A posh school that makes a big show of its moral codes, and party girl students like Ginger Rogers: there's a genre expectation here of a comedy pitting those two elements against each other - plucky students, goody two shoes students, stuffy teachers, cheeky classroom answers, flashlights under blankets, dormitory windows with trellises or trees to facilitate sneaking in/out. This isn't what the film is, although it plays with those expectations.
For a start, it turns out that the institution and the party girls get on fine with each other. Rogers' character sees through the institution's preaching as a front for the "genteel racketeering" of extracting exorbitant fees from rich parents, and she understands that the school doesn't care what she does (or what sort of risks she runs) as long as she's sneaky about it and keeps up appearances.
This comfortable arrangement is disturbed by Frances Dee, whose moral code the other characters find hard to categorise because it doesn't seem to forbid any particular behaviour or make a big thing about how moral it is - instead it's something along the lines of being true to oneself and living up to one's commitments.
Both the institution and the party girls mistake her initially for a goody-two-shoes, so the institution approves and the party girls like Rogers disapprove. As the film develops, Rogers recognises that Dee's moral code is something to be admired and relied on, and Dee breaks the false dichotomy between a party girl and a goody two shoes by being curious, open minded, and willing to try anything once, but defining her own boundaries and being assertive about maintaining them. This independence soon enough confuses and confounds the school authorities, who crack down aggressively and vindictively on her attempts to find her own happiness.
The best thing about the film is Frances Dee, who projects a sense of poise, patience, and decorum that's appropriate to the role (then again, some of the impression of poise and patience is probably accounted for by the fact that she's a timeless beauty who one doesn't feel in any hurry to look away from). The earnestness of her character can be tiring to watch - she's a serious, thoughtful young lady who meets a serious, thoughtful young man, and they have a serious, thoughtful relationship. Perhaps more could have been made of Rogers' character for cheekiness and dancing and comic relief, but that may say more about my own expectations for the film. My surprise at the twist the film took can probably also be attributed to my own expectations of the film and the character - thinking about it in retrospect, it's almost true by definition that serious, thoughtful people who follow their own moral codes are likely to do things that defy one's expectations - it's known as freedom.
Because everyone is rich, it's harder to symphatise with their troubles (one wonders what Depression audiences made of being expected to feel sorry for the poor lonely girl who gets a $1000 cheque and a $2500 mink coat for Christmas instead of the company of her vacuous parents), and it requires suspension of disbelief not to expect that whatever trouble they get into, they'll be gotten out of it.
Some of the commenters mention some ambiguity in the way the film gets a certain subject past the censors, but it's clear that the filmmakers didn't intend any ambiguity and that an adult audience of the time, familiar with the conventions, wouldn't have had any hesitations or doubts in understanding what was going on.
It would be over the top to characterise the film as making any grand statements, but its observations about institutional codes and "genteel racketeering" are quite accurate and apply to more than fictional finishing schools - in a scene that hasn't dated at all, Dee's character is brusquely dismissed from a posh soiree for failing to pretend not to notice that the person she is being introduced to is a family member of a white collar criminal.
For a start, it turns out that the institution and the party girls get on fine with each other. Rogers' character sees through the institution's preaching as a front for the "genteel racketeering" of extracting exorbitant fees from rich parents, and she understands that the school doesn't care what she does (or what sort of risks she runs) as long as she's sneaky about it and keeps up appearances.
This comfortable arrangement is disturbed by Frances Dee, whose moral code the other characters find hard to categorise because it doesn't seem to forbid any particular behaviour or make a big thing about how moral it is - instead it's something along the lines of being true to oneself and living up to one's commitments.
Both the institution and the party girls mistake her initially for a goody-two-shoes, so the institution approves and the party girls like Rogers disapprove. As the film develops, Rogers recognises that Dee's moral code is something to be admired and relied on, and Dee breaks the false dichotomy between a party girl and a goody two shoes by being curious, open minded, and willing to try anything once, but defining her own boundaries and being assertive about maintaining them. This independence soon enough confuses and confounds the school authorities, who crack down aggressively and vindictively on her attempts to find her own happiness.
The best thing about the film is Frances Dee, who projects a sense of poise, patience, and decorum that's appropriate to the role (then again, some of the impression of poise and patience is probably accounted for by the fact that she's a timeless beauty who one doesn't feel in any hurry to look away from). The earnestness of her character can be tiring to watch - she's a serious, thoughtful young lady who meets a serious, thoughtful young man, and they have a serious, thoughtful relationship. Perhaps more could have been made of Rogers' character for cheekiness and dancing and comic relief, but that may say more about my own expectations for the film. My surprise at the twist the film took can probably also be attributed to my own expectations of the film and the character - thinking about it in retrospect, it's almost true by definition that serious, thoughtful people who follow their own moral codes are likely to do things that defy one's expectations - it's known as freedom.
Because everyone is rich, it's harder to symphatise with their troubles (one wonders what Depression audiences made of being expected to feel sorry for the poor lonely girl who gets a $1000 cheque and a $2500 mink coat for Christmas instead of the company of her vacuous parents), and it requires suspension of disbelief not to expect that whatever trouble they get into, they'll be gotten out of it.
Some of the commenters mention some ambiguity in the way the film gets a certain subject past the censors, but it's clear that the filmmakers didn't intend any ambiguity and that an adult audience of the time, familiar with the conventions, wouldn't have had any hesitations or doubts in understanding what was going on.
It would be over the top to characterise the film as making any grand statements, but its observations about institutional codes and "genteel racketeering" are quite accurate and apply to more than fictional finishing schools - in a scene that hasn't dated at all, Dee's character is brusquely dismissed from a posh soiree for failing to pretend not to notice that the person she is being introduced to is a family member of a white collar criminal.