage shows is the millionaire's (Hugh Herbert) favorite hobby. It's a winning cast, even if Powell mugs it up faster than a Ferrari's RPM's. True, Keeler's hoofing may be on the clunky side, still she's got the sweetest smile this side of Hollywood and Vine. Too bad the real dame, Blondell, was hobbled by six months of motherly gestation. Working her camera angles must have been a real challenge. I know a lot of folks don't especially like these antique concoctions. But in my book, they're inspired combinations of artistry, pizazz, and sheer Hollywood hokum.

Millionaire Hugh Herbert leads a moral crusade against musical shows he deems objectionable. But his young relatives Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler are both actors and intend to put on a show of their own. They also date but, before you are grossed out, we're told they're 13th cousins. Anyway, the plot is incidental. What we really want to see are those wonderful Busby Berkeley musical numbers, which are all great fun.

Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler are likable leads. Neither strains their acting muscles. Powell sings several pleasant tunes. Joan Blondell, not surprisingly, steals the show as the sexy wisecracking dame she always played so well. Hugh Herbert is an acquired taste. I have watched movies where I enjoyed him and watched movies where I couldn't wait for him to go away. His primary shtick was to fidget with his fingers and mumble a lot, frequently throwing in a 'woo hoo.' It could get old fast. Thankfully here he resists using many of his usual idiosyncrasies (whether that's his choice or the director, I don't know). Because of this, I thought Dames had one of Herbert's better roles. There's more fine comedic support from Guy Kibbee, Zasu Pitts, and Leila Bennett. It's a fun movie. Not the best of the Warner Bros musicals but a good one.

One of the nice things about those Warner Brothers Depression musicals is that you can forget some of the sillier aspects of the plot and just enjoy the wonderful nonsense created.

Dames certainly classifies as wonderful nonsense. A wacky millionaire who's a sideline puritan is going to leave a bequest to a cousin and her family providing that they are of good moral character by his ideas. The wacky millionaire is Hugh Herbert and the cousin is Zasu Pitts, her husband Guy Kibbee and her daughter Ruby Keeler. There's another distant cousin Dick Powell who's already out of the will because he's an actor.

Back then theatrical folk were held in some disdain by polite society, though that's hard to believe now. Also some eyebrows might have been raised with Dick's involvement with Ruby. But then again the president of the United States was married to his fifth cousin. I'm sure the brothers Warner knew that full well when Dames was released.

Dames of course is remembered for those wonderful Busby Berkeley numbers and one of the biggest movie songs ever in I Only Have Eyes For You. Introduced by Dick Powell it was never commercially recorded by him though dozens of our best singers have done so. It's a favorite of mine for sure.

Last but not least Dames features the always captivating Joan Blondell who's not above a little blackmail to achieve her ends. A girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do. She's featured in the Girl at the Ironing Board number, a great piece of Berkeley magic.

We can't forget the title song because as Dick Powell sings, it's what you see the show for. And in that finale they're sure enough of them to satisfy any red blooded male.

From 1929 until the late 1930s, Hollywood made a ton of films that followed a very similar pattern. There was a thin story that was more an explanation and excuse for the HUGE production numbers to come. This plot almost always had to do with something that threatened to cancel the 'big show'. Despite many thinking Busby Berkeley only directed films like this or that all these films were Berkeley movies, they weren't. But the ones with the wildest production numbers so often did end up being his films--and he always seemed to try to outdo himself--resulting in some VERY crazy films! Seen today, people are often in shock at these numbers--with huge swimming pools, dozens and dozens of pretty dancing girls, sparklers, enormous sets and the like. But, even if you don't like them, you have to admit it took a lot of work and talent to direct and choreograph these peculiar films!

The thing that threatens to stop the show is a blue-nose (Hugh Herbert)---a moralist who threatens to pull financing from the show because it features, uh-oh,...dancing girls! While Herbert is best an acquired taste (one I have never managed to acquire), Guy Kibbee was his usual fun self. As for the singers and dancers, the very familiar Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler are the leads. None of the story particularly excited me, but there were a few nice songs (such as "You Ought To Be in Pictures") and the production numbers were...well...crazy and complicated. None of this is in the least bit innovative or different from a couple dozen other films, but it is pleasant and well-made. While not nearly the quality of the better musicals like "Footlight Parade" or "42nd Street", if you like the genre this is a pleasant, if predictable, film.

Great songs and production numbers make this snappy musical a must for fans

of 30s films. Great cast has Dick Powell, Joan Blondell, Ruby Keeler, Guy

Kibbee, Hugh Herbert, Zasu Pitts, Leilah Bennett, Johnny Arthur, and Berton

Churchill in top form. Dick Powell sings "Dames" better than Harvey Fierstein! and Joan Blondell gets a couple numbers here: "The Girl at the Ironing Board" and a reprise of "Try to See It My Way, Baby." Ruby has only one dance number but sports Joan Crawford eyebrows! Pitts, Kibbee and Herbert are terrific in solid support of the stars. The Busby Berkley finale is one of his best as the "dames" go thru their paces in geometric patterns of leg art. The film's big song is "I Only Have Eyes for You" and is well done by Dick Powell----who is unjustly

underrated today.......

Just wanted to add - the names of the comic protagonists were no doubt send ups of well-known contemporary writers. Ezra Ounce = Ezra Pound. Horace Hemingway - well, that's pretty clear. Who knew Hollywood had a literary bent? I am interested in why Ruby Keeler was so popular. Was it because she was promoted by husband Al Jolson? Was it because she was cute in an unconventional way? It wasn't because she could dance, although she was known as a "hoofer". I saw a documentary on Dames in which the commentator pointed out the contemporary audiences couldn't get enough of Ruby Keeler, and Busby Berkeley certainly obliged with the zillion images of her in I Only Have Eyes for You.

A complete joy! 42nd Street, Golddiggers of 1933, Footlight Parade and this are virtually the same film and virtually all as good as each other. Possibly Golddiggers of 33 is a little better thanks to the snappier direction of Mervyn LeRoy but Dames is still 10 out of 10. The cast are perfect, the musical routines are classics such as 'By a Waterfall', 'I only have Eyes for You', and even the crazy 'The Girl with the Ironing Board' with Joan Blondell, seven months pregnant. It's also still very funny.

The fact that this film is called 'Dames' might make some people feel uneasy and Dick Powell's character's explanation doesn't really help: it's not the story, the acting, the songs which people want to see, it's dozens of beautiful dames. But why not!

The purpose of all of these is escapism from The Depression and the socially aware and champion of the underdog Daryl Zanuck knew that two things were needed for this. One was an upbeat story where downtrodden people succeed against stupid rich, unworthy millionaires and beat the system. Secondly and now more controversially, was lots of beautiful young women essentially in their underwear. These days that sounds terribly sexist but this was 90 years ago and that was the way the world was back then. Were the people in a society were a man's duty was to be the breadwinner and a woman's duty was to be looked after and look pretty any less happy than we are in our more enlightened 21st century society? Just accept it.

The other thing to just accept is Ruby Keeler. The fact that she knew she wasn't a good actress, or a classic beauty, good singer or good dancer gives her a degree of vulnerability and although you sometimes wonder how she ever got to be a star, you do want to root for her to succeed.....maybe that's why she became a star?

"Dames" is the fourth in that quartet of legendary early movie musicals from Warner Brothers which began with, what is probably the best of the lot, "42nd Street". All starred Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler and featured Dick's high tenor and Ruby's hoofing.

Dick's rather exaggerated singing style seems a bit out-of-place here with its old-fashioned slightly rolled r's. Of course, he successfully reinvented himself as a tough guy in various famous detective films of the 1940s but that was in the future.

Ruby herself was a huge star of the period and seeing her in any of her films I can only wonder why. Though she was the wife of the influential Al Jolson at the time, she really doesn't sing in this film that I recall. At most, she speaks the lines in her songs leaving all of the singing to Dick. She does sing in 42nd Street though again not with Dick. Perhaps their voices didn't blend or they didn't know how to balance them at the time.

Her speaking voice also leaves much to be desired. To me it sounds rather whiny with some rather strange pronunciations. For instance, she cannot say the word "elixir" which comes out as "elehxir". She really can't act and, no, she is neither beautiful nor glamorous and, apart from her often clunky-looking dancing, she is not especially talented in any other demonstrable way. And though her dancing is referred to as "tap", it really isn't but can be more accurately described as "clog" dancing. since she wears clog shoes which give a heavier and more earthbound attack than taps.

Like the other films, this is a "backstage" story and it should be pointed out that songs do not occur without the physical presence of real musical accompaniment on the screen. Even the first time Dick sings "I Only Have Eyes for You" when he and Ruby are on the Staten Island Ferry, there is a small ensemble conveniently present nearby. Considering the fact that the production numbers are presented in a manner that would be impossible on a real stage (As, for instance, showing a subway, a train car interior, and a train yard complete with its many tracks.) this seems a bit fussy but the practice of having a mysterious orchestra creep in behind the singer was not done in these early days of the film musical.

The comedy, not always terribly funny, is capably handled by Guy Kibbee, Zasu Pitts and Hugh Herbert even if I didn't really find Hugh convincing as a "guardian of public morality" since he seems too full of fun for that.

The production numbers only occur at the end of the film ( Maybe too much of a good thing?) When Ruby's character comes in too late to do the first number, Joan Blondell does it in her place. But it must again be pointed out that Ruby simply didn't have the voice or personality for this song. I find the song ("The Girl at the Ironing Board") rather creepy as it is all about a fetish for male underwear complete with animated and vocalizing union suits. (I'm not making this up!) But I must defend Miss Blondell against criticism of her singing. To be sure, she has nothing resembling an operatic voice but, as a "character" voice, I find her quite satisfying even if I'd never imagine that she could fill the roles of Carmen or Aida.

The song quotes from several other musical works including "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean", Mendelssohn's "Spring Song" and Saint-Saëns "The Swan" and even "Shuffle Off to Buffalo" from 42nd Street, I think. The other production numbers are equally bizarre in their own way both as objectifications of women and as sexual fantasies. It is obvious that none of this could have happened after the enforcement of the production code in 1934 (courtesy of the Hays Office).

A mixed bag but another historical landmark for the movie musical.

It always amazes me that I love these Busby Berkeley extravagant dance numbers, and that I like Ruby Keeler, Dick Powell and Joan Blondell yet these movies which supply all of the above are usually just awful, aside from the music. The fantastic sets of Berkeley are the only reason I wind up watching any of these (Footlight Parade, 42nd Street, Gold Diggers of 1933, 1935, etc.).

The stories are weak and simply stupid and usually annoying to watch and most of them are so unmemorable nobody can tell you what was in either film, only what Berkeley did with some of the hundreds of dancers. Even the famous "42nd Street" features some loud, obnoxious characters. How Guy Kibbee was considered funny, I can't figure out, but he was in a number of these films including this one, as was the almost-as-lame High Herbert.

This movie gets a bonus point, however, for including the always interesting Blondell. Also, the big number "I Only Have Eyes For You," was a nice tribute to Keeler.

Overall, the same as all the Berkeley films: great sets, great dancing, great-looking girls, dumb characters and dumb story.

Advertised by Warners as Gold Diggers for '34, it's another film in that backstage cycle that traces the efforts of youth restless with creativity to seduce with love cynical hearts hardened by money and rigid morals. It is again a film about the makings of a show, the show we're meant to be watching.

So very much in line with Gold Diggers '33 and Footlight Parade, except a little less wondrous this time, a little less seductive in all the circumstances surrounding the stage, the burlesque of trials and tribulations in fighting to stage a vision.

But it is again Busby Berkeley who is staging the vision that we have come to see. So once more an astonishing panorama of Hollywood dazzle, but with all the frill and gaudiness of the musical working beneath the dazzle to address the circumstances of its making; so we have a number where a woman romances empty shirts on a hangwire but which are animated by invisible strings from above, implying the fates that seem to be in control, another number with the author of the whole thing singing about the face that inspired the vision with the ardor of love, and the final number addressing us from our position as viewers. Of course we have come to be seduced by the dames, nothing else mattered.

The show is so intoxicating that those cynical hearts watching from the balcony are completely soused by the end of it!

So what was from the outset seemingly controlled by the fates, by a woman chancing to sleep on the wrong bed in a train compartment, is gradually revealed to have been shaped all this time around a center with clearly reflected purpose; the author's effort to announce his passion for music and this woman he sings about, and so approach within his art the face behind the cardboard image of social appearances, as the middle number reveals.

As with the other films in this cycle, even if a little less accomplished, it is overall more than potent stuff on the ardor of a loving heart to transform anxieties of a chaotic modern life that we also know into a pattern that seduces love out of both participants and viewers.

It is enjoyable to watch, brisk with dance, the disposition dreamy, but with the small hint of a shadow at the heart of this dream. The choreography maps to the contours of that internal heart wishing to beat truthfully.

Although other people who have left comments complain how moronic this film was, I actually find it quite entertaining and pleasing. As I am not a critically acclaimed critic, I am the average movie-watcher, and I as sit here and read these comments, I think about how these people can say those dreadful things. They do have their own opinions, I might add, but mine differs significantly from theirs.

Personally, I thought that this movie was funny. Others have thought the comedy was trite, but although it's not hysterical, there are some laughable parts. I have to admit, some of the humor was stale, but I wouldn't go so far as saying all of it was, as I wouldn't say all of it was rib-tickling.

Ruby Keeler's dancing is spectacular -- contrary to what some have said. How could she have been on Broadway if she wasn't that amazing? I'm a dancer, and to be on that stage is much remarkable. Granted, she wasn't an Academy Award-winner actress, but she wasn't gut-wrenching horrible. Her dancing makes up for it.

The music is so-so...it wasn't the greatest, except for "I Only Have Eyes for You." The numbers were amazing, though, and I especially loved the number with all the Ruby Keeler's. That was fantastic! "The Girl at the Ironing Board" was interesting, though Joan Blondell was a sinfully bad singer.

The only problem I did have with this movie is the show scenes. It's supposed to be on the stage, and you're watching it like you're in the audience, but -- clearly, Hollywood was thinking elaborately, and not sensible. There are parts in the musical that are unbelieving because those parts could never happen on stage, in front of human eyes without a curtain closing beforehand and after. People who've seen this movie -- you know clearly which parts I'm talking about. It's supposed to be on stage, but it could never happen! It's impossible unless they all knew magic! Overall, the movie isn't a bomb. It isn't award-winning, but all the less very entertaining and charming. I had fun during it, and unless you absolutely hate musicals, Guy Kibbee, Ruby Keeler, Dick Powell, Joan Blondell, or all of the above -- you'll enjoy it, I guarantee it.

"Dames" is a mindless Depression musical starring Dick Powell, Ruby Keeler, Joan Blondell, Zasu Pitts, Hugh Herbert and Guy Kibbee. Herbert plays Ezra Ounce, part of the moral right and president of the Ezra Ounce Foundation of American Morals who wants to stop filth, and one way to do this is to close those decadent Broadway shows. Guy Kibbee and Zasu Pitts are the Hemingways, his relatives, who are to be the recipients of $10 million of Ezra's money if they are deemed worthy. Unfortunately, their daughter Barbara (Ruby Keeler) is a dancer in love with a 13th cousin, Jimmy Higgens (Dick Powell), the rotter of the family, who wants to put on a Broadway show and feature Barbara. Papa Hemingway is blackmailed into backing said show by Mabel (Joan Blondell), who took over his train compartment en route to New York and threatens to tell the world something went on between them if he doesn't back the production.

The film features Powell singing "I Only Have Eyes For You" in his pretty tenor and some amazing choreography by Busby Berkeley. Thanks to the triple strong version of his 79% proof hiccup remedy, Dr. Silver's Golden Elixir, Uncle Ezra and the Hemingways watch the show thoroughly bombed. And that's really the only way to see "Dames." Berkeley's choreography is like an acid trip, with those wild kaleidoscope patterns he does. For "I Only Have Eyes For You," Powell sings it to Keeler, and then the entire female chorus hold photos of Ruby in front of them, later appearing as brunettes with her hairstyle and in the same white dress she wears. Keeler becomes the iris of an eye, and at the end of the number, a huge puzzle formation of her face appears.

Why one Keeler isn't enough is anybody guess because one is nearly too many. A team of galloping horses doesn't make as much noise as she does when dancing. Not for nothing do they call it hoofing. She's pretty as a picture but her acting is strictly from a drama school found inside of a matchbook. I suspected in "42nd Street" that her numbers were edited to hide the fact that she was behind the beat (as she was every time a song began) - in "Dames," she is unable to even talk in a correct song rhythm, so that answers that.

Dick Powell, who as a producer would help Sam Peckinpah and Aaron Spelling get their starts, was a perfect musical comedy juvenile. It wasn't until the 1940s when he escaped and completely turned his career around by becoming a film tough guy. Later, he went into directing and finally launched a highly profitable producing career as one of the founders of Four Star Productions.

Joan Blondell brings great energy to her role, and she's adorable with her blond hair, blue eyes, and round face. She couldn't sing worth a darn but unfortunately is called upon to do so in "Dames." At the time of the filming of the musical numbers, she was five months pregnant with her son Norman (by husband George Barnes), but it's not noticeable. Two years after the release of "Dames," she married her costar Powell; he adopted Norman in 1938.

One thing troubles me about "Dames" - Keeler is late to opening night, and Blondell has to do her first number. It's assumed she's not even coming. What would they have done with "I Only Have Eyes For You" and all those Rubys without the original? I don't know. It's an interesting question to ponder, if you do any thinking at all while watching "Dames."

If you look at the movie poster or watch the trailer for this film, it is clearly--and unabashedly--marketing the fact that it contains hundreds of women, many of whom were used in Busby Berkeley's huge production numbers. "Dames" also contains hints of pre-Code scandal and nudity--just hints.

This Depression-era film, with its energetic dancing, upbeat songs, and extravagant displays of youthful enthusiasm and beauty was designed to take viewers away from the realities outside the theater doors. And it does that very well.

Dick Powell, Ruby Keeler, Joan Blondell, and a wonderful cast of character actors including Guy Kibbee, Zasu Pitts, and Hugh Herbert thespiate (that must be a word) through a script that holds together but is largely inconsequential, except to provide a contrast between the opprobrium of Hugh Herbert's (Ezra Ounce) character, which is directed at the impropriety of the theater, and the onstage (and on screen) entertainment.

The entire film is held together by the glue of two great songs: "I Only Have Eyes For You" and "Dames". Dick Powell is the perfect vocalist (of his day).

The other "star" of the film is Mr. Berkeley's imaginative staging and camera work, including zooms, camera movement and special effects that are start-of-the-art in 1934.

This is a classic because it provides a view of its era, and stylistically it is a paragon of its genre. After "Dames", there will be better scripts, better dancing, better effects, etc., but it encapsulates the spirit of its time.

DAMES (Warner Brothers, 1934), directed by Ray Enright, with choreography by Busby Berkeley, is another backstage story with more music than plot. The central character is Ezra Ounce (Hugh Herbert), an eccentric millionaire and founder of the Ounce Foundation of American Morals, who wants to spend his money improving other people's morals. He decides to spend a month at his cousin Mathilda Hemingway's New York home (ZaSu Pitts), to see that she and her husband, Horace (Guy Kibbee) and their daughter, Barbara (Ruby Keeler) have been living clean moral lives. If so, the family then will inherit his $10 million. Aside from not liking women (!), the only other thing Ezra cannot tolerate is show people. It so happens that Barbara is in love with Jimmy Higgens (Dick Powell, in an energetic performance), a playwright/ composer who hopes to find a backer for his show, "Sweet and Hot," and her father, Horace, has encountered Mabel Anderson (Joan Blondell), a stranded showgirl, in his train compartment, leaving her money and his business card with a note written in the back "please do not mention this unfortunate incident to a soul." After Mabel meets up with Jimmy and his troupe, and learns that Barbara is the daughter of the "sugar daddy" Horace, she comes upon an idea of how to get the money from him to back Jimmy's musical show. Yes, by doing some gold digging.

Songs featured in the story: "When You Were a Smile on Your Mother's Lips, and a Twinkle in Your Daddy's Eye" (possibly the longest title for a single song/written by Irving Kahal and Sammy Fain); "I Only Have Eyes For You" (by Harry Warren and Al Dubin) and "Try to See It My Way" (by Mort Dixon and Allie Wrubel). For the Broadway production numbers, all written by Warren and Dubin, and running about 10 minutes each, first comes Joan Blondell dressed in turn of the century clothes performing and singing with other laundry girls to the amusing "The Girl at the Ironing Board" which includes one witty lyric, 'When I'm off on Sundays, I miss all these undies'; followed by "I Only Have Eyes for You" sung by Powell to Keeler, with girls using picture puzzles of Keeler that later fit together to form one gigantic picture of Keeler's face; and "Dames" sung by Powell, performed by a parade of pretty chorines dressed in white blouses and black tights doing their geometric patterns, tap dancing, and Berkeley going crazy with his camera tricks, facial close-ups, leg tunnels, etc. Before the show meets up with a riot started by Ezra's stooges, Blondell comes out center stage in baby clothes singing "Try to See It My Way, Baby" along with other chorines.

I find DAMES acceptable entertainment, although some of the comedy may be trite, with both plot and production numbers starting to repeat themselves. While many critics mention that Ruby Keeler lacks in acting ability, I find her bad acting very noticeable here more than in any of her other movies, past and future, especially when she plays angry and jealous over Powell's attention towards Blondell. This is one of those rare exceptions that I did find her performance annoying than likable. It's interesting to note however that with all the songs, she doesn't get to sing any of them (excluding briefly talking her lyric to "Eyes for You"), and tap dances a minute or two to piano playing to the tune "Dames" during a pre-Broadway tryout. DAMES also marks the fourth and final Powell-Keeler-Berkeley collaboration. In the age of 1930s screwball comedy, Pitts, Kibbee and Herbert fit their character roles perfectly, and all manage to later get drunk after drinking Dr. Silver's Golden Elixer. Also in the cast are Leila Bennett as the bewildered housekeeper, Laura; Johnny Arthur as Billings, Ounce's personal secretary; and songwriter Sammy Fain appearing as songwriter, Buttercup Baumer. One final note, "I Only Have Eyes For You" should have at least been nominated for Academy Award as Best Song of 1934. (***)

Sid Caesar was 12 when Dames came out in 1934. I wonder if he saw it? There is a remarkable similarity between Hugh Herbert and Caesar, both in their facial expressions, especially the eyebrows, and their rapid fire, staccato delivery. Was Herbert a model for Caesar?

While Dames is an obvious knock off of 42nd Street in cast and in basic plot elements, Dames is a surreal comedy, in the vein of some W.C. Fields movies of the era, while 42nd is a noir realist drama. The third in this triptych of theme, cast and musical theme and variations is Gold Diggers of 1935. And they are all Busby Berkley musicals from the rebel studio Warner Brothers, a few years before MGM established its franchise for classy but wholesome musicals with The Great Ziegfeld in 1936.

It is safe to say Robert Z. Leonard out Busby'd Berkley with incredible spectacles like A Pretty Girl is Like a Melody. But this was based on an actual Flo Ziegfeld stage production, though with more space and money. So presumably Berkley's productions were a sort of adaption of Ziegfeld's Broadway spectacles to the screen. There seems to be a circle of inspiration and admiration here between Berkley and Ziegfeld, Warner Brothers and MGM.

I say surreal because how else would you describe breaking into song on the Staten Island ferry and then a string ensemble appearing on deck to accompany him? Several of the musical numbers morph between the stage, "actual" street and subway scenes, and back to the stage, all while the real audience is in the movie theater, of course. Compare this to W.C. Field's International House (with a crazed Cab Calloway directing Reefer Man), and Never Give a Sucker an Even Break, which bend reality into a pretzel. You might add Herbert's Hellzapoppin', which is to reality what Easy Rider is to the AAA. There were some rather odd movies made back then.

Dames is not a great movie, but it does have a place in the evolution of musicals. At first, directors felt they needed some excuse in the plot to get the actors onto the stage to sing, or at least have them play professional actors/singers. But once you move the musical away from stark reality, bursting into song, as on the ferry, no longer seems to odd.

Watch Dames before 42nd Street and it will make 42nd look better. The weakness in both is the stylized early 30s acting. Compared to good modern acting 42nd looks weak, but compared to Dames, it looks fine.

When I think of musicals, I naturally think of MGM. And when I think Warner, I think of James Cagney type crime dramas. Yet, if you look at the record, Warner did some of the best musicals, like The Wizard of Oz, Yankee Doodle Dandy (with a wonderful singing-dancing Cagney), Show Boat, Singin' in the Rain, The Music Man and Caberet, musicals that stand the test of time, artistically, as well or better than MGM's.

As a footnote, Caesar lives in a little town just outside NYC that Ziegfeld and Fields and Fitzgerald once called home.

Okay. I am 61 years old so this film is way way before me. However I am also a lifetime fan of movies and movie makers who never should be forgotten. Thirties musicals were never that fantastic with their stories, it was always an 'excuse' rather than a reason for dance routines. Boy met girl, boy lost girl, boy found girl again or boy/girl want to put a show on/or be in a show, they can't get in and by a twist of fate it all happens in the last 4 minutes! We know.... None of the Astaire/Rogers movies are remembered for their sparkling story and Dames is actually a little bit better than those. Whether you laugh (I did) at Hugh Herbert today is down to you. I find him hilarious and yes, the comedy is way over acted but so is today's (Will Ferrell anyone?)... I like the persona of Dick Powell, his voice and renditions of songs are not my cup of tea though again in the context of the film absolutely fine. Blondell is gorgeous as she was in those early Thirties films and Keller is well... Keeler....but the real star is the man you can't see. Yes you guessed it I am referring to Busby Berkeley. It does take a while before his magic gets on the screen but when it does it keeps on coming. The very end bit which goes from geometrically moving bodies to freeze frame to Dick Powell's head tearing it apart as if it were a wallpaper is so ahead of its times in terms of technical accomplishment I was dumbfounded. If you love cinema, you need to see a Busby Berkeley number (preferably in the film context) once in your life at least because THAT man changed the way images were made and we still see an impact of his amazing work today. Men like Berkeley are seldom mentioned now, people, if they remember anything, remember directors and a body of work. Though Berkeley did direct, he will always be the man who created those amazing routines at a time when CGI and computers were scifi. So yes, loving cinema as an art form needs a Berkeley vieweing and you could do a lot worse than watch Dames!

With 25 minutes to go, I opened up a browser window to IMDb and went ahead and gave this film a 3-star rating. Yes, it had the origin of the classic song "I Only Had Eyes for You", but was otherwise mediocre most of the time, and anywhere from inane or offensive the rest of the time. Even an ear-catching bit of very non-timeless dialog like, "I can do what I want! I'm free, white, and 21!" Worst of all, with 25 minutes to go, no vintage dazzling Berkeley choreography. It was obvious why it was not to be mentioned in the same breath as "42nd Street", "Footlight Parade", or "Gold Diggers of 1933."

Then...wow! Berkeley choreography/cinematography goes into overdrive! Some of the wackiest, most beautiful visually stunning pieces ever featuring Berkeley's movement, Ruby Keeler's face (several of them, in fact), some amazing dissolves, and the beautiful black and white images dominate the last third of the film. I wish the first hour wasn't so underwhelming, but the rest of it does its best to make up for it!

A multi-millionaire (Hugh Herbert) starts up an organization to stamp out all filth in the entertainment industry--like Broadway musicals. He gets his cousin (Guy Kibee) and wife (Zasu Pitts) to help. But their daughter (Ruby Keeler) wants to be a dancer and is in love with a man (Dick Powell) who wants to put on a show.

This movie is hard to see. It never pops up on TV (only occasionally on TCM), never is revived or even mentioned! I thought it was because of the title (which some women find offensive). After seeing it I now know why it's obscure--it's pretty bad. The plot is the worn "let's put on a show" and none of the comedy is remotely funny. The acting doesn't help much. Herbert is annoying, Kibee unfunny and Pitts just TERRIBLE (hard to believe she was such an acclaimed actress). Keebler is beautiful but can't act at all and her "dancing" is hilariously bad. Powell is so apple-checked and cheerful that you want to strike him. Also if he had said "swell" one more time I was gonna spit up. I know people like the Busby Berkeley numbers in here. I don't. They're repititous and seeing a bunch of Keebler closeups filling the screen is a true nightmare.

I'm giving it a 6 for a few reasons. Joan Blondell is in this--just not enough. She's just great--when she's on screen the energy level here jumps.

She can also dance but having her sing was a mistake. Also there are some great numbers here--"When You Were A Smile on Your Mother's Lips and a Twinke in Your Daddy's Eyes", "I Only Have Eyes for You" and the title tune.

"Girl at the Ironing Board" is OK and pretty damn suggestive (for the time).

I can't really recommend this but if you have NOTHING else to do there are worse things to do.