No, this is not Harding's best film, nor is it one of her better flicks. It is, however, an enjoyable example of the type of movie that she is most fondly remembered for: a well-crafted "woman's film" exploring sensitive social issues. Warning: Care must be taken to view this film within the context of its time. Please don't apply your 2010 sophistication to this 1933 movie; that's just not fair.
In the early '30s Harding was a pioneering actress. Her skills as an performer (film & Broadway) were immense. She was well respected by her peers, and her movies generally returned comfortable profits for her studios. Films like "The Right to Romance" were her forte. Few actresses could match her in this genre. None could top her on her best day.
I say that Harding was a pioneer because she, along with fellow actresses Loretta Young, Barbara Stanwyck, Kay Francis, et al, aggressively pushed the woman's rights issue. The "right" referred to in this title is Harding's character's "right" to romance, not the right of an entitled male character.
In this film Harding plays a medical doctor. While America's ladies were slowly breaking into the medical profession during the '20s and '30s, their numbers were still very small and generally limited to the R.N. field. Harding's character is not only a doctor, but she is a very successful and respected practitioner--one who is in great demand. Harding plays the role with great strength and understatement. Her character works hard and succeeds wonderfully in working tiny miracles, but the movie's script is smart enough to demonstrate the drudgery and boredom that can also be found in the medical profession, and of course the dangerous strain of overwork.
After a brief vacation fling with a wealthy and irresponsible playboy, the good doctor marries the worthless cad and together they set up house. Here's where things get good. Harding's "Peggy" becomes the stereotypical "responsible man" of the house. She's up early every morning and goes to work every day. She works long and late hours. Meantime, her husband lounges about the house listening to football games he wishes he could attend.
It may seem hard to imagine, but in the pre-Code era this little drama (it's not a comedy) was quite successful. People wanted to see this movie; they paid an admission price. Strong women were box-office gold. And please don't think the reversed male/female roles were played for laughs, because this is simply not the case; it's done tastefully, and it is very believable. This film was heady stuff in its day.
When the husband and wife eventually do parts ways, it is Peggy who dumps Young's character. She does it for two reasons: 1) Her husband is a skirt-chasing lout and not deserving of her, and 2) Our straight-laced, hard-working Peggy has found another man, a better man! Talk about women's liberation.
When the Code was enforced in '34, actresses and actors ceased to be equals. The Ann Hardings and Kay Francises were relegated--for the most part--to obedient, submissive wife roles. Even Myrna Loy's Nora Charles became a bit of a sidekick post '34, as opposed to the first Thin Man movie where she is every bit Nick's equal. The Code (it was pressed primarily by conservative Christian religious groups) dumbed down the ladies' roles. They became passive and demure (religions like 'em that way).
The Code not only "corrected" immoral Hollywood's corrupting issues of too much exposed feminine leg, and too much vulgar language, and too much social degradation, it also tossed the fine ladies back into the kitchen and into the typing pool. It kept woman from being man's equal--at least on film in America--for the next 30 years. Screwball comedies were some consolation, but only "some."
8 out of 11 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends