Sun 12 Jun 2011
Movie Review: THERE’S ALWAYS A WOMAN (1938).
Posted by Steve under Mystery movies , Reviews[7] Comments
THERE’S ALWAYS A WOMAN. Columbia Pictures, 1938. Joan Blondell, Melvyn Douglas, Mary Astor, Frances Drake, Jerome Cowan, Thurston Hall, Walter Kingsford, Lester Matthews. Screenplay: Gladys Lehman, based on the short story “There’s Always a Woman” by Wilson Collison (American Magazine, Jan 1937). Director: Alexander Hall.
A disappointment. After the success of The Thin Man in 1934, there were any number of attempts by Hollywood to cash in on its success, and There’s Always a Woman was one of them.
Woman, in fact, was intended to be the first in a long series of adventures of PI Bill Reardon (Melvyn Douglas) and his daffy wife Sally (Joan Blondell), but there was only one followup and no more. (I’ll get back to that later.)
After quitting his job with the D.A.’s office, Bill Reardon starts up his own private eye agency, but business is so bad and in spite of his wife Sally’s encouragement to stick it out a while longer, he decides to stop beating the dead horse and go back to work for the D.A.
Of course, no sooner does he go out the door but a client walks in. A wealthy society lady (Mary Astor) has a task for the Reardon Agency: to find out if her husband is having an affair with his former paramour, now engaged to another man.
Sally, you will not be surprised to learn, accepts the case, and not so incidentally, the three hundred dollar retainer that goes with it. (Three hundred dollars paid for a lot of groceries in 1938.)
When the husband gets murdered, the game is on, but good. Sally is determined to solve the case on her own, while Bill on his part has all the resources of the D.A. (Thurston Hall) for whom he’s now working.
While it’s a decent enough murder mystery, many viewers may not even notice. What this movie really is is a screwball comedy all the way, with all the stops let out and the battling Reardons in fierce competition from beginning to end – if not all out war.
And here’s where we came in, and where I begin to quibble and shuffle my feet a little. To my mind, the Reardons are far too antagonistic and aggressive in their struggle to outdo the other, and when I say aggressive, I mean physically.
There are one or two times when Bill Reardon appears all but certain to rear back and give Sally a punch, and once, after a yank on Sally’s hair that’s a little too fierce, there is a glare in Joan Blondell’s eye in return that definitely does not speak of love.
It’s been quite a few years from 1938 to now, and I wonder if bringing up today’s attitudes toward spousal abuse as opposed to almost 75 years ago is a point worth mentioning. But while there are scenes in this movie that are funny – how could there not, with bright and sassy Joan Blondell in one of the two primary roles? – most of the humor seems a little too forced for me to give you the full thumbs-up for it which, given the two leading stars, I entirely expected to.
There was a second movie in the series, There’s That Woman Again, made in 1939, but while Melvyn Douglas returns, Joan Blondell did not; Virginia Bruce played Sally in the sequel. I’ve located a copy, and a look at the second installment of the series will be in order when it arrives.
June 13th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
When you look at old movies there is a lot of spousal abuse. Just look at the opening scene of The Philadelphia Story where Cary Grant pushes Katherine Hepburn so that she falls on her butt. And then there was that scene where Cagney shoves a grapefruit half into a woman’s face. I think the only way to judge a movie is in the context of the social standards of the time it was made.
Stan
June 13th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Stan
You’re quite right to point out that scene in THE PHILADEtLPHIA STORY. Thanks for the reminder, though I should have remembered it myself.
Here’s a link to it on YouTube. There’s no sound to go with the clip, but I don’t think anyone needs it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpwJrEQY17U&feature=player_embedded
There’s nothing as forceful or striking as that sudden bit of violence in THERE’S ALWAYS A WOMAN, but the hint of it in the latter is all-pervasive. It caught me by surprise the first time I watched it, and the second time through made me even more aware of what were only subtle undertones the first time.
While I can’t find myself strongly disagreeing with your last statement, I don’t completely agree with it either. Movies are certainly what they are, and 75-year-old ones tell us a lot more about social standards at the time than any history book will.
But today’s viewers are who we are today too, and my reaction (and judgment) is also what it is. What it would have been back in 1938? Maybe it would have been something like this snippet of the review in the NEW YORK TIMES:
“…it is still one of the lightest and most engaging affairs of recent months. Deft direction, a neat dovetailing of comically epigrammatic scenes and incidents, and the really superb work of Joan Blondell, as the helpful wife of a financially unsuccessful detective who resembles Melvyn Douglas, have resulted in an excellent job of all-around spoofing — a “Thin Man” of the lower-income brackets.”
June 13th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Yes, it is hard to isolate yourself and what has happened to you and the world in the last 75 years from influencing how you judge old movies. But I am not going to not watch Bob Hope in The Ghost Breakers even though the black sidekick is portrayed as an offensive racial stereotype. Still, the current me can not help but feel “how could they think like that”?
July 2nd, 2011 at 3:29 pm
[…] [UPDATE] Later the same day. As perhaps even intermittent readers of this blog will recall, Douglas and Blondell also appeared together in There’s Always a Woman. It came out the year before (1938), and I reviewed it here. […]
September 2nd, 2012 at 1:38 pm
I just caught this one recently. I liked Blondell, whom I also watched recently in Miss Pinkerton (1932). Douglas came across as too sour for a screwball type piece. As for the rough stuff, it jumped off the screen at me too, as I think it probably does for most modern-day viewers.
July 24th, 2014 at 5:40 pm
Re violence: pretty tame when put next to today’s TV ads that show lots of slaps in the face, usually a woman hitting a man.
August 30th, 2019 at 6:04 pm
Tear down the statues.