Wed 11 Jul 2012
Movie Review: NO MAN OF HER OWN (1932).
Posted by Steve under Films: Drama/Romance , Reviews[7] Comments
NO MAN OF HER OWN. Paramount Pictures, 1932. Clark Gable, Carole Lombard, Dorothy Mackaill, Grant Mitchell, Elizabeth Patterson, J. Farrell MacDonald, Paul Ellis. Director: Wesley Ruggles.
One big reason this pre-Code movie is worthy of note is that this was the first and only onscreen pairing of Clark Gable and Carole Lombard, later one of the most famous of married couples in Hollywood. A good second reason, though — if that’s possible — is that No Man of Her Own a pre-Code movie; in fact, it may have been one of the tipping points that caused the Code to go into effect.
Clark Gable, sans mustache, plays a card shark and con man who fairly obviously makes a good living at it. But when the heat is on, he heads out of Manhattan in a hurry. Picking a destination at random, he ends up in the small upstate town of Glendale, NY. Being the ladies’ man that he is, and is he ever, Babe Stewart’s eyes falls almost immediately upon Connie Randall, Carol Lombard’s character, one of the town’s librarians.
It is lust at first sight. Connie is about to burst from boredom. Glendale is far too small for her. But she knows better than to be too easy, although Babe is awfully hard to resist.
The scene that takes place in the stacks in the back of the library is one of the more famous ones in early cinematic history.
But a later scene that takes place in a cabin up at the lake, in which Connie is seen clad only in bra and panties, is also well worth a second look. Add in a couple of shower scenes, albeit separately, and (in another vein) the scene following the one which ends with Babe saying, “See you in church,” and you have the beginning of a humdoozer of a movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J733OtRwgw
Alas and alack, once the two are married, all there’s left to do is for Babe to reform, if Connie can accomplish it, and the last third of the movie limps to one dull thud of an ending. “Is that all there is?†you may ask yourself. But it’s the getting there that’s the attraction, and it’s why this movie is lot less likely to be forgotten than most of the others made in 1932.
July 11th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
I’ve no problem with the third act. But, once Babe has done his time, he and Connie, with their looks and personality should probably try the picture business. With their looks and personality…and, that was a time to try. An old actor said: “I went out to Hollywood on vacation. Looked around and saw all these other people doing it. If them, why not me?” Neither so simple today, nor so attractive. My opinion.
July 12th, 2012 at 12:38 am
I like the way you think, Barry.
July 12th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Aaaah, pre-Code movies !
I often wonder what would have become of Hollywood without this Volstead-like monstrosity !
The Doc
July 13th, 2012 at 11:13 am
I’ve often wondered too, Doc. When the Code was finally abandoned in the 1960s, there were a lot of interesting films made, but there was an awful lot of junk that showed up too.
I think the Code, though, was closer to the Comic Book Code, imposed by the filmmakers and comic book companies to forestall outside censorship, while Volstead was a government Prohibition, which the general public didn’t want. What I don’t know is how well the general public went along with the film Code, and if they did, why. I’ll have to research that sometime.
July 13th, 2012 at 11:43 am
I think there was a positive side to the code. Charm and smart lines were either acheived or attempted. We all knew, if in the loop, that sex and money were on the line, but getting there was the filmic adventure. I haven’t seen any of that for decades. There is a scene in The Rains Came with Myrna Loy and George Brent that is the hottest thing imaginable. Needs to be seen without further input. And, what does Rhett do when he carries Scarlet up the stairs…? She likes it. The code was effective building the industry so that the uptight could go to the movies, and the stupid, without threat. Real or imagined.
July 13th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
I remember watching GOLDFINGER in the theatre. At the time there were state boards of censors. Kansas protected its citizen in alleged free America by removing the scene where James finds the woman dead on the bed covered in gold paint. They also added an intermission at another scene saying ‘even James Bond needs his privacy’. We did get to see all the violence.
The only good thing any censorship ever gave society was Screwball Comedies.
July 13th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Yes, I can’t believe censorship enhancing the quality of cinema.
Look at Bollywood, today’ s largest film industry- HEAVILY censored, and churning out total BS.
Look at today’s media-censored beyond ken, at least in Europe, where they all preach the EU and the Euro-crap both.
The Soviet bloc is another nice example – watch those movies !
Since the Fifties, TV has eaten a large chunk of Hollywood’s former importance, and censorship, not in the least via ‘sponsors’, is heavy there.
Sex is a pretty natural affair, where else do the little kids in fundamentalist families come from .
The Doc