Mary, a poor farm girl, meets Tim just as word comes that war has been declared. Tim enlists in the army and goes to the battlefields of Europe, where he is wounded and loses the use of his... See full summary »
Guinn 'Big Boy' Williams
A mug and a jane: Dorothy knows that every guy is going to make a pass at her; Eddie knows that every gal wastes her money on good times. He's saving to open a repair shop. When the two of them meet, they can't believe they get along. One evening he leaves her waiting in the rain; she finds his apartment and reads him the riot act. They end up spooning and napping until 4 AM. She's afraid of her brother, who's her guardian, so Eddie figures she should tell her brother that she's getting married the next morning. Dorothy tries out the story but knows Eddie won't show up. It's the first of a series of promises, fears, miscalculations, and hard knocks. Where will they end up? Written by
(1930). Stage Play: Bad Girl. Drama. Written by Brian Marlowe [credited as Brian Marlow] and Viña Delmar. Directed by Marion Gering. Hudson Theatre: 2 Oct 1930- Dec 1930 (closing date unknown/85 performances). Cast: Sascha Beaumont (as "Maude"), Lawrence Bolton (as "Pat"), Emily Graham (as "Mrs. Vernon"), Joan Harmon (as "Miss Lambert"), Martin Howe (as "Doctor Stewart"), Angela Jacobs (as "Mrs. Lensky"), Paul Kelly (as "Eddie"), Eleanor Merlin (as "Miss Parsons"), Grace Morse (as "Miss Brown"), 'William Pawley (I)' (as "Jim") [final Broadway role], Sylvia Sidney (as "Dot"), Walter Vaughn (as "Ted"), Joan Winters (as "Sue"), Charlotte Wynters (as "Edna"). Produced by Robert V. Newman. Note: Filmed by Fox Film Corporation as Bad Girl (1931) (William Pawley played the role of Dorothy's brother in the stage version, and reprises his role in the film). See more »
At 13:29, the position of Dot's hand on Mrs. Gardner's arm changes. See more »
But as Edna says, nobody knows whether a person's good or bad but the person themselves. And they won't tell.
See more »
Borzage is a film-maker whose reputation has ebbed and flowed quite dramatically over time. And perhaps not surprisingly. His work represents, even more clearly than that of Ford or Capra, a combination of all that is the best and all that is the worst about US film.
In the late twenties and early thirties, he was looked at as the brightest hope of the US cinema and probably deserves the accolade of being the winner of more undeserved Oscars than anyone else before the advent of Ang Lee. Subsequently his reputation plummeted (as did the quality of his films) but he is now once again riding relatively high in critical esteem, at least in respect of his early films.
But even these are a vary mixed bunch. There are Borzage films I greatly admire, there are several which i Find irritating (most of the Gaynor-Farrell films) but this particular 1931 film I absolutely detest.
Its reputation for "realism" (in the sense of naturalism, that rare bird in US cinema) is entirely unjustified. Any comparison for instance with King Vidor's excellent The Crowd (1928) reveals immediately how spurious and fake the "realism" is here. One reviewer talks of ordinary people not being treated with "condescension". They are in fact treated here as complete and utter idiots and the entire plot revolves around perfectly stupid misunderstandings that are only possible because of the characters' extraordinary obtuseness. This is in turn set off by a fake naivety which is supposed to be charming but is just cringe-makingly sentimental. I have difficulty in imagining any treatment that could be more condescending...and this makes it, to my mind, not just irritatingly sentimentalised (as in the case of the Gaynor-Farrell films) but virtually a kind of pornography that demeans everybody associated with it.
That such a film should be set during an economic depression and, ignoring any of the real problems of the time, should concentrate on such trivialities may in part be due to the fact, as another reviewer points out, to the fact that the original novel was written some eight years earlier but, in the context of 1931, it is absolutely grotesque although typical enough of the US cinema's reaction to the depression.
It is in part just the familiar Hollywood problem with "truth". While The Crowd was hated by the studios and unsuccessful with the public (in practice the first tends to condition the second rather than vice versa), this saccharine piece of junk won another Oscar for its director.
0 of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?