Back Pay (1930) User Reviews

Strange little films like this are an early talkie film buff's dream...

[AlsExGal · 4/10 · 9 July 2012]

...but for the rest of you out there seeking pure entertainment I'd pass on this one. Every single star of the four I give it are for the chance to observe in one 50 minute film almost everything that went wrong with early talking pictures - that is, when things did go wrong. You can't learn this stuff by watching "Singin in the Rain" folks.

The film opens in an interesting fashion with Ms. Griffith singing a nifty little ballad entitled "They'll Never Believe Me" wearing a dress and head gear with so many bows she looks like a Christmas present, but it's downhill from there. The story is that of your basic fallen woman (Corinne Griffith as Hester Bevins) and how she fell and why she chooses to remain fallen and if and why she is ever redeemed. Hester is a clerk in a small town department store in Demopolis, Virginia who is loved by Gerald (Grant Withers), the department store bookkeeper. She is apparently subject to ridicule by the other members of the town and she lives on the wrong side of the tracks - literally. She goes home to her aunt's boarding house one day, sees her aunt in her dingy kimono entertaining some man whom she calls "The Boss" - who this guy is exactly is one of many things never explained - looks at the kitchen full of dirty dishes and walls splattered with food and sees her future, and she does not like the view. She high-tails it out of town with nothing but her hat and the clothes on her back accompanied by a splashy traveling salesman who takes her to New York. She immediately trades up from the salesman to being the mistress of wealthy Charles Wheeler (Montagu Love), and from there I'll let you watch and see what happens.

Everyone reviewing here is very hard on Ms. Griffith, but to be honest every single player in this production is acting like they are reciting lines from a high school play. Everyone, that is, with the exception of Louise Beavers who is the only performer in the film who acts like they have a pulse and an idea of who their character is supposed to be. Then there is Grant Withers who I actually liked in a couple of the early WB precodes with his snappy delivery, but here he is saddled with a ridiculous blonde wig and gee whiz dialogue that makes him seem like a twelve year old in a grown man's body.

As for the art design, forget about it. The movie opens in the year 1913 or 1914 - not exactly sure which - yet everybody is dressed like it is 1930 through the whole film, including the women wearing dresses that partially show their knees which would have gotten you arrested at the time. When the film opens everyone is driving horse drawn carriages, but by four years later - 1917 - when Hester revisits her hometown of Demopolis with her New York gang, they are driving Model A's, which weren't' even produced until 1927. And yes, I freeze-framed the film and looked it up.

The title cards would have you believe Hester is living a most debauched life with hammy sentences like "while some lay down their lives others laid down their honor" but other than her being the mistress of a rich man and partaking of some light Prohibition era drinking, I can't see anything wild going on here. Believe me, the so called "party scenes" would put that master of cinematic orgies, Cecil B. DeMille, fast to sleep.

I'd like to lay this entire mess at the feet of the director, but, alas, there is no director to blame! There is no director listed in the credits of the film and this database has William Seiter listed as only the uncredited director. I don't blame him. I wouldn't want my name associated with this either.

If you like film history, then you know that there is no such thing as bad film history, and I advise you watch this film for all the reasons I've given. I'd certainly like to know what Jack Warner thought when he saw it.

A lovely little film

[1930s_Time_Machine · 6/10 · 8 December 2021]

So many undeserved bad reviews - why?

Horribly dated? Not at all, it's obviously made just as 'talkies' are being invented so you have to view it with some leniency but nevertheless production standards are faultless.

Terrible acting from a second rate cast? No, they're all believable characters. Even Grant Withers who's usually as dynamic as a floorboard isn't too bad (his make-up and blond hair do however make him look like one of the White Walkers from Game of Thrones.) Unimaginative direction? William Sieter (no, I've never heard of him either) didn't have a good reputation but I think did a pretty good job with this. Unlike some early talkies, this is definitely not like watching a stilted stage play. What more can you ask?

Silent Star Corrine Griffith can't do a speaking part? She's been a movie actor for years so comes across as very professional and as for her voice, I can't see any problem - has anyone heard Jean Harlow!!

Worth watching not just as a curiosity but as a lovely little drama.

How does the hero travel from 1929-30 to 1917-18?

[JohnHowardReid · 4/10 · 22 October 2014]

Back Pay (1930) has a well-deserved reputation as the movie that even the studio was ashamed of, but Warner Brothers released it anyway. There are so many things wrong with the movie – Corinne Griffith battling totally unsuccessfully with dialogue, Grant Withers trying vainly to look at ease in a gloriously ridiculous, white fright wig, a super generous budget that looked like Poverty Row on the screen and a director (Bill Seiter) who – unable to get through to Miss Griiffith at all – chose to be billed as a producer even though Walter Morosco was actually in charge and was in fact billed as the producer, forcing the publicity department to compromise by labeling the movie, "A William A. Seiter Production". Well, when you cross off the two leads, namely Griffith and Withers, you're not left with much of a movie. True, Montagu Love and Louise Beavers are not fazed by either the hokey script or the sound recording mike and deliver good performances, but they're just wasting their time – and ours! We all of us had already written off the movie completely long before Love and Beavers even made their entrance. In fact, some of us had already left the theatre! That's a shame because the First National people still had another shock up their sleeve. The movie is actually taking place in 1929- 30, but suddenly without a by-your-leave or any explanation at all, hero Withers – with not a hair in his immaculate wig out of place – is fighting for his life in the First World War! How did he get there? Only Fannie Hurst knows and she's not game to tell us! Available on a very good Warner Archive DVD.

Significant For Its Own Reasons

[medwardb1976 · 15 November 2013]

A reviewer has said "Back Pay is Griffith's only surviving talkie so it's impossible to tell if she was playing a part or if her voice was really her voice." I would like to answer that. In the late '70s I was at a film event that had King Vidor as a guest of honor (at least I think it was him, to the best of my memory). Mr. Vidor (or whoever it was) said that Corrine Griffith wasn't successful in talking films, "because she had a southern accent, and so it was good-bye Corrine!" That part I remember distinctly. This would indicate to me, that the voice in the film is really hers, and that is how she actually talked. As to the opening scene, I get the impression they have her singing "They Didn't Believe Me" in order to establish the period in which the story was supposed to be. That song was a huge hit during the teens and 1930 audiences certainly would have understood the time frame by that--since the clothes don't give anyone a clue. Finally I would like to say that no matter how good or bad the film is--any time we have a talking film of a silent star, it is priceless in the sense that we can know what they sound like. I think of how Mabel Normand and Fatty Arbuckle made so many pictures together. Fatty made several shorts in the 1930s just before he died, so we can know what he sounded like. Mabel never did make any talkies, and so we don't know how she sounded. Now someone might say, "Well who cares how they sounded?" Well, I like to know what people sound like, don't you? I think that's just natural curiosity and it's nice when it can be satisfied.

Ashame that Corinne Griffith was not more adroit at the Talkies...

[EightyProof45 · 3/10 · 22 September 2003]

Having recently inherited an uncle's large selection of silent films, I fell in love with silent diva Corinne Griffith. I managed to see four of her silent films (The Divine Lady, Black Oxen, The Garden of Eden, and Classified) and was totally astounded by her. We are very fortunate that talkies did not come in earlier, for we would have never gotten a glimpse at some great artistry. Many people claim that a great many silent stars were not good enough actors to survive in talkies. This is a shaky claim. Sound cinema and silent cinema are two totally different mediums. Acting techniques popular in the talkies would have not been effective in silent films. Hypothetically assuming that we had gone the other direction, from talking films to silent ones, it is quite legitimate to think that many talking stars would not survive in silent cinema: this is not, however, enough to claim they were not good enough at acting itself. Its just that they were not good at a particular type of acting. Case in point: Back Pay, a perfectly horrid vehicle for Corinne Griffith. It is stiff and stagey, poorly acted by all involved (especially the male lead), and preposterous. Griffith actually acts quite well in certain scenes, but not for the most part. She plays Hester, a woman who is board with her life and becomes the mistress of a big city magnate. She leaves her true love, Gerald, and when he goes blind in WWI, she realizes she loves him and decides to nurse him in his final days. Although remarkably short, (only about 50 minutes), the film drags on and one feels as if Gone With the Wind had played five times by the time its over. It is invaluable, however, as perhaps the best example of why some stars didn't make the transition to talking films. See it, you'll be happy you did just to get an idea of the times, but don't go out of your way.

Instead, see The Divine Lady, her best film, or The Garden of Eden, which has suddenly become easily available.

preposterous early talkie with sound victim as star.

[mush-2 · 3/10 · 14 November 2005]

This early talkie is hampered by an inadequate cast. The story is similar to a lot of other precode movies- poor, small town girl leaves equally poor, small town, boy to go to big city to search for opportunities. She becomes a mistress of a rich man and part of a set of whore like gold-diggers. Her new life actually seems pretty good. She has a great apartment, her own stereotyped black maid to wait on her,lots of furs and jewelry. And her life back home was pretty dreary- she lived in a boring , small town. She had a dead end job in the local dept. store. And she lived with her aunt who ran a boarding house/brothel. The big city seems a huge step up. But of course, according to the morals of the film, she has erred.

The movie seems to take place in 1930-the cars are all late 20's vintage and the clothes are all stylish flapper stuff we are used to seeing in the movies of this time.

Then the movie turns totally preposterous- it seems there is a war going on. But where? in 1930? What war? Oh no. This is World War 1. So the movie pretends the year is 1917, even though we are clearly in 1928 or 1930.

The heroine's former small town beau is called to fight and he is wounded and she has to nurse him back... you get the idea. She learns and earns redemption.

She is played by Corrine Griffith who was a big silent star in her day. Her performance is inadequate at best. You can see why she failed in talkies. She speaks as if she has marbles in her mouth and the movie actually has the nerve to begin with her singing a song. As if she is showing us the breadth of her talent. The singing is so awful, that I can imagine, the audiences of the day, booing or laughing. I can't believe it wasn't cut. The male lead Grant Withers is also pretty bad,but unfortunately, the movie rests on Miss Griffiths shoulders and she can't make it work. This plot which was based on a Fanny Hurst story,was used in various forms in other pre codes and strong actresses like Barbara Stanwyck, Ann Harding, and many others, made them believable. Miss Griffith did not succeed here.

Antiquated....even in 1930--and the director MUST have been insane.

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 31 January 2013]

The copy of "Back Pay" that is being shown now on TCM is apparently a very truncated version. Over 20 minutes is missing--as some studio types thought this change would make for a better feature. It also is often a sign that a film is in trouble and the studio was desperate to make it more marketable. So, this review is only for this short version.

"Back Pay" starts with one of the most unintentionally funny musical scenes I can recall. Corinne Griffith is singing to her boyfriend but it seriously looks as if she is a zombie!! I have NEVER seen anyone sing with less energy or conviction. Heck, her lips barely even move nor does she even twitch! And, her boyfriend lies there as if he is dead! Seriously--you just have to watch this opening to believe it. Now I know this is an early talking picture--but even by the standards of 1930 it's pretty awful. And this gets me to the single biggest problem that ruins the film. Although I might have expected an early sound film to be stilted and have lousy acting, by 1930 this was NOT a problem in most films. So, had the film come out in 1928 or even 1929, I might have cut the film some slack. However, the director must have either been insane or totally incompetent as the actors (particularly but not exclusively Griffith) had poor delivery and many of the scenes should have been re-shot. Surely any sane director would have noticed the zombie-like delivery at the film's beginning--but this one apparently did not. And, repeatedly, the actors seemed to have little in the way of delivery--and they were allowed to give such lackluster performances. They either talk too fast, too soft or look stilted. As a result, the movie sucks. I know this sounds mean, but it irritated me that Miss Griffith was allowed to give such a bad performance--along with a cast of folks who seemed to have little idea how to act in a talking picture.

I you STILL decide to see this film, a few things to look for apart from Griffith's awful singing is the masseuse who can barely be understood, the scene with her old boyfriend where the actors keep talking over each other's lines as well as when actors inexplicably talk too fast in some scenes. Some might blame the actors, but isn't it the director's job to notice this and re-shoot these awful scenes?!

A Charming Curio

[louisb-399-524629 · 7/10 · 17 June 2012]

This movie is not the disaster some have made it out to be, and although only 55 minutes in length it felt like a well-made, complete picture. To my mind Corinne Griffith was quite good, even singing during a charming early scene. Her costars ranged from adequate to good, but never bad enough to sink the picture. Because this may turn out to be her only surviving sound picture, it is a must see for film historians. I cannot thank the studios enough for making so much of their old inventory available for viewing, and I encourage everyone to show your appreciation by continuing to purchase titles from any archive collection.The plot of this one was probably dated even in 1930, but it is earnestly acted nonetheless. I do agree that there appear to be anachronisms throughout, mostly relating to clothing/vehicles, but that was not fatal to the picture for me. Overall, a charming curio, nicely photographed. The print has some damage but is surprisingly good overall. I think I'd give Back Pay 3 stars out of 4.

"They'll Never Believe Me"

[HarlowMGM · 8/10 · 22 May 2006]

A rare talkie for silent film legend Corinne Griffith (and the only one of her sound films that gets any circulation today), BACK PAY is an agreeable soap opera about a dreamy small town girl Hester Bevins (Griffith) who loves her unambitious but decent local boy but she knows There's A Big World Out There. The ward of her slovenly aunt who owns a run-down boarding house, she impulsively abandons the sticks when a traveling salesman proposes to take her to the big city. Beautiful Hester practically overnight becomes a rich man's mistress but has she really pulled out her small-town roots or gotten over the boy back home? This little movie has received some harsh reviews by some IMDb posters but I felt it was acceptable very early talkie. Griffith is a vision although she was nearing the end of her days as a screen star after over a decade of top stardom. Her speaking voice is quite pleasant if unmemorable. She sings the song "They'll Never Believe Me" in a lovely moment with beau Grant Withers leaning against a tree that opens the film. There are a few brief moments where the naturally refined Hester's clashing with the crude world of low-income South are brilliantly captured, Corinne and Grant's romantic interlude interrupted by the loud, gossipy sarcasm of their boorish friends ("little people, little lives eeewww" Corinne hisses in disgust), and slightly later walking home in a romantic daze and brought sharply down to earth by her vulgar gum-chewing aunt ("always in that filthy pink kimono"), a leering boarder, and most vividly, a sink full of long unwashed dishes and discarded beer bottles that all would have turned Pollyanna into an advocate of the primrose path as it does Hester.

A very beautiful actress is not always a competent one

[data-25 · 18 December 1999]

Written by Fannie Hurst (Imitation of Life, Back Street), Back Pay is a prime example as to why some silent film actresses took a nosedive. Talkies revealed Miss Griffith's shortcomings as an actress. Although a very beautiful lady, she seems very uncomfortable with dialogue and gives an inconsistent performance. Some of her scenes are well acted but most are not. To be fair, she did give some good performances--in silents--like her Oscar-nominated title role in The Divine Lady (1929). This was her last Hollywood film and her only surviving all-talkie. The other one, Lillies of the Field, is lost. A typical Fannie Hurst tear-jerking melodrama.

Corinne Griffith in Her Final Hollywood Film

[drednm · 15 December 2005]

Corinne Griffith was a big star in silent films. She made a handful of late silents with talking sequences and then two all-talking films. Both bombed. In 1932 she made a last stab at talkies in an English film and it bombed too.

Back Pay was Griffith's last Hollywood film. It's based on a Fannie Hurst novel and should have been a showcase for her talents as an actress, but the 55-minute film seems a mangle from the beginning. Directed by William Seiter, Back Pay never seems to settle. It's so obviously set in 1930 (clothes, cars, songs, decor) but pretends to be pre-WW I.

Griffith plays a hick from Demopolis, VA who works in a department store. She's in love with a fellow worker (Grant Withers) but yearns for more. She exits on a train out of town. Next scene has her in New York City as a rich man's girlfriend. She has lost the hick accent and is wearing expensive clothing. The lover (Montagu Love) seems nice man and gives her whatever she wants.

She and her friends decide to motor to Hot Springs, a mere 30 miles from Demopolis. Griffith gets a yen to seen the old town and runs into Withers. They chat and she is amazed how good the old town looks. Next scene takes us to Lake Placid where a wistful Griffith is still thinking about Withers.

Back in the city she gets of rush a emotion when WW-I soldiers are marching away to war. Next we see Withers get gassed on a battlefield. Blind and dying from gas poisoning Griffith visits him, gets another rush of emotion, and marries him when she learns he has but weeks to live.

Withers dies on Amistice Day and Griffith is a better woman for it all and even refuses to go back to her old life as a mistress. The End.

Back Pay is Griffith's only surviving talkie so it's impossible to tell if she was playing a part of if her voice (think Zasu Pitts) was really her voice. In any case she comes across very badly. Withers is even worse.

Montagu Love is fine as is Louise Beavers (as the maid), but everyone else is just dreadful. Vivien Oakland (the friend), Hallam Cooley (the traveling salesman), Louise Carver (the masseuse), Virginia Sale (the secretary), and Geneva Mitchell (Babe) are all bad.

But let's blame the director. The film is hideously directed and paced, and the editing is terrible, Was this cut to shreds at some point? Does that explain the abrupt transitions? Seems doubtful. There are so many anachronisms it's hard to believe this was a better film but badly edited.

Griffith was excellent in the few silent films I've seen her in (The Divine Lady, Garden of Allah) and by the end of the silent period was a huge star. She even supposedly won an Oscar nomination for The Divine Lady--a fact inconsistently reported in Oscar histories. But she is not very good in Back Pay.

Griffith is another silent star whose birth year varies widely in different various sources, anywhere from 1894 to 1898. Her first film was in 1916 so she could well have been born in 1898, but if she was born in 1894 she would have been 36 when she made Back Pay--way too old for the part of Hester.

Well no matter. Griffith was a great star in the 1920s--the Orchid Lady--and rivaled Gloria Swanson, Lillian Gish, Greta Garbo, and Mary Pickford in popularity. She was often compared to Norma Talmadge for the kinds of roles she played. And, ironically, like Miss Talmadge, faded from the screen after only a few attempts at talkies.

To be fair Corinne Griffith should be remembered for her great film successes during the silent era and not for the few misguided talkies she attempted. Note: Griffith's memoir became the hit film, Papa's Delicate Condition, in 1963. Griffith appeared in more than 65 films and produced a dozen.

Easy to See Why Griffith's Sound Career Never Took Off

[Michael_Elliott · 11 December 2012]

Back Pay (1930)

** (out of 4)

Watching this early talkie makes it easy to understand why Corinne Griffith's sound career really didn't take off. This here would turn out to be her next to last film (before making one more nearly three decades later) and with material like this it's no wonder she stepped aside. In the film she plays Hester Bevins, a small town girl who is loved by Gerald (Grant Withers) but she turns down his proposal because he'll never make much money. Hester runs off to New York City where she gets involved with various rich men but when Gerald goes off to war everything changes. BACK PAY is a really, really bad film on many levels but I must admit that it kept me totally entertained because you never really knew where it was going to go. I should say that the film is 100% predictable so in that way it's not hard to see where it's going. What's so strange is that the film just goes off in various directions and some that you won't see coming. Just check out the first minute when the film starts off with Griffith singing a really bad song and this here tells you things are going to get crazy. The story itself is pretty predictable but it's also hard to figure out. It seems like stuff just happens for no reason at all including Gerald going off to the war, which has apparently been going on for a while yet it's never mentioned in the film until his broken heart goes. The ending, which is meant to be powerful, is so poorly done that it actually had me laughing harder than most of the comedies I've seen from this period. Griffith actually isn't too bad in her role but the screenplay simply gives her nothing to do. Withers, on the other hand, isn't suited for the role here and comes off pretty bad at times. BACK PAY is a film that most people are truly going to hate but I think fans of Griffith will want to check it out as well as those who enjoy bad movies. I will say that the 56-minute running time flew by, which I'm very thankful for.