Cyril Morton's aunt writes him that if she likes his fiancée, she will settle an income on him. However, the engagement has already ended, so he persuades Alma Taylor to pose as his fiancée until aunty has left town. They fall in love, but Miss Taylor is threatened by her brother's creditor, who demands his money and threatens to expose him as a forger unless she weds him.
What's a poor girl to do? It's fairly melodramatic and, like many another Hepworth picture of the era, it is poorly designed -- the sets are so busy that the players tend to disappear in them, what with plants and actors' reflections moving about in mirrors.
What is extraordinary about this movie is how it illustrates the longevity of of the British film industry. Contrary to the standard appraisals (which in the last few years are finally being revisited and revised, thanks to access to films like this at the BFI and on their Youtube site), we are discovering that British film was not mired in cheapness and mediocrity, but had an actual national character and the poor valuation put on it by writers lies at least partially in the fact that they were leftists and disapproving because British films were not Soviet films -- like disliking golden retrievers because they are not teacup poodles.
When looking at a melodramatic film like this, it is important to recollect that Miss Taylor was a favorite of her producer, starred in his last picture a dozen years later, and was still a welcome (if uncredited) face in movies forty years later; and that its director, Hay Plumb, continued in the flicks for another quarter of a century, including an appearance in an early Ealing comedy, CHEER BOYS, CHEER.
I may have wandered a bit afar in what is likely to be my last IMDb review for 2016, but the essence is this: a lot of opinions of films seem to be offered by people who have never seen them, or based on some irrelevant issue. A British film from 1914 might be despised because it's not a Soviet Academician film from 1928, or a film might be written off because its director or star offered some opinion about something else which the reviewer disagreed: this year's SULLY got a lot of rants online because director Clint Eastwood is politically conservative; the very amusing GHOSTBUSTERS remake was hated because it was full of women. I have tried, in these reviews, to tell anyone who is interested in my opinions, to say what showed up on the screen, how well it worked, and how it fits into the vast array of films I have seen. I certainly don't expect a reader to agree with my opinions, but I will try to continue doing it as honestly as I can.
See you with more of my opinions in 2017 -- assuming nothing pops up in the next 36 hours.
What's a poor girl to do? It's fairly melodramatic and, like many another Hepworth picture of the era, it is poorly designed -- the sets are so busy that the players tend to disappear in them, what with plants and actors' reflections moving about in mirrors.
What is extraordinary about this movie is how it illustrates the longevity of of the British film industry. Contrary to the standard appraisals (which in the last few years are finally being revisited and revised, thanks to access to films like this at the BFI and on their Youtube site), we are discovering that British film was not mired in cheapness and mediocrity, but had an actual national character and the poor valuation put on it by writers lies at least partially in the fact that they were leftists and disapproving because British films were not Soviet films -- like disliking golden retrievers because they are not teacup poodles.
When looking at a melodramatic film like this, it is important to recollect that Miss Taylor was a favorite of her producer, starred in his last picture a dozen years later, and was still a welcome (if uncredited) face in movies forty years later; and that its director, Hay Plumb, continued in the flicks for another quarter of a century, including an appearance in an early Ealing comedy, CHEER BOYS, CHEER.
I may have wandered a bit afar in what is likely to be my last IMDb review for 2016, but the essence is this: a lot of opinions of films seem to be offered by people who have never seen them, or based on some irrelevant issue. A British film from 1914 might be despised because it's not a Soviet Academician film from 1928, or a film might be written off because its director or star offered some opinion about something else which the reviewer disagreed: this year's SULLY got a lot of rants online because director Clint Eastwood is politically conservative; the very amusing GHOSTBUSTERS remake was hated because it was full of women. I have tried, in these reviews, to tell anyone who is interested in my opinions, to say what showed up on the screen, how well it worked, and how it fits into the vast array of films I have seen. I certainly don't expect a reader to agree with my opinions, but I will try to continue doing it as honestly as I can.
See you with more of my opinions in 2017 -- assuming nothing pops up in the next 36 hours.
