Do you have any images for this title?
| Cast overview, first billed only: | |||
| Joan Bennett | ... |
Monica 'Rusty' Fleming
|
|
| Cary Grant | ... | ||
| George Bancroft | ... |
Pete Stagg
|
|
| Conrad Nagel | ... |
Roger Dodacker
|
|
| Gene Lockhart | ... |
Archduke Gustav Ernest
|
|
| William Demarest | ... |
'Smiles' Benson
|
|
| Inez Courtney | ... |
Mary Lawson
|
|
| Edward Brophy | ... |
Squinty
|
|
| Purnell Pratt | ... |
Howard Van Dorn
|
|
|
|
Douglas Wood | ... |
Willett
|
| George Meeker | ... |
Gordon Blaker
|
|
|
|
Damon Ford | ... |
Mike Haley
|
| Lois Wilson | ... |
Laura Dodacker
|
|
|
|
Mary Forbes | ... |
Mrs. Dodacker
|
|
|
George Offerman Jr. | ... |
Sammy Smith
|
Charlie Mason and Rusty Fleming are star reporters on a Chicago tabloid who are romantically involved as well. Although skilled in ferreting out great stories, they often behave in an unprofessional and immature manner. After their shenanigans cause their frustrated city editor to resign, the publisher promotes Charlie to the job, a decision based on the premise that only a slacker would be able crack down on other shirkers and underachievers. His pomposity soon alienates most of his co-workers and causes Rusty to move to New York. Charlie resigns and along with gangster friend Smiles Benson tries to win Rusty back before she marries a stuffy society author. Written by [email protected]
One thing I absolutely love about films from the 30s is the now obsolete devices around which some films are centered. Locomotives and ships of course. They're a bit obvious. Then, they were symbols of technology and modernity. Technology as physical power something in everyone's cinematic imagination then now made quaint by microchips we cannot even see. And films are the worse for it.
Another device is the newsroom. We don't have these today in the same way. Reporters and cops don't mix it up as they used to. We don't actually "get the story," instead get some sort of manufactured fiction that glues facts together in appealing ways.
But 70 years ago there was a magical confluence of what it meant to make or discover stories, what it meant to "see," and what it meant to be an American. Mixed in there was this notion of an alert woman.
Its hard to impress on youngsters beyond a cartoonish awareness that women in society and film were extremely limited in options. Homemaker, secretary, teacher, nurse. Whore. If a woman was intelligent and witty and active, she was a reporter.
Seeing and discovering was sexy. Its lost today, that effect. This is post-code; "Picture Snatcher" is a better example where the sexiness is darned explicit.
Imagine a film that presents a woman far beyond your experience, what you know from real life. Imagine her witty and sexually available outside marriage, at least temporarily so. Smart, full of humor and ready to play severe and grand jokes. Its impossible to do today where Angelina can fight, Tilda can control and Julianne can affect.
But just imagine the cinematic power of a newsroom with such juice. The folding, of course with them writing stories and we seeing stories simultaneously. Our admiration of her just as Grant's and both of us conspiring in creating a spectacle around her.
(For those who haven't seen it the story is Cary and Joan are lovers copulation is obvious and both are star reporters. They decide NOT to marry as not to "ruin things." He advances to control the paper (the story) and she becomes engaged to a book writer. The books in question are vapid "self-help" books that lack the vim of "real" stories. Grant, drunk and with the help of a gangster pal, conspires to give her firetrucks, policecars, ambulances, even a hearse, all responding to the house where she will wed. That's the present: life.)
Oh how I wish we had such power to pull from in film today! Where's the sex in story, the newsroom of today?
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.