Break of Hearts (1935) User Reviews

A Note of Love

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 1 November 2006]

Although at first glance Break of Hearts looks like Katharine Hepburn is doing another version of Eva Lovelace. Her Patricia Dane is a young struggling classical composer whose mentor is that old music master Jean Hersholt. Turns out Hersholt also mentored well know symphony conductor Franz Roberti played by Charles Boyer. When they meet he does his little bit to put them together.

Here the resemblance to Eva Lovelace ends. Picture young Eva in Morning Glory betrayed by those around her. Kate discovers Boyer is quite the womanizer so rather than let the grass grow under her feet, she responds to the attentions of violinist John Beal. Things get bitter and rather melodramatic as Boyer falls to pieces.

There was no conviction in this part for Hepburn in the way that Terry Randall from Stage Door or Eva Lovelace from Morning Glory were. Probably because unlike those two career minded women which Hepburn surely was in real life, here she admits she's got no talent and is willing to do a My Man number to get the drunken dissolute Boyer back on his feet.

Definitely not the Kate we all know.

Break of Hearts

[sarahardin · 6/10 · 18 September 2006]

This love story was actually good. Philip Moeller did not make this movie what it could have been. A better director such as George Cukor (who was familiar with Hepburn) would have made the scenes much more enjoyable. Katharine Hepburn does a good job of the aspiring composer and Charlie Boyer as the Great Franz Roberti, conductor. The two both have too much pride instead of talking things over, which is relatable. It's also surprising how Hepburn and Boyer got away with slamming each other with insults of their promiscuity. All in all, it was a good movie for Hepburn to do in her early career, and fans of her will enjoy it.

Not as bad as they say

[ndisabat · 6/10 · 9 August 2006]

I honestly went into this movie thinking it would be god awful like the critics said. I guess I'm prejudice when it comes to Katharine Hepburn.

You might say that the way Waterloo Bridge photographed Vivien Leigh is similar to how Hepburn is photographed in Break of Hearts.

Her face and her eyes are aglow in nearly every scene. I don't think she was over acting at all like some have said.

Boyer does a decent job as the famous composer Franz Roberti.

It really isn't a variation of "A Star is Born" like one reviewer has said.

Sure the plot's basically mush, but I still enjoyed seeing Hepburn at the height of her youth.

It's a good film for Hepburn fans at least.

Glorious Max Steiner

[songinmy_heart · 6/10 · 24 October 2007]

Alright, so it is clichéd, sappy, and, compared to today's standards, overacted and self-important...but so is Love. Two lost souls find their other half, and foolishly loose all. Max Steiner's theme given to Constance as her "song of love" is gorgeous. Hepburn is youthful enthusiasm and radiance, and manages a pretty strong portrayal of weakness for such a strong lady. Boyer can speak centuries of emotion with those incredible eyes. For anyone who feels deeply about music, this movie isn't so far-fetched--and it's great with popcorn! (This from a lover of depression era costuming--try to ignore the clown-collars they put poor Kate in after she is married--she looked better poor!) So it's a 1930's chick-flick. Relax and step back to a time when love was worth sacrificing everything for.

The Surprise Is That There Are No Surprises

[rhoda-9 · 6/10 · 7 October 2017]

OK, here's the plot: Famous conductor and unknown composer fall in love and marry. He cheats on her, she walks out and won't return, he becomes a drunk, she returns and nurses him back to health. And, yes, that's IT! That's all there is, there isn't any more! It's as if the movie makers decided that, with Boyer and Hepburn on hand, no proper script was necessary. But this bare, banal drama is so devoid of interest no stars could save it, hard though they work to make something out of practically nothing.

The absence of complexity makes Boyer's behaviour not only inexplicable but repellent. Why, after only a few months, does he cheat on his wife, whom we are told he loves passionately and who loves him? He tells her the other woman means nothing to him, she is the only woman he loves--typical banal, empty rhetoric of the cheating husband. Later, talking to a friend, he complains that his wife is immature and doesn't want to face real life. What does that mean--she wants him to be faithful? This puts the audience in the position of having to think, Oh, THAT's why he has a mistress--he's French! (Or, as we would say today, It's part of their culture.)

Hepburn plays on the piano about a minute of a composition that Boyer inspires, but after that her composing is simply dropped, and her only role is the betrayed wife. She is also given a supportive, understanding boyfriend who looks and acts like her kid brother and who is played by an actor of no attractiveness or interest. These elements also make it seem as if the movie makers just couldn't be bothered.

I give it a six for the fabulous leads, who, despite the dreary stuff they are saddled with, do their usual irresistible shtick-- Boyer passionate and seductive, and Hepburn is idealistic and luminous. If, as I do, you love watching them do it, this is worth your time, but you just see them doing it in a vacuum.

Now THAT'S interesting casting...

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 6 May 2010]

Maybe it's just me, but the idea of Charles Boyer playing opposite Katharine Hepburn in a romance is odd...to say the least. Now I am NOT casting any aspersions on their acting--they were both fine actors. But the combination of the two in a film like this just seems strange. Perhaps at the time it didn't--as Hepburn wasn't yet a huge star and hadn't the reputation she'd have just a few years later. But the reddish-haired lady with a refined New England accent and the suave Frenchman--what an unusual combination The film begins with Boyer playing a very famous orchestra conductor and musician. He's a bit of a womanizer, so it's surprising when he meets a young would-be composer (Hepburn) that he'd fall for her so hard that he'd ask her to marry him. They seem deliriously happy and go off on a wonderful honeymoon in Europe. Things couldn't be better for the pair until he decides on a whim to go to a party with an old lady friend. However, when Katharine seems them together, she assumes he's cheating on her and perhaps he was, so she storms off--and is ready for a divorce. Can the two get past this or is their marriage headed for an untimely end? See the film and find out what happens next.

Overall, while the acting is pretty good and a nice looking production, the movie itself is very ordinary...at best. In fact, some parts are a bit embarrassing to watch--it just wasn't written all that well and seemed overdone and unreal--particularly in the second half. A sticky and clichéd soap opera and not a whole lot more. There just wasn't enough interesting material in this film to elevate it anything more than a time-passer. Too bad--with this talent, it should have been a lot better.

Blah

[raskimono · 6/10 · 24 May 2004]

At first I wasn't going to bother myself to review this movie which I found very inconsequential. In fact I watched the movie with one eye while concentrating on other things. I am only reviewing it because there is only one other review for the movie. That is a shame because these are two of the most respected actors of their era. The plot as it is nothing unusual. Playboy conductor meets aspiring conductor - they come together - playboy still has wandering eye to which conductress hits the road. Someone they reconcile. Scenes are buffoonish, not dramatic enough nor comedic enough - a rightfully forgotten movie. This needs to be ten lines, why i don't know, some movies aren't worth it so

Hepburn Boyer make for dull duet.

[st-shot · 5/10 · 9 July 2011]

Two of the most distinguishable voices in film history Charles Boyer and Kate Hepburn find romance in this rather ineffective romantic melodrama involving a famous conductor and a struggling composer. It's a rather tepid Intermezzo.

World famous conductor and womanizer Franz Roberti drops by an old friend's and meets Constance Dane a music teacher and aspirant composer. He's pleasant to her but no more. When she can't get a ticket to his sold out show she sneaks into a rehearsal and creates a scene that first annoys and then charms Roberti. They go out and Roberti lays out his Casanova MO to her but much to his surprise finds himself falling in love and marrying her. They globe trot on their honeymoon and all is well until she discovers he has returned to his old ways and decides to leave him. Crestfallen they almost reconcile but she rejects him and he takes to drink sabotaging his career.

The early scenes between the pair falling in love has a charming energy as Boyer's dark eyed intensity and magnificent inflection charm Hepburn's bedazzled beauty. But once the honeymoon ends and Constance books the film descends into a mawkish affair it can't climb out of with both leads becoming a touch too strident.

Philip Moeller's direction is flat and uninspired as he relies heavily on Hepburn close-ups and Boyer's roving eye to make his point. Advancing the story choppily and with little form in the process the glossy sets and lavish costumes lack the sweep they deserve with Moeller's camera movements tentative at best.

The most ironic moment in the film is when Hepburn launches into discourse on how she will look out for the sodden Roberti eerily reflecting her relationship with Spence a decade away.

medium simmer

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 15 May 2020]

Franz Roberti (Charles Boyer) is a famous music conductor and Constance Dane (Katharine Hepburn) is an aspiring composer. They fall in love, get married, and struggle with their relationship.

This is all about Boyer and Hepburn. They have a bit of chemistry but I wouldn't call it heated. They are a bit too cerebral. They need a better meet-cute to start off the movie. The relationship is at medium simmer rather than maximum heat. The movie can't elevate that high even with the drama. Nothing is that in doubt. The hurdles aren't that high. It simmers but it never boils.

Hepburn and Boyer Together at Last-----Was the Wait Worth It?

[malvernp · 5/10 · 4 June 2023]

It seemed like a good idea at the time------a cinematic pairing of upcoming stars Katharine Hepburn and Francis Lederer. Hepburn was the new sensation in Hollywood-----unique, talented and difficult to cast. Three of her first four films for RKO were critical and financial successes, but they were soon followed by two movies (Spitfire and The Little Minister both 1934) that failed to generate the excitement and acclaim of her earlier efforts. They also provided evidence (if any were needed) that Hepburn was a "special case" when it came to audience appeal-----folks either loved her or disliked her. Therefore, the cinematic vehicles she chose to act in had to be carefully selected to help ensure a reasonable opportunity for them to achieve a positive fan reaction. This probably launched the beginning of talk about Hepburn's being "box office poison"-----an accusation that would plague her through the 1930s until she definitively scored a twin success with The Philadelphia Story (1940) and Woman of the Year (1942).

Lederer (born Frantisek or Franz Lederer in Prague) was a handsome leading man-type actor who developed into a matinee idol in European films just before his arrival in the US in 1932. Although darkly attractive and warmly regarded by the critics, American audiences seemed not to be positively responding to him. RKO's strategy in 1935 was to cast Hepburn and Lederer together in a film with the hope that this combination would prove to generate a hit for both of them. The project was to be named Break of Hearts (BOH) and would be directed by Philip Moeller of the Theatre Guild. Then RKO started to film the picture. Trouble began shortly thereafter.

It turned out that Lederer was a temperamental and insecure actor, who initiated a quarrel with Moeller because he felt that the director was tilting BOH more in favor of Hepburn's character. During the second week of filming, Lederer walked off the set, and did not return. A desperate RKO sought out Charles Boyer to fill the void based upon his recent success in the film Private Worlds----and fill it he did. Hepburn and Boyer became a congenial acting couple and BOH was smoothly finished without further complications.

However, BOH did not meet box office expectations. Critics felt that Moeller was a static film director, and Hepburn's role of a long suffering serious composer providing endless support for a hedonistic symphony conductor left much to be desired as entertainment. BOH reinforced Boyer's growing reputation in Hollywood as an appealing Continental lover-type character who also had depth and conviction as an actor. Unfortunately, BOH's tepid box office results continued to complicate Hepburn's marketability and reinforced the impression that she seemed to have problems selling herself as a commercially viable artist.

BOH contained fine acting performances from its two principals and had an intelligent (if somewhat overwrought) script. However, the Boyer character was hard to like, and Hepburn's commitment to him grew tiresome to the film's audiences. In the end, their fans were underwhelmed. Hepburn made a modest comeback in her next film (Alice Adams (1935)), but continued on a mercurial career trajectory that was a feature of her work in the 1930s. She could not then realize that her best years were still ahead of her.

Intriguing look at careers and marriage.

[lqualls-dchin · 8/10 · 13 July 2000]

In the 1930s, there were many "adult" dramas about marital maladjustments. This film is striking because the two main characters, played by Katharine Hepburn and Charles Boyer, have musical careers, she as a composer and he as a famous conductor. The movie is sometimes preposterous, but it has an unusual background of classical music, it's nontraditional in its endorsement of female independence, and it has fine performances.

Hepburn is all wrong for this part, and that ruins the film

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 6/10 · 2 September 2016]

For me, this film just doesn't work.

The reason -- the casting of Katharine Hepburn in the lead role. Don't misunderstand me -- I like most Hepburn films, and from what I have read, this film was written specifically for her. However, what we enjoy most are those Hepburn roles where she has "spunk" (for wont of a better term). Here, there's darn little spunk; perhaps in a scene or two. Otherwise, we're supposed to see Hepburn as a somewhat demure, love-struck woman. Well, that's what doesn't work...the demure part.

Hepburn plays a woman with designs on composing music, although we never quite figure out how talented is is or isn't. She falls in love with a noted classical conductor (Charles Boyer). Although they are happily married, Boyer strays just a bit, taking an old flame out to dinner, where they are discovered accidentally by Hepburn. Hepburn ends the marriage and falls "in like" with John Beal, a pleasant though apparently shiftless young man. Meanwhile, Boyer's character falls apart, becoming a drunk, and is disgraced and withdraws from his career as a conductor. Of course, in the end they reconcile, though not before a twist or two.

While the Hepburn role left much to be desired, Boyer does quite nicely here in one of his fairly early American films when he was in his mid-30s; he's quite young looking. John Beal gives a so-so performance as a friend to both Boyer and Hepburn, although I didn't find his voice very satisfying. The well-known actor Jean Hersholt is here as a music teacher, and does nicely, though the role isn't the most impressive (this film was 2 years before he played the beloved grandfather to Shirley Temple's "Heidi").

Worth mentioning is the score here...by the great Max Steiner. Several of the orchestral pieces are excellent.

Not a bad film concept, just bad casting in terms of Hepburn. The film never recovers from her insipid performance (and incidentally, the film didn't do much more than break even).

Kate's heart may break but she keeps going on.

[mark.waltz · 5/10 · 26 August 2013]

A love-starved musician who has an unrelenting crush on a temperamental orchestra leader (Charles Boyer), Katharine Hepburn manages to warm her way into his life just by seeming to be at the right place at the right time. They marry but his lavish lifestyle leads him to infidelity. Of course, Hepburn, proving what every woman knows, stands by him as he falls into alcoholic despair, only to save the day when he realizes what she has known all along, that he needs her more than he ever previously cared to admit.

This handsome looking romantic drama features the two stars in a predictable story that is filled with some great classical music and believable performances by the two stars. Boyer, obviously, doesn't deserve Hepburn's love, but she perseveres, and the results never make you doubt what will happen. Jean Hersholt gives a wise performance as Hepburn's mentor, providing the heart behind the breakage.

Symphony of Love

[lugonian · 7/10 · 10 July 2016]

BREAK OF HEARTS (RKO Radio, 1935), directed by Philip Moeller, is not a movie dealing with gamblers in a card game, but a title in brief telling its movie patrons what to expect, that of a melodramatic story in the soap-opera mode. Starring the still youthful and radiant Katharine Hepburn in her seventh movie role and first 1935 release, it returns her to contemporary setting in New York City for the first time since her Academy Award winning performance in MORNING GLORY (1933). Rather than having Hepburn in the world of Broadway, offices of producers and theater actors, BREAK OF HEART places her in the love story of concerts and classical music. Aside from casting her opposite Charles Boyer (for the first time in a perfectly fitting role to his screen personality), it also reunites Hepburn with John Beal, her co-star from her previous effort of THE LITTLE MINISTER (1934). This time Beal assumes a secondary best friend character part in the manner that makes one immediately think of James Stewart.

From the screenplay by Sarah Y. Mason, Victor Heerman and Anthony Veiller, the story opens in New York's Eastern Theater where Franz Roberti (Charles Boyer), a renowned musical conductor with "an eye for the ladies," places Elsie (Susan Fleming), one of his latest dates, in a taxi bound for home while he takes another to 31 Washington Square to visit with Professor Talma (Jean Hersholt), a music teacher who had guided Roberti to what he has become. While visiting with Talma, Roberti meets Constance Worth (Katharine Hepburn), a struggling young composer living in the apartment below, with whom he becomes well acquainted. Unable to buy a ticket to one of his concerts, Constance enters the theater to watch one of Roberti's rehearsals. After a month of courtship, the two marry and honeymoon throughout Europe. Upon their return to New York, Franz's many hours of concert rehearsals keeps him away from his wife. However, Constance takes pleasure in the company of Roberti's best friend, Johnny Lawrence (John Beal). At her insistence, Johnny takes Constance to dinner at the Ritz where, in the powder room, overhears gossip between two women about her husband. She finds the gossip to be true when finding Franz in the company of the gossiping socialite women, Sylvia DeWitt (Helene Millard) and Didi Lenox-Smith (Jean Howard). More because of his lying than anything else, the marriage leads to separation and individual hardships ahead. Others members of the supporting cast include: Sam Hardy (Mr. Goldmarks); Inez Courtney (Miss Wilson); Ferdinand Gottschalk (Enrico Pazzini, Roberti's Manager); and Lee Kohlmar (Schubert, one of the members of Roberti's concert ensemble). Take notice that one of the girls in the assortment of Franz Robert's picture frames of girlfriends looks like the blonde Lucille Ball.

While BREAK OF HEARTS might have been a semi-biography of actual composers or symphony conductors, it's mostly a fictional modern-day story consisting of interludes involving classical music. Composition excerpts presented or heard throughout production (though not necessarily on chronological order) are: "Symphony # 9 in G Minor" by Antonin Dvorak; Robert Schumann's "Traumeroe" from Kinderscenen; "Symphony No. 8 in B Minor" by Franz Schubert; "Symphony No. 6 in B Minor, Opus 74" by Pyotir Tchiakovsky; "Tucca and Fugue in D Minor" by Johann Sebastian Bach; "Symphony No. 1 in C Minor" by Johannes Brahams, just to name a few. The contemporary songs worked into the plot are "Happy Go Lucky and Free" briefly sung not so well by Sam Hardy for a customer (played by Eddie Kane) at Goldmarks Music Publishing Company; and background scoring to "The Continental" heard during a New Year's Eve party.

Following a series of prior successful and/or disappointing movie assignments for Hepburn, the material provided in BREAK OF HEARTS seemed quite familiar to 1930s movie audiences, considering how top actresses of the day, Greta Garbo or Norma Shearer, as prime examples, had tackled similar themes in their movies that have proved successful at the box-office. Hepburn on the other hand seemed out of character in such a story, especially during a couple of melodramatic moments. In spite of Hepburn and Boyer's fine work together, BREAK OF HEARTS reportedly didn't prove favorable at the box-office. Maybe this on-again, off-again romance story just wasn't Hepburn's forte after all, unless similarly done in the comedic mode opposite such fitting Hepburn leading men types as Cary Grant or Spencer Tracy.

Being one of the least known or revived of Hepburn's 1930s RKO Radio productions, as opposed to commercial television dating back to the 1960s and 70s, or revivals at Hepburn film festivals, BREAK OF HEARTS did, however, become available on video cassette in the 1990s, even with occasional showings on cable television's American Movie Classics (prior to 2000) where the audio playback was distorted; and better audio and clearer print from Turner Classic Movies and its DVD release. BREAK OF HEARTS might never be scaled to great motion picture heights, but remains simply an average story for 78 minutes of screen entertainment. (***)

This is the flick that taught America the difference between a "high-end hoofer" . . .

[oscaralbert · 7/10 · 8 March 2018]

. . . and a "high-end hooker" (which turns out to be five spots on the alphabet for the second-to-last letter). About an hour into this 80-minute BREAK OF HEARTS musical expose, drunken hot-shot orchestra conductor "Franz" offers all the guys in his "Cosmopolitan Symphony" a crack at knowing his wife "Constance" in the "Biblical Sense." Since the opening credits proclaim that BREAK OF HEARTS is the 801st U.S. film to receive the Merciful Papal Award of Approval (or MPAA #801), we can assume that Connie's hourly rental rate is one of the tidbits of information cut out of its final edit. Of course, Connie is also sloshed when she rattles on about her freebie forays into the World of Adultery for Franz's benefit, an indication that sex and booze go together like "love and marriage" in the Eyes of Rome. Unfortunately, viewers never learn which sin is mortal and which is merely venal: Ending Prohibition, or Fooling Around. Perhaps this Catechismic Ambiguity is what's keeping the AFI from burning BREAK OF HEARTS onto one of its Gold DVDs for distribution to the rest of our Galaxy.

could be ripped from today's headlines

[blanche-2 · 5/10 · 9 May 2010]

Katharine Hepburn and Charles Boyer star in "Break of Hearts," a 1935 film that, despite not being particularly good, has some relevance to today's tabloid news.

Boyer is a Tiger Woods-Jesse James type - he's a conductor who marries a young fledgling composer, is caught cheating on her, and she leaves him. Then he hits the skids.

Predictable '30s drama. Both Boyer and Hepburn are ridiculously young and very attractive. Boyer is quite charming and moody as the conductor. Considering their respective careers, this is really just a blip on the radar.

Punishment for Attempted Break of Contract???

[Waiting2BShocked · 3/10 · 8 September 2005]

RKO step out on a prestige romantic drama and we step into something that we'd rather hadn't, unfortunately. As the title suggests, this is a soppy and now unintentionally humorous tale, in which Hepburn loves conductor Boyer (a disparate thespian pair if ever there was one), who loves hitting the bottle. Since this drama is post-code, she doesn't do the decent thing by joining him in a life of enlightened inebriation.

Despite the adult subject matter the dialogue - Hays approved = unremittingly boring - is singularly unworthy of such exceptional leading talent, to the extent of which one gets the feeling that Hepburn was cast out of a hat and in order to meet studio quotas.

In the end of course, it's Katy that commands the film a complete viewing today, as opposed to the other way round. Beyond this star pairing and the routine but elevator-tolerable scoring efforts of Max Steiner, in the middle of a particularly prolific period, the only other thing this film has going for it unfortunately is the frequent threatened slides into dramatic camp.

Different message than 'A Star is Born'

[HotToastyRag · 3/10 · 29 January 2020]

If you liked any version of A Star Is Born, you'll probably be disappointed by the similar Break of Hearts. Charles Boyer plays a famous composer who falls in love with an aspiring musician, Katharine Hepburn. When they marry, they start having relationship problems and his career takes a decline. However, the main message of this movie is much different than the popular franchise. This is one of those "stand by your man" flicks that promote the idea of sacrificing your entire life for your husband, no matter what he does and how rotten he treats you.

For me, the movie didn't work because of Charles Boyer. His character was such a jerk, I couldn't see why Katharine continued to support and love him. He was arrogant, rude, unfaithful, and disrespectful. If she's going to forgive him all that, shouldn't he have one redeeming quality? If you're interested in seeing Kate play the piano, rent Song of Love instead. It's much better.

A must see!

[JohnHowardReid · 9/10 · 11 February 2018]

Everyone hates Break of Hearts, but I wonder if its critics have actually seen the film recently or are merely relying on Andre Sennwald's negative review in The New York Times. In one respect at least, Sennwald is very, very wrong, and that is in his description of Moeller's direction as "lifeless and static". In actual fact, the direction is extremely similar to that employed in most modern films and television plays, in that it has an enormous and extraordinary reliance on close-ups. If Moeller's handling is "lifeless and static", I wonder what Sennwald would make of almost every movie release since 1980. Whereas Moeller's close-ups are radiant, full of shimmering light and beauty, most modern efforts are unbearably ugly. And whereas Moeller's close-ups are inventive, imaginative and well-crafted in their inspired use of various camera angles and set-ups, modern usage is invariably monotonous, arbitrary, and obtrusively jerky.

When the mood is appropriate, Moeller does move his camera quite dramatically, whereas modern hacks employ a camera that always seems bolted to the floor. True, the radiantly beautiful close-ups of Hepburn and Boyer are achieved with the expert assistance of photographer Robert De Grasse. But even when lighting is not so important, Moeller's mise en scene, his handling of crowd scenes, etc., are likewise laudably effective. Admittedly, the story is old-hat, but it is put across with tremendous panache and sheer imaginative craftsmanship.

We only see the hints of a great fatal passion of music and love, as the film is cut short.

[clanciai · 9/10 · 7 October 2017]

What's wrong with this film, since so many seem to only come with objections? Yes, there is one big thing wrong with it. It's a novel cut short into a short story. It's a great story, but large parts of it are missing. This could have been made into a great film, but instead it became a great small film. It's not even 80 minutes, but you still catch glimpses of enormous passions and a monumental tragedy, a great musician giving up music, which just can't be done, as the old maestro says: a musician is never through with music. Charles Boyer thinks he is, and his impersonation of a fallen conductor to the dregs of the left-overs from a shabby bar after closing time is more than convincing - he has really lost himself, since he gave all his love to Katharine Hepburn, at her youngest och freshest and most charming splendour of youth, but she had her special woman's pride (like no other woman) and saw him through with his hollowness of a womanizing diva, but as the real woman she was she had the power to give it back again.

The scene when he is conducting Bach and hardly can stand on his feet, reeling and conducting like Oliver Hardy is monumental in itself, and the whole (short) film is worth seeing only for this. Charles Boyer is always an unforgettable experience on the screen and maybe particularly so when he plays diva musicians. It's always a remake of Liliom in greater glory than ever.

And how delightful to see Katharine Hepburn really young and sparkling, and her fantastic sense of dressing in style is already here amazing, as it was in every film she made. She always had a style of her own outshining everyone else, whoever she played against. Here Charles Boyer was a serious challenging match for her, and an interesting couple they make, which just has to go wrong, since they both are too brilliant for their own good, especially together... It's like two stars colliding. There has to be an explosion with fatal consequences, ruin and tears and bitter aftermaths of wounds that never could heal, - but Katharine Hepburn could never fall without rising again, and here she can even raise the shambles of Charles Boyer back to life. It's not just Hollywood. It's how music works.

John Beal loses out.

[gkeith_1 · 10/10 · 7 June 2017]

Spoilers. Observations. Opinions.

John Beal loses out. He gets third billing here. Elsewhere, he is Hepburn's main man (in The Little Minister). In this film he is best buds with Boyer, supposedly the suave leading man matinée idol.

Boyer, here, is a cad; tons of women hangers-on. He loves 'em all, and has their pictures up everywhere. Hepburn is like, well, I might just be next in line.

Boyer has women everywhere being bowled over by him, but his orchestra members are ticked off by his verbal cruelty.

Boyer and Hepburn marry, and are off to a whirlwind European honeymoon. Beal is off stage.

Boyer, later on, shows up very late to a concert performance, and I think that the orchestra members get their due in his inebriated attempts to be professional -- at which he fails.

He loses Hepburn. He is such a jerk, and she finally sees right through him.

Later, she has gone to Reno to end the marriage. Who else appears on the train with her on the way to NYC but The Little Minister himself. John Beal has an American accent here, and in the train scene almost a snappy 1930s gangster-like patter.

Beal woos Hepburn with an instant sort-of marriage proposal. Hepburn, meanwhile, has gone back to be with drunken Boyer, and everything ends.

I wanted her to end up with Beal, but alas, no.

I am a degreed historian, actress, film critic and movie reviewer. I like Katharine Hepburn films, especially her early ones that get bad press. In these, she is young, lithe and demure. There is no S. Tracy. These films were made in the middle of the Great Depression, and they are uplifting.