User Reviews

It isn't easy to track down this movie, but it's worth the effort if you're a Preston Sturges fan and would like to see what his work looked like early on, when he was still in the process of finding his voice. Sturges first made his name as a writer in 1929, with his smash hit Broadway comedy Strictly Dishonorable. Unfortunately, he went on to produce three flops in a row after that, before leaving New York for Hollywood. There he regained his bearings and ultimately became a master of sophisticated farce comedy -- but for the movies, not the stage. Child of Manhattan was the second of Sturges' three Broadway failures, though according to the various books about the author it wasn't really such a terrible flop: it ran for 87 performances, which wasn't so bad in those days. The reviews were poor however, and the stage run didn't recoup its investment. After the show closed the play's primary financial backer sold the material to Columbia Pictures, but for convoluted reasons Sturges didn't earn a penny from the movie version. Still, watching the results today we can see that the experience wasn't a total loss for the author, for it's clear that he used this somewhat rickety vehicle to explore themes he would develop more fully later on. His fans will recognize and enjoy the comic passages in the dialog, which suggest a workshop version of Sturges' great screenplays of the '40s, delivered by embryonic versions of the eccentric characters he would later polish to perfection.

Child of Manhattan tells the story of Madeleine McGonegal (Nancy Carroll), a taxi dancer who works at a dime-a-dance club called Loveland, which happens to occupy land owned by one of New York's wealthiest men, Paul Vanderkill (John Boles). Vanderkill is a middle-aged widower and an absentee landlord where the club is concerned, but one evening he visits to see if the place is as wicked as its reputation suggests. He meets Madeleine and finds her strangely innocent and charming, despite the tawdry setting. He romances her, buys her expensive clothes, then sets her up in an apartment as his mistress. You know you're watching a Pre-Code movie when an extramarital sexual relationship is presented in such a straightforward fashion. Vanderkill buys his new girlfriend lavish gifts in a sequence that must have represented a wish fulfillment fantasy for Depression era viewers, and which contrasts sharply with Madeleine's harsh encounters with her shanty Irish family, who bluntly express their disapproval of her new mode of life.

When Madeleine gets pregnant she's apologetic, which I found confusing, frankly; why was it HER fault? (Doesn't it take two?) It's briefly implied that Paul might arrange to have the pregnancy terminated, but instead he offers marriage on condition that it remain a secret. The plot takes several more twists from that point forward, but let it suffice to say that although the tone of the story grows darker, Sturges manages to perk things along with amusing character turns by familiar supporting players Jesse Ralph, Luis Alberni, and Tyler Brooke. Brooke is especially funny in a scene that is the film's comic highlight, Paul and Madeleine's trip to a fancy clothier's on Fifth Avenue called Madame Dulcey's. Brooke, who plays the proprietor of the shop, leaves no doubt about his sexual orientation as he waxes eloquent on the "too too divine" outfits he has in stock, outdoing himself with a description of a $12,000 chinchilla coat as "silver gray, rippling like a river in the midst of early morn -- and so virginal!" (Like I say, it's Pre-Code.) Nancy Carroll gives an excellent performance as Madeleine, at once both comic and poignant, reaching an especially impressive dramatic peak during a hospital sequence. It's a memorable turn, and makes me wonder why her career slowly fizzled out after brief stardom in the early '30s. Leading man John Boles is handsome but somewhat wooden, and too young to play Vanderkill; it's too bad Warner Baxter or Warren William weren't used instead. The most surprising casting choice is that of Nancy's spurned suitor, an Okie blessed with the unlikely name of Panama Canal Kelly. This role is played by cowboy star Buck Jones with requisite sincerity, but his dialog is full of awkward, pseudo-homespun sayings that would make any genuine Okie wince.

In this early effort Sturges explores the balance of power in man- woman relationships as he would later, with more sophistication and polish, in The Lady Eve, The Palm Beach Story, and Unfaithfully Yours. Fans of those films will want to seek this one out, for although it's not entirely successful this movie is surprisingly enjoyable in its own right, considerably boosted by a sparkling performance by the unjustly neglected Nancy Carroll.

P.S. Since writing this review I've managed to locate a copy of the script for the stage version of Child of Manhattan. The basic plot is the same, and several of the play's scenes are repeated almost verbatim in the movie. In the play we see more of Madeleine's family, but most of that material was dropped from the film, and so was a sequence involving an eccentric room-service waiter. It's a funny scene, but it doesn't advance the story. Over all, I'd say this is a case where the screen version is an improvement over the source material. The movie is more tightly focused and satisfying than the stage play.

CHILD OF MANHATTAN is a Columbia Studios precode starring Nancy Carroll and John Boles. When millionaire Boles' aunt Clara Blandick is horrified to learn one of the family properties is being leased to "a dance hall with naked girls" Boles promises to check the establishment out. There he discovers it's a low-class "dime a dance" hall but is immediately smitten with one of the girls employed there, earthy but sweet Carroll. Boles is charmed by her lack of pretensions and touched by her concern for him when she thinks he is unemployed. Nancy Carroll eventually learns Boles is "the" Paul Vanderkill, one of New York's richest men. They fall genuinely in love but nevertheless in a man and mistress relationship, in part because of Boles' concern for his (never seen) teen-aged daughter (presumably much as he admires Carroll, she is not the kind of woman he wants his young daughter to emulate). Carroll eventually finds herself expecting which leads to a secret marriage and, ultimately, tragedy. In true Hollywood tragedy fashion, there is a happy ending.

CHILD OF MANHATTAN is a fast-moving low-key melodrama based on a play by the then unknown Preston Sturges (who surely is the source for the many delightful and at times quite racy comic quips that occasionally dot the screenplay). Nancy Carroll, still quite young but already with her major career behind her as a Paramount star and one of the biggest draws in the first years of "talkies", is quite good as the somewhat incredible bimbo with a heart of gold. John Boles is as dashing and romantic as always, his sideburns tinted white to suggest a man of middle-age (in his first scene he wears a quite contemporary haircut with thick hair at the top and very thin along the bottom) yet his character too is a bit unbelievable (although he projects a romantic charisma that could probably lead just about anyone down the primrose path). Cowboy star Buck Jones makes a rare appearance in a non-western as one of Carroll's less successful suitors and there are excellent cameos by character actresses Clara Blandick as Boles' aunt, Jane Darwell as Carroll's Irish mother, and most especially Jessie Ralph as the ladies room attendant at the dance hall who is a surrogate aunt to Carroll. Luis Alberni is fun as Carroll's Mexican divorce lawyer who is always murmuring my review title when meeting new people. 15-year-old Betty Grable has a bit (surprisingly billed) as Carroll's young sister in one brief scene. CHILD OF MANHATTAN is no classic but worth the 69 minutes if you are intrigued by precodes.

I saw this movie this morning by accident. I love 30s movies for the clothes, the beauty of which hit me during the "first" mini era. I was a teenager and I had never seen such gorgeous clothes.

The movie is predictable, but Nancy Carroll is adorable and I can see what her appeal was. With that pretty face and hair, she would have absolutely no chance of getting any job as an actress today, in this world of gaunt, giraffe-like women-men. Too bad we don't have any visual differences among the "leading actresses of today", all those interchangeable bland flat-haired blondes.

Those clothes are wonderful. Too bad we'll never see their like again -- after all, how can anyone be attractive wearing anything other a mini or jeans?

Hey, wasn't Buck Jones handsome! I won't contrast him with our "leading men" today. I leave that up to you.

Don't let the wedlock baby fool you. This is a version of the fairy-tale Cinderella story popular with Depression era audiences of the time. It comforts folks with the idea that rags- to-riches lightning may strike them if they just get noticed by a benevolent rich person, in this case John Boles with the rather double-edge name of "Vanderkill". What's suggested is that rescue from desperate economic conditions lies with joining established wealth instead of joining with other desperate folks to improve the common economic condition. I don't know how the screenplay compares with Sturges' stage play, but what's there on the screen looks processed in typical Hollywood fashion.

I realize this kind of perspective is unwelcome to most viewers who simply want to be entertained in engaging fashion. Certainly Nancy Caroll does that with a winning performance as the down-trodden girl. Her sheer spunk in the early scenes carries the movie, at the same time I couldn't help thinking how much her big eyes, high cheek bones and flattened hair-do resemble the popular Betty Boop character of the time. Too bad the rest of the cast doesn't come up to her level, especially Buck Jones' Panama Kelly whose unbelievably gallant nature helps produce the fairy tale outcome. Note also, how actual Depression era conditions are not allowed to intrude on the enclosed world of the lovers. To be fair, that may simply have resulted from a tight budget. But if so, the constraints help produce what appears to be the desired overall effect.

Whatever the movie's internal qualities, the relevance of the underlying message to that historical period needs to be pointed out. Because no matter how much we may wish otherwise, history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.

Enjoyed this story of a girl named Madeleine McGonegal, played by Nancy Carroll, who was a girl who worked in a dance hall where the purchase of a ticket allowed you to dance with a girl of your choosing. This dance hall is owned by a very wealthy man named Paul Vanderkill, (John Boles) who once a week visits his establishment to see that things are running according to his rules of conduct. Boles meets up with a dance hall girl named Madeleine McGonegal and is interested in her down to earth personality and her being so outspoken and honest about herself. Madeleine does not realize John Boles is her big boss and that he is very wealthy and gets worried when he starts buying all kinds of expensive gifts. As the story progresses, Madeleine expects a baby and that is when the entire story changes and the drama begins and takes a new change in their marriage. Great acting by Nancy Carroll and John Boles and you will see Betty Grable, (Lucy) giving a great supporting role. Enjoy

... because I recognize his trademark wit in some of the one liners. I can also see how some material may have gotten lost in translation while adapting it to the screen.

Paul Vanderkill (John Boles) manages his family's extensive New York City real estate holdings. His aunt Sophie drops by one day and is horrified that the Loveland Dance Hall is renting out some of their real estate. Paul says he will investigate and ensure that the place is decent. You can tell this really doesn't trouble him, he just wants Aunt Sophie humored and out of the way. It turns out it is one of those "ten cents a dance" places that were common during the Great Depression.

When Paul arrives at the dance hall, he first encounters Madelaine (Nancy Carroll). He wants to ask some questions about the place. Why he doesn't go straight to the manager is unclear, except that maybe he wants a straightforward explanation and figures he's more likely to get one from one of the girls who works there, plus we'd have no story if he simply talked to management. Madelaine gets the idea that the Paul is poor. He doesn't correct her impression, and he is surprised by her generosity to someone to whom she doesn't believe has much. He buys enough dance tickets to cover the entire evening and leaves with her. At this point she begins to realize he is not poor.

It's fun watching them have difficulties with each other's speech patterns. Paul has the remains of his Dutch ancestors' accent. Madelaine has a working class New York vocabulary.

"Did you call me a witch? For a minute I thought you said something else!" And so on.

The two get to know each other and fall in love. But Paul doesn't want to get married because - reasons. It really isn't clear. He keeps talking about having "a daughter with modern ideas" and that he doesn't want any scandal to touch her. How marrying Madeleine is scandalous is either some lame excuse not to get permanently entangled or it is really insulting because deep down he considers her beneath him and THAT would be a scandal in his estimation. It is never explained. Nor do we ever get a glimpse of this modern daughter of his.

So what happens when two people live together in 1933 when there is no birth control? I imagine you can figure out what happens. How both people handle the situation - watch and find out.

Preston Sturges was never one to humor illusions about noble poverty. Madelaine's family is what you'd expect of a group of people who are weighed down by a lifetime of poverty and the more severe and recent Depression. Mom is coarse, untrusting, and definitely not nurturing. Dad is probably dead but unmentioned - maybe he ran off. Her brother is a layabout and a moocher. Her younger sister has just one scene where she cries.

And there are characters who wander in and out of the film. I've mentioned Madelaine's family - they disappear during the second half never to be seen again. Instead, up pops Maddy's Aunt Minnie (Jessie Ralph) who is everything Maddie's mother is not - supportive, nurturing, and generous. Wherever did she come from? It is never explained.

It would be nice to have more information on the source material, because there are holes in the plot and in the cast that might be explained in Preston Sturges' play. I'd recommend this because John Boles is a much better actor than his early talkie song bird reputation would have you believe, and Nancy Carroll always grabs my attention. Her career would have gone on much longer had she not been so hard to get along with on the set. She did, though, have a very successful stage career and then made numerous guest appearances on TV as well.

"Child of Manhattan" (1933) stars Nancy Carroll who is in nearly every scene of the film. Her co-star is John Boles, and then there is a lesser co-star who, believe it or not, is Charles "Buck" Jones - yes, the Western "B" movie star. Of course his Westerns are basically "A" films in the early years of his prominence at Columbia, but they're made for the audience that preferred the oaters to the "womens'" pictures or romantic "mush". "Child of Manhattan" is drama, romance, melodrama, social register, social commentary on mores, etc. It's 70 minutes of stirring the stew in the pot, and it certainly isn't any great shakes, but it's a fun watch. The ending is too sudden, even though we can figure it will end that way. By the way, no way it would end this way; okay, maybe one in twenty-five...maybe. Carroll is a dancer in a dime-a-dance joint, a business in a building owned by Boles' family. He's unaware it's even there, or his, but he goes to see it. His mother thinks it's disreputable. Boles and Carroll find each other. In the past, Western-type Jones had fallen for Carroll and even asked her to marry him. She's so far refused. Suddenly she finds herself pregnant with Boles' and her baby. She marries Boles. But she doesn't want to strap her husband into what she assumes is an unwanted marriage. SO - - - she goes to Mexico to get a divorce. Enter Luis Alberni as a lawyer. He's the very, very light-weight comedy, too. I won't divulge what happens from here on out. You can surely figure it out in your head. Just look at the cast...

Decent little meller, without much meller. Much more romance. There's the large dollop of social commentary. Even some Depression material (very little!). I liked it enough to give it a 6 out of 10 score on the movie love/hate gradation scale. Carroll herself is very good in this. Boles does things by rote. Buck Jones is Buck Jones is Buck Jones. I enjoyed watching him do something like this. It's the kind of part that just a year later (and even a couple of years earlier) would have been played by Ralph Bellamy. There, now I've given away a lot of what I didn't say before. Along for the ride in this are Jessie Ralph, Clara Blandick, Jane Darwell, Warburton Gamble, and even, if you look hard enough, Betty Grable. Nat Pendleton and Matthew Betz are prominent in one or two little scenes, too.

I admit I obtained this film because I wanted to see John Boles' performance (he's always been a heart throb of mine) but it was Nancy Carroll's superb and sensitive performance of a common dance hall girl from Brooklyn with a heart of gold which kept me watching, especially considering the poor quality of the print I obtained.

With this multi-faceted performance Nancy proved she was capable of much more than silly flapper roles. Her character is not self-serving in the least, while John Boles' character Paul is indecipherable. After admitting he is totally in love with the dance hall girl he then states he doesn't want to marry her. An unexpected pregnancy forces his hand and he does the honorable thing by marrying her, but the marriage is a secret one. We are to assume it was to protect his older daughter, but since we never see this daughter we don't have much sympathy for Paul's concerns.

The audience receives a typical happy Hollywood ending in Child of Manhattan but somehow it doesn't quite fit the sum total of the film.

Watch Child Of Manhattan (if you can find it) to see Nancy Carroll at her best.

Update: TCM has recently broadcast this film in a lovely print. That's the one to see.

John Boles is quite charming as Paul Vanderkill of Manhattan, "one of the richest men in the world", whom nobody seems to recognize (he must be one up on Howard Hughes). While investigating a nightclub on the family property--reputed to be full of "nekked girls"--he discovers it's a respectable joint, a dime-a-dance ballroom, where he falls for Nancy Carroll as an Irish firecracker who thinks he's pulling her leg. Otherwise smart and savvy romantic comedy-drama from Columbia Pictures nevertheless goes awfully heavy on Irish, Hispanic and Yiddish stereotypes (plus a gay dress designer!). Adapted from the Broadway play by Preston Sturges, screenwriters Gertrude Purcell and Maurine Dallas Watkins come up with the oddest shopgirl fantasy: salty, unrefined woman chances upon a lovestruck millionaire--although one who doesn't particularly want marriage (he thinks his dancer should marry a hard-working young fellow, yet he also wants to have her for his own). Boles is a lot younger than he's meant to be, but his attractiveness is just right for the part (one can imagine theatergoers swooning in their seats in 1933!). The picture is rather surprisingly fresh in its depiction of mores and morals, and we get to spend enough quality time with the leads so that they're union is an embraceable one. Not bad; look fast for a young Betty Grable as Lucy. **1/2 from ****

As other reviewers stated, this Columbia pre-code has some of Preston Sturges characteristic touches. But I especially enjoyed the dance hall matron and mentor "Aunt" Minnie, who is a salty, bawdy Jewish tough girl who curses in Yiddish,"mamzer"- bastard and steals every scene. The movie has its dull spots due probably to the unheralded director. It also suffers from Columbia's cheap budget. Although it does give us little luxe in one of the funniest scenes in an expensive dress shop . The owner/salesman makes no secret of his gay orientation as he says as he squeezes Nancy Carrols body,"Don't think of me as a man, think of me as an artiste!"

Nancy figures it out and minces, "Okay Dear!"

Nancy Carrol is pretty good in the leading role but the male actors are dull as dishwater. There are some interesting sociological/historical bits worth noting. A lot is made of Nancy's low class Brooklyn accent(she says apperntment and Greenpernt instead of appointment and Greenpoint). Archie Bunker spoke similarly. That pronunciation has practically vanished from New York of today. New Yorkers still have distinctive accents but some of the distinctions have disappeared over the years.

Also worth noting is the sexual attitudes. Nancy works in a dance hall but it is made clear that she is not a prostitute and she is told by her mother to try to refuse money if it offered to her. Her lazy brother calls her a tramp as soon as she moves in with her lover, without being married and she is soon punished with a dead baby for her sins. The sexual revolution of the 1960's changed attitudes and behaviors. But this movie is worth seeing for 1930's peak into the sexual attitudes of the day.

Before cliches became cliches they were original ideas so the plethora of cliches in this story by Preston Sturges, written long before he was famous (or indeed that good), possibly elicited responses of: 'Gee whiz, I didn't see that coming!' back in '33. Nevertheless this movie version of his very early play is injected with life by director Eddie Buzzell to make it almost (but not quite) entertaining ....even though you know exactly what's going to happen next.

Being a Columbia picture you're not going to get flashy sets, scenes just to provide background and atmosphere - you just have to accept that we're in Manhattan in the depths of the depression or in sunny, sultry Mexico. The budget seems all to have been spent on Nancy Carroll which isn't actually a bad thing because the rest of the cast don't seem that interested in being there. Although a mega-star back then, she's not too well known today. Maybe that's because she didn't have a long career past the mid-30s so her style was perceived as being crystallised in that old style of melodramatic acting. This film is entirely her film, she's in almost every scene but manages to keep your attention throughout. She doesn't however seem that real or believable.

This is neither a memorable nor original motion picture. It's not innovative, thought provoking or that engaging. If however you want to see what all the fuss about Nancy Carroll was then you can't go wrong by watching her in this perfectly watchable if somewhat predictable melodrama.

Here's an interesting old movie, one of the earliest examples of a formula that would later define a whole genre, more a whole industry. Man meets girl and immediately falls in love. There is an event followed by a misunderstanding that send them apart. They rejoin at the end. Later this ending would require a public avowal, something missing here.

This is also an example of somethings that did not stick. Deep in the depression, many movies featured the ultra rich - people who just seemed to have money for no reason. Because this was before comical prudery changed films starting with the Code, we have the situation that guy knocks up the girl.

But I found it interesting for yet another reason. Movies from this era were far more willing to question gender roles than now is the case. Oh, today we worry about professions and opportunity. I'm talking about what it means to be a woman or man. In this film, we have our girl, with appealing innocence. She is the child of Manhattan, with clear immigrant, lower class heritage. Both she and the rich guy are noble people, but she far more. The film is about her decisions.

Sturges has taken the time to introduce four older women. They are shoehorned in and have nothing at all to do with the story; they are there only to show strong women, sometimes frustrated strength. There is the older woman at the dance hall where our girl works, who is much loved as she takes care of her girls. We have the aunt of our rich guy who is shown as a forceful nut job.

Then we have the girl's mother. We learn a lot about her past and values. She turns her daughter out on the street when she gets pregnant by her then boyfriend. This woman slaps her adult kids, hard. We spend the final third of the movie with the girl's aunt, something of a world traveller, a poor person's playgirl. She drinks too much but always seems to be on top of things.

Four strong women form the situation-of-womanhood in which we interpret our girl's life. Nothing like that today in mainstream films.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.