1930s_Time_Machine

A wonderful blend of moralising and salaciousness preached at a world where everyone and everything was either good or bad, black or white. The script isn't what you'd call subtle or sophisticated but William de Mille directs with enough style and imagination to keep you glued to this one.

This one really captures that early thirties feel. It's not one of the classics but everything about this just oozes 1930s atmosphere. Like all the best pre-code dramas, the whole plot is explained in a two minute conversation at the start and everything is happily resolved in the last thirty seconds. The intervening hour is reserved for the craziest, convoluted, cliched love story you've ever seen....since the last pre-code movie you watched! If you like this pre-code pictures, you've got to see this one.

Its story - naive out-of-towners get seduced by the big city is similar to BIG CITY BLUES made the same year but even though that one starred Joan (surely a goddess) Blondell, it isn't anything like as good as this. (That did however have Eric Linden who's an even limper, more characterless 'actor' than Phillips Holmes.) This is really enjoyable and despite some utterly absurd plot devices and ridiculous twists, the naturalistic acting, mainly from Hopkins (not Holmes) makes this feel like you're witnessing an authentic slice of life.

In this version of the archetypal 'don't go to the big bad city' story, Miriam Hopkins is the wide-eyed country girl awed by the skyscrapers and speakeasies. She's actually brilliant in this. We've all seen MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON and cringed a little as James Stewart wanders unconvincingly around Washington marvelling at the monuments like he's love struck. You don't cringe when Miriam Hopkins does this - she's one hundred percent believable, totally natural and shows that talent that not all actors had in the thirties: to not seem like she's acting when she's acting. This is not her best picture but her performance is truly outstanding.

MGM's decision to delay the switch to talkies generally paid off because it allowed them to learn from others' mistakes. Consequently most of MGM's early talkies were pretty good but is the exception to the rule.

Unlike the good first talkies, this is directed as though it were a stage play. Live on stage this style of direction would be fine but experiencing actors perform in the same space you are in is very different to looking at images on a screen. William C de Mille's brother certainly knew this from day one as you can tell from his first talkie, DYNAMITE. Compared with that other (MGM) movie, this feels very, very old.

Although it's very stagey, that's not the main problem - it's the story. The play this is based on was written in 1924 which unlike the 30s is less familiar to us. The attitudes, issues and problems (and the way people flick their cigarette ash on the carpet) back then don't fit easily into our current way of thinking so it's difficult to engage with these alien characters. The burning issue this deals with is: the mental anguish of a proud, struggling middle class family deciding whether to accept help from their millionaire son-in-law. That could still be relevant issue today but hardly worth spending a whole turgid hour and a half going on and on about it. Trivial is an understatement. Dull, uninteresting people with nothing better to worry about would be another description. God knows how this lot will cope when The Great Depression happens!

There were many films from 29 much , much worse but it's films like this which give people the impression that all early talkies were terrible.

That silliness, sauciness and innocent charm you find in 1930s screwball comedies is lovingly evoked in this entertaining low-budget but well made spy parody. Despite what some have said, this is NOT a smutty British 'sex comedy'.

I can see why mistakenly it might have been grouped in with those dreadful sex-comedies because, well it is a comedy and there is nudity in it but it's nothing like those tacky, humourless, sexist and generally unpleasant pictures which were popular for a while. This is a proper story with believable and likeable characters which you can really engage with. There's not even any swearing and certainly no sex.

What makes this a good watch is how quickly you'll engage - how easy it is to relate to the characters and situations. The low budget feel actually adds a degree of realism which coupled with good writing results in an enjoyable romp in the nostalgic world of our youth. If you're familiar with those 1930s comedies you'll recognise all the characteristic tropes: mistaken identity, increasing absurdity and a sexy leading lady. Also like America in the 1930s, England in the seventies had a certain shabbiness about it which this film really captures. It was however a shabbiness filled with hope and optimism - again a feeling this picture effortlessly puts across.

Anouska Hempel is perfect in this role: she's pretty but nothing out of the ordinary so is 100% believable as the sexy girl next door. A well-written, well-acted character you can believe in like Tiffany gives a film with a silly story like this the necessary anchor in reality. It's undeniable that there is gratuitous nudity in this but also it's not completely gratuitous. We've all met people like Tiffany Jones who aren't too bothered about being fully clothed inside her own house. There's nothing dirty or salacious in this film's nudity: it's just reinforcing Tiffany's casual approach to life. It's a far cry from those horrid 'sex comedies' where there's just a lifeless parade of nameless, cartoon-like bare boobs.

Lastly, you might recognise the name of the writer: Alfred Shaughnessy. He was writing UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS at the same time he was writing this!