The Greeks Had a Word for Them

Joan Blondell, Madge Evans, and Ina Claire bring the Zoe Akins comedy, The Greeks Had A Word For It to the big screen. It's the story of three women who have determined that the good times of the 20s won't last and they're all determined to marry men who can support them in good style. By the time the play was making its 253 performance run on Broadway the Depression was upon us. No doubt those in the audience were saying how wise these girls were.

All three are different personality types, Claire's character isn't the noblest of God's creations, but they do have a bond with each other that seems to override all.

Adkins wrote some really great lines and the three of them, especially Blondell deliver those pre-Code zingers with pizazz. Those lines she didn't write Sidney Howard did for the screen and between the two of them we got one good script.

The American cinema has given us four versions of this story, the others being Three Blind Mice, Moon Over Miami, and How To Marry A Millionaire. All of them were updated to suit the times they were made in. An easy task to do because Akins is writing about eternal situations.

For fans of the leads, especially Blondell.

The Goldwyn production based on Zoe Akin's racy play about three gold diggers has Joan Blondell, Madge Evans and Ina Claire playing the trio, double-crossing each other as the mood suits them with the men falling like tenpins. David Manners, Phillips Smalley, even Lowell Sherman, the director, who doubles as a concert pianist is not immune to their machinations and *ahem* talents. Apparently George Barnes, the director of photography fell in love with Blondell on the set. They married the next year; presumably Claire would have stolen him from her, except every time she put on a new costume, she rushed over to show soon-to-be ex-husband John Gilbert how she looked.

The wisecracks fly fast and furious. Miss Claire, with her cigarette voice and scheming role steals the show every time she's on. It's a crackling Pre-Code, even though the lingerie shots are kept to a minimum

Three "former chorus girls" team up to capture rich husbands. But they spend as much time fighting with each other as they do the men they try to snare. This film is based on a a play by Zoe Akins (THE GREEKS HAD A WORD FOR IT) which is also the basis for the softer and more genteel 50s version HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE.

In this pre-code version, Ina Claire plays the grasping and back-stabbing blonde who will go to any length to get what she wants. Joan Blondell plays the sensible girl (stocks and bonds), and Madge Evans is the sensitive one. All three dish the dirt while they chase after rich David Manners, that is until Claire decides that his daddy is a better catch! Lowell Sherman directs and co-stars as the Russian pianist (from the Bronx) who also dallies with the 3 ladies (and possibly with Manners?).

Ina Claire is totally outrageous here but fun to watch as she chews the scenery. Blondell, Sherman, and Evans are also very good. Manners is rather bland (as usual).

The clothes, coats, hats and jewelry are gorgeous in this 1932 pre-code film that was remade as How To Marry a Millionaire in 1953 with Marilyn Monroe, Lauren Bacall and Betty Grable. The colorized 1953 version had the women being much more overtly calculating in their goal to marry a millionaire. In this pre-code version it was more subtle...they were definitely gold diggers although one genuinely falls in love and wants to marry, it is not as clear that the other two want to marry at all. It seems that they all three like to drink, party and spend other people's money.

It is a lifestyle I guess, but with friends like these...who needs enemies. At least two of them have a fierce competition going and end up sabotaging each other at every opportunity!

Worth seeing for the gorgeous lush clothing...and the three ladies in question, especially Joan Blondel who is an eye catcher in every film she is in...although in this one she had some competition!

I read with interest the comments of the critic for "Three Broadway Girls." Then I saw the movie. I must say that in accordance with the critic's 2007 standards, he was quite correct in his analysis. However, I am now 80 years old and remember the pictures in those days fairly well. I would say that the critic must be in his 30's or 40's for he evaluates the content and acting with those skills of 2007. If he were a critic in 1932 or the 30's for that matter, I think he would find this a 'charming' bit of humorous story telling. I would offer that those who criticize motion pictures should take into account the era in which they were made, and NOT evaluate them with the 2007 era standards.