I Loved a Woman

I love pre-code films, often even when they're less than great. They're usually so fast-paced, packing more plot and ideas into one hour than today's movies do in two and a half, that one is willing to overlook inconsistencies and implausibilities in the script, if such occur.

But when they reach an hour and a half, they sometimes bog down and become as dull as the inane films the Production Code later foisted on us.

This film is a good example. The history of Edward G. Robinson's transformation from a young idealist inheriting his father's meat-packing business to a ruthless capitalist defies credulity both for his naivete and the ease of his rise to the top when he discards his scruples. The characters are mostly one-dimensional stereotypes. The character of his opera star mistress, a somewhat miscast Kay Francis, who eggs him on with Nietzschean pep talks about dominating the world, sounds like Ayn Rand on steroids.

All this is fine for the first hour or so, when the rapid succession of events keeps you guessing what will happen next and too busy to think about the logic of it all. The last half hour or so, about his well-deserved downfall, goes by much more slowly and grinds to an undramatic ending.

Still worth a look for pre-code fans for Robinson, Francis and other fine actors, but don't put it at the top of your list.

In his acclaimed and enjoyable autobiography All My Yesterdays published in 1973 (the year he died), Edward G. Robinson explained in considerable detail the process that produced the interesting but disjointed movie I Loved a Woman (ILAW). Basically, the prevailing Studio System that was then an integral part of Hollywood movie-making allowed for several people (of varying ability and differing agendas) to modify a novel or play as it became the final screenplay that when shot was the film we finally saw in the theater. Each "contributor"to this process may have worked independently of all the others, and the result was somewhat like "putting Bandaids on boils" rather than attempting to produce the best cure for the condition. As Robinson further explained it, he as an actor/artist also took an interest in fashioning the final script, and often frustrating battles ensued over just how much of his input (if any) would be acceptable. No wonder that ILAW seems like a film that some think is too long and others too short---or that some believe contains incomplete or confusing characterizations while others are bothered by the abrupt/inconsistent aspects of the dramatic narrative.

Nonetheless, ILAW is entertaining and absorbing with its often rambling tale of a Chicago robber baron loosely modeled after real life meat-packer Samuel Insull. And while the romantic scenes between Robinson and his leading ladies Kay Francis and Genevieve Tobin may lack appropriate chemistry or credibility, it cannot be denied that in ILAW Robinson delivered a robust and commanding performance. He was a powerful actor in this early pre-code effort, and certainly gave us every indication that he would evolve into the superb character actor that became his future destiny.

As for veteran director Alfred E. Green, he would go on to direct The Jolson Story, The Fabulous Dorseys and The Eddie Cantor Story among many other films.

ILAW is little known today. That is too bad, because it provides an excellent time capsule that captured three accomplished actors as they were moving into their peak career period, as well as just how the Warner Brothers Studio System actually worked in practice. Next time TCM shows ILAW, check it out!

... because at first blush this forgotten Warner Brothers film looks an awful lot like 1941's Citizen Kane, except without the polish. The film was based on David Karsner's book about a determined businessman, loosely based on the life of Samuel Insull. However, it also bears some resemblance to the life of William Randolph Hearst, and specifically how that life was interpreted in Citizen Kane.

Edward G. Robinson stars as John Hayden. The film opens in 1892 with him as a young man buying up all the art he can find in Europe, when he is called home at his father's death to take over the family packing business in which he really has no interest. He falls in love with and marries the daughter of a rival packer (Genevieve Tobin) and finds her exciting and thinks she is a reformer, but she soon transforms into just another social climber and their romance cools. When that happens he falls in love with an ambitious opera singer (Kay Francis), and offers to build her an opera house??? Now tell me that Orson Welles the teenager was not in the front row of the theater, chowing down on popcorn, and thinking how he might spruce up this tale when he got his big chance?

The similarities between the tales end there, and it turns out Kay Francis' character is no Susan Alexander Kane, and also the ignored wife turns out to be more persistent and vindictive than Kane's wife. The film is ultimately a variation on a common Warner Brothers' Depression era theme - a cautionary tale against greed for greed's sake.

Kay Francis may be second billed, but ultimately Edward G. Robinson is the whole show. Since Robinson was two inches shorter than Francis, it looks like the director came up with all kinds of inventive ways for them to embrace and it not look like she was picking him up off the ground to kiss him. Finally, why would anybody think "Home on the Range" would be a good tune to be "our song" for any couple? It's all part of the wonderful weirdness that was early 30s Warner Brothers. Recommended for the novelty of it all.

This film bit off more than it could chew. At first, the thirty-year time span seemed pioneering for 1933, but as it lumbers on everything becomes routine and boring.

It's still worth it to see Robinson, Francis, and the other actors as they appeared in 1933.

The plot was not perfect and needed some paring down, and the ending left something to be desired, but this is a film you should see.

During the so-called 'Pre-Code Era', Hollywood was essentially in charge of policing themselves. Considering that there was no rating system AND Hollywood was really pushing the boundaries of morality in many of their films, there was an uproar and in July, 1934, a new, tougher Production Code was adopted...thus heavily sanitizing films for the next three decades. Gone were the old Pre-Code plots and occasional nudity...in now it was a squeaky clean era. "I Loved a Woman" was a Pre-Code film that certainly could NOT have been made just a year later, as its plot glamorizes and seems to excuse adultery...something specifically outlawed in the new Code, as adultery was either NOT to be in films or was to be heavily condemned.

John Hayden (Edward G. Robinson) is the heir to a meatpacking fortune and has just learned that his father has died. Despite claiming to being the champion of improved working conditions, wages and cleanliness, he spends the next few years leaving the company to essentially run itself while he devotes his energy towards raising a family. However, he slowly realizes that his company is going bankrupt AND his wife couldn't care less, as her father is the head of a group of meatpackers who are opposed to Hayden's STATED ideals. I say stated because during his absence from the company, he pretty much ignored his fine talk of running a progressive company.

Now with a company in trouble and a marriage a bit rocky, Hayden decides to run the company like the rest....or worse. Cleanliness and safe hygience mean nothing to him. In addition, he's got a new sweetie (Kay Francis) and his energies are focused on her and making millions...his wife, well, she's expendable. When war breaks out, he's more than happy to sell the government tainted meat for the soldiers! Nice guy, huh? If you haven't guessed, he's essentially a jerk!

So what did I like and not like about this film? What I didn't like was that Hayden changed so dramatically...too dramatically to make any sense. One minute he's a champion of the little people and a good husband, the next he's the opposite. His change was just too abrupt to be believable. On the positive side, the acting is very nice and the film has all the polish you'd expect from a Warner Brothers epic...though I could have done without all the times the film used "Home on the Range". Overall, decent but hardly among Robinson's best...and much of it is because no one in this film is likable and so you lose interest along the way. Plus, it never seems to know when to quit...so it's overlong to boot.