I haven't seen many movies that so plainly impressed as emphatically derived from a stage play. The film is divided into small, distinct scenes with a change of setting, and at the same time that dialogue is pointedly articulated and sometimes even stilted in its delivery, the sense of humor throughout is drastically restrained, as though the form of the presentation were more important to the producers than its content. Then, too, while as a sound picture 'Fast and loose' certainly dispenses with the exaggerated facial expressions and body language in performances that characterized the transition in the silent era from theater to film, instead we're treated to unmistakably embellished, ham-handed acting that is in no way nuanced, or natural.
I suppose all this was quite intentional, but I also suppose that it's very earnest in this construction. That's unfortunate, because if 'Fast and loose' were ironic, genuinely making fun of the style and substance herein - well, that may have been the best chance for this to truly be enjoyed. This could have been a satire - of prominent classism, sexism, nonsensical moralizing, and antiquated conservative values - but instead comes across more as unwanted sober sincerity. And it's not possible to meaningfully assess the contributions of the cast, the screenwriters, or director Fred C. Newmeyer when the feature seems to care so much more about faithfulness to an ideal than to the utmost spirit it could communicate.
I understand and appreciate that 'Fast and loose' reflects a simpler aesthetic, and a simpler notion of entertainment, for a simpler time. I also can't state clearly enough that I've seen titles preceding or succeeding 'Fast and loose,' or that were its contemporaries, that were much more fun, and aimed to be so. Half the runtime passed before I cracked a smile, or detected any real cleverness, and even at only a brisk 70 minutes, this feels overly long. What's remarkable is that even with comedic genius Carole Lombard joining the cast - I can recognize the definite skill that all the assembled players possess, but it rather seems like the movie doesn't want them to show what they're capable of. The fleeting one or two laughs this delivers are surrounded with tawdry gaucheness, and or social mores that were outdated upon conception, that reduce any sense of amusement to its most infinitesimal arrangement. Those qualities, and the rigid conformation of the film's craft, are so "paramount" in this production as to overwhelm all else.
I have no frame of reference by which to speak to the play 'The best people' that this is based on, but if this feature is any indicator, I don't know that I'd have much positive to say about David Gray and Avery Hopwood's writing, either. There are some good ideas here, but they are subsumed by a vast preponderance of boorish, grating pomposity of one fashion or another. The cast are wasted, the fine work of crew members behind the scenes are wasted - and the viewer's time is wasted. True, there are still worse films out there one could watch. Yet I entered with high expectations, being an enthusiastic fan of the silent era, of Carole Lombard, of old films generally - and I leave both frustrated and disappointed. Frankly, even if you're a diehard fan of someone involved here, there's so little enjoyment to be had in 'Fast and loose' that you're better off just not bothering.
I suppose all this was quite intentional, but I also suppose that it's very earnest in this construction. That's unfortunate, because if 'Fast and loose' were ironic, genuinely making fun of the style and substance herein - well, that may have been the best chance for this to truly be enjoyed. This could have been a satire - of prominent classism, sexism, nonsensical moralizing, and antiquated conservative values - but instead comes across more as unwanted sober sincerity. And it's not possible to meaningfully assess the contributions of the cast, the screenwriters, or director Fred C. Newmeyer when the feature seems to care so much more about faithfulness to an ideal than to the utmost spirit it could communicate.
I understand and appreciate that 'Fast and loose' reflects a simpler aesthetic, and a simpler notion of entertainment, for a simpler time. I also can't state clearly enough that I've seen titles preceding or succeeding 'Fast and loose,' or that were its contemporaries, that were much more fun, and aimed to be so. Half the runtime passed before I cracked a smile, or detected any real cleverness, and even at only a brisk 70 minutes, this feels overly long. What's remarkable is that even with comedic genius Carole Lombard joining the cast - I can recognize the definite skill that all the assembled players possess, but it rather seems like the movie doesn't want them to show what they're capable of. The fleeting one or two laughs this delivers are surrounded with tawdry gaucheness, and or social mores that were outdated upon conception, that reduce any sense of amusement to its most infinitesimal arrangement. Those qualities, and the rigid conformation of the film's craft, are so "paramount" in this production as to overwhelm all else.
I have no frame of reference by which to speak to the play 'The best people' that this is based on, but if this feature is any indicator, I don't know that I'd have much positive to say about David Gray and Avery Hopwood's writing, either. There are some good ideas here, but they are subsumed by a vast preponderance of boorish, grating pomposity of one fashion or another. The cast are wasted, the fine work of crew members behind the scenes are wasted - and the viewer's time is wasted. True, there are still worse films out there one could watch. Yet I entered with high expectations, being an enthusiastic fan of the silent era, of Carole Lombard, of old films generally - and I leave both frustrated and disappointed. Frankly, even if you're a diehard fan of someone involved here, there's so little enjoyment to be had in 'Fast and loose' that you're better off just not bothering.