Bad Sister

How often do you see Conrad Nagel and Sidney Fox billed above Humphrey Bogart and Bette Davis? Probably just this one time, and at Universal of all places. You know someone is trouble (Sidney Fox as Marianne) when she sleeps in a bed surrounded by pictures of herself. Marianne is nasty to the servant Minnie, played to perfection by the marvelous ZaSu Pitts, manipulates her father, and uses men like they are a collective escalator. "Good sister" Laura (Bette Davis) is in love with one of Marianne's beaus (Conrad Nagel as Dr. Dick Lindley), although she keeps it to herself and her diary. Then there is the pesky baby brother who, as it turns out, does have a heart and a conscience in spite of his trouble-making ways, but frankly, I would have shipped him off to military school if I had the funds. Charles Winninger and Emma Dunn round out the cast as Mr. and Mrs. Madison, the parents of this unruly brood. This film has all the earmarks of being your standard family melodrama...and then HE pulls into town - Humphrey Bogart as Valentine Corliss. He has come to town to start a factory, pushes hard for Pa Madison to help him with his venture and get his friends to invest in the venture as well, and sweeps Marianne off her feet with his man-of-the world ways. I'll let you watch and see how this all pans out.

All I can say is wow, could Universal have made Bette Davis look any more unappealing? She spends the entire film dressed up like she was in the first half hour of "Now Voyager" minus the weight problem and minus ten years. Her hair is in an unattractive bun, she has on no make-up, she wears loose fitting matronly dresses, and the only way they could have made it worse is to put sunglasses on those beautiful trademark saucer eyes of hers.

I'd highly recommend this one, not so much for a plot that is different, but to see some great performances by two stars that didn't have long in the limelight (Nagel and Fox), and see two of Warner Brothers' biggest stars in the most unlikely of places and roles.

1931's "The Bad Sister" is chiefly remembered as being the film debut of screen legend Bette Davis, who spent a few despondent months at Universal that year before finding greener pastures at Warner Bros. The title role, however, went to Sidney Fox, also making her movie debut, but in a quirk of fate, Universal's star push on her behalf instead of Davis resulted in Sidney's career ending in three years, while 'the good sister' was being hailed as a star. Not only did Universal miss the boat on these two actresses, they failed to see the potential in 4th billed Humphrey Bogart, who followed Davis to Warners playing essentially the same role he does here, a smooth-talking, big city con man who preys upon the citizens of Central City Ohio, with Miss Fox forging her father's signature to cinch the swindle. Top billing goes to doctor Conrad Nagel, naively in love with 'bad sister' Sidney, when it's 'good sister' Bette secretly in love with him. Bette herself despaired over this film, convinced she had no future in pictures; the virginal 23 year old is effectively deglamorized, dressed like a grape picker's daughter, hair tightly bound in a bun, yet those 'Bette Davis Eyes' remain intact, yearning desire behind them. I myself was curious to see more of the diminutive Sidney Fox, inexplicably top billed over Bela Lugosi in 1932's "Murders in the Rue Morgue" (reuniting her with Bert Roach), but remained entranced by Bette Davis instead; and to think Carl Laemmle Jr. famously said of her in this film, "she has about as much sex appeal as Slim Summerville!" (he too is in the picture).

Bette's first picture is a by the numbers affair. She seems a bit stiff at times as if she's still getting use to the camera, an unease that would vanish quickly. It's not hard to see why she was referred to as the little brown wren when she debuted. Her hairstyle and wardrobe are dowdy, even more so when you consider she's playing the younger "good" sister. Universal never did understand her appeal so it's fortunate that she didn't remain there long.

A word or two about the title, Sidney Fox the bad sister of the title, is more foolish and naive then really bad in the fashion that Bette would one day make the word mean. Fox was getting the big push from Universal but she makes little impact in the lead. Humphrey Bogart also just starting out is slender and attractive and even though his character has a bit more depth it's still a stock one. A good supporting cast, including Charles Winninger and ZaSu Pitts, helps but this is worth seeing only as a document of Davis's first film and early Bogie.

In a length of scarcely over one hour, the first third gives us exposition of rather unremarkable domestic drama, the sort that recalls the description by some of older movies as "simpler entertainment for a simpler time." Even after Humphrey Bogart's character is introduced at right about the one-third mark, the scene writing, dialogue, and narrative development remain so tame and homely that if one weren't careful they might initially miss the genuine plot that starts to show itself. There is, in fact, a compelling story here - but notably, the tone the picture maintains is mostly so "picture perfect," bringing to mind more than anything else the soft touch of family-friendly TV programs in the 1950s, that it continues to feel as if little or nothing is happening at all. That's especially noteworthy since this precedes the heavy-handed Hays Code. Depending on one's perspective this is either a deep failure of the feature, unable to build a meaningful sense of drama, or a marvelously shrewd highlight as the core is underhandedly disguised within family drama. I'm not sure if it's the writers who are most responsible for this tack, adapting Booth Tarkington's novel, or director Hobart Henley - but for my part, I'm pleased to say that I think the approach is a slyly smart one. Given the tenor the film adopts I can appreciate that it won't appeal to all, and I readily admit that I had my doubts at first. In fact, it takes its time, for this declines to really show its hand until we're heading into the last third. Even for all that 'Bad sister' isn't a major must-see, but I'm quite happy with how good it is, and more than first meets the eye.

The predominant surface appearance of homestead turmoil, dynamics and goings-on between members of the Madison household and their friends and neighbors, is suitable material in and of itself for engaging storytelling, if perhaps not the most heavily absorbing variety. That this general melodrama somewhat cloaks the underlying thread of Corliss' dealings, and the ramifications thereof, is a fabulously slick twist of narrative fiction that may not even be possible outside the cinematic medium. Of course the notions are there on paper, but maybe it's director Henley after all who was able to shape the title in such a way as to hide the key element and let it slowly rise to the surface. With this said, I do think there's imbalance in 'Bad sister' as it presents, for in these sixty-odd minutes we get much more exploration of events and reactions in the Madison household than the dalliances of Corliss, or even the strict progression of Marianne's own journey - the character arc after which the movie is named. Moreover, even through to the end there are inclusions that seek to sustain the lighter flavors we got from the outset, and not all the parts fit together equally well. Nonetheless, a complete and cohesive tale is imparted, if with less than full force, and it's arguably maybe even a smidgen darker than some contemporary fare to have come out in the early 30s. I would further posit that the brief ending is a tad too neat and clean, not even taking into account the affirmation of values that ninety years later come across as old-fashioned; still, the plot is strong overall, and more than not this is splendidly enjoyable.

Given how the plot is structured and the sheer number of characters to follow, I don't know that everyone on hand has the same opportunity to shine that they might in other features - not new faces Sidney Fox or Bette Davis, and not even Humphrey Bogart who at this point in his career was merely an up-and-comer. Still, for what material and time they are given, I think all give admirable performances to bring their roles to life. The contributions of those behind the scenes likewise might get lost a bit in the mix, but I'm especially fond of Karl Freund's cinematography, and the sets, costume design, and hair and makeup are all swell. Henley's direction is quite fine too, for that matter. Broadly speaking 'Bad sister' is rather well made, in fact, and the chief question comes down to the strength of the storytelling. On that basis, I'm of the mind that it succeeds much more than not. It's not a picture without its issues, but I believe the saga stands firm on its own merits, and even more to the point, the cleverness of the particular way it's put together helps the whole to stand a little taller. It may not sit well with those who have a harder time abiding older titles, and I begrudge no one who engages honestly and regards it more poorly. All the same, I had mixed expectations and no few reservations even after a fair bit of the runtime had elapsed, and still when all is said and done I walk away satisfied with the excellence of what I've watched. Even if you're a huge fan of someone involved I don't think there's any need to go out of your way for it, but if you do have the chance to check out 'Bad sister' I think this is a swell slice of cinema for a quiet day.

The Bad Sister (1931) features the debut of Bette Davis. While Ms. Davis is given the good sister role with little to do in the movie, Sidney Fox takes the title role. The movie is thoroughly entertaining and showcases some great performances (David Durand and Zasu Pitts). The worse part is the end of the movie. When the climax arises, everything is then resolved in 3 minutes with some sort of Deux Ex Machina. Nevertheless, it is worth watching if only for the early appearences of Bette Davis and Humphrey Bogart.