This was released late in 1933, I suspect to try and cash in on the success of Warner Bothers' hits, "Gold Diggers of 1933" and "42nd Street" All the right elements are there - class conflict, overworked choreographers and dancers, conflicts with the show's backers, and even some Busby Berkeley choreography - yet everything seems a bit undercooked.
There are some pleasant extras here, like the first appearance of Fred Astaire and Nelson Eddy and an early appearance by the three stooges. Yet, these all together take up only about ten minutes of the 90 minute running time. This leaves the main narrative story of a young girl's rise to fame and fortune as a dancer as the real central interest and that center falls, or should I say, taps flat.
Someone described Joan Crawford as a dancing camel in one review. That is accurate to a degree, her dancing looks awkward. I suspect that it is because we are not familiar with the dances of the period that we feel that way. She did win numerous dancer-flapper contests, so I assume that she was good in the flapper style of dancing that she does. However when she goes outside that style that she really gets lost. Fred Astaire pushes her around and seems afraid of breaking her in the one main dance they do together.
When she is not dancing, Crawford plays the virgin good girl trying to avoid the advances of millionaire Franchot Tone (Crawford married Tone for five years, two years after this movie). Since there were thousands of talented dancers in New York as pretty as Crawford who would have gladly slept with Tone, one wonders what the fascination he has for her is. Crawford comes off prudish, aggressive and dumb. I was surprised to see her like this when she had been so successful the previous year in "Grand Hotel," being sophisticated, passive and smart. She stole that movie from under the feet of Greta Garbo. Here, her acting seems to revert to her silent film days, acting with her whole body and being one dimensionally obvious.
On the other hand, Clark Gable is wonderful. He plays it smooth and light, but can be sincere and intense at moments.
The choreography by Sammy Lee and Eddie Prinz at times reaches the intense mixture of fabulous cinematography, art deco imagination and military precision of Berkeley. An airplane number and a past-to-modern times transformation number work nicely.
One amazing thing that I've notice is that Joan Crawford looks a lot like Bettie Davis in some shots in this movie. In some of Bettie Davis' latter movies, she seems to look like Joan Crawford. I'm wondering who copied whom or if it is just coincidence.
Its six years later, March 10, 2016, and I just saw the movie again. I was much more impressed. I would now give it a 9 or 10 out of 10. There are a lot of things I appreciated this time that I missed earlier. The beginning burlesque scene is amazing, very pre-code sexy and risqué. The touches of Art-deco and futurist propaganda -- speed, speed, speed and the new pace of modern life introduced at the very end of the film is amazing. The depression is the unseen "other" in the movie. It is only mentioned when Joan Crawford can't pay a $30 fine and gets sentenced to a week in jail, and Clark Gable proclaims that rich playboy Franchot Tone has thrown a hundred people out of work to court Joan. The little bits here and there, Healy and the three stooges, Fred Astaire, Sterling Holloway with a wonderful "You're crucifying me" cry, are not undeveloped as I thought -- they are bit gags by talented bit players. They were not meant to be developed. How could anyone have foreseen the great careers these bit players would have in the future?
Note the flying carpet to Bavaria scene is a prototype for the Wizard of Oz trip to Oz scene. Note the whole "Dancing Lady" musical which we get to see in the last 15 minutes is an extended metaphor for wild and passionate sex. The movement is from rauchy atmostphere (the Burlesque house) to work and seduction (Gable and Tone), to sex (the play), to marriage (the closing kiss). This is a very happy and cheerful movie.
There are some pleasant extras here, like the first appearance of Fred Astaire and Nelson Eddy and an early appearance by the three stooges. Yet, these all together take up only about ten minutes of the 90 minute running time. This leaves the main narrative story of a young girl's rise to fame and fortune as a dancer as the real central interest and that center falls, or should I say, taps flat.
Someone described Joan Crawford as a dancing camel in one review. That is accurate to a degree, her dancing looks awkward. I suspect that it is because we are not familiar with the dances of the period that we feel that way. She did win numerous dancer-flapper contests, so I assume that she was good in the flapper style of dancing that she does. However when she goes outside that style that she really gets lost. Fred Astaire pushes her around and seems afraid of breaking her in the one main dance they do together.
When she is not dancing, Crawford plays the virgin good girl trying to avoid the advances of millionaire Franchot Tone (Crawford married Tone for five years, two years after this movie). Since there were thousands of talented dancers in New York as pretty as Crawford who would have gladly slept with Tone, one wonders what the fascination he has for her is. Crawford comes off prudish, aggressive and dumb. I was surprised to see her like this when she had been so successful the previous year in "Grand Hotel," being sophisticated, passive and smart. She stole that movie from under the feet of Greta Garbo. Here, her acting seems to revert to her silent film days, acting with her whole body and being one dimensionally obvious.
On the other hand, Clark Gable is wonderful. He plays it smooth and light, but can be sincere and intense at moments.
The choreography by Sammy Lee and Eddie Prinz at times reaches the intense mixture of fabulous cinematography, art deco imagination and military precision of Berkeley. An airplane number and a past-to-modern times transformation number work nicely.
One amazing thing that I've notice is that Joan Crawford looks a lot like Bettie Davis in some shots in this movie. In some of Bettie Davis' latter movies, she seems to look like Joan Crawford. I'm wondering who copied whom or if it is just coincidence.
Its six years later, March 10, 2016, and I just saw the movie again. I was much more impressed. I would now give it a 9 or 10 out of 10. There are a lot of things I appreciated this time that I missed earlier. The beginning burlesque scene is amazing, very pre-code sexy and risqué. The touches of Art-deco and futurist propaganda -- speed, speed, speed and the new pace of modern life introduced at the very end of the film is amazing. The depression is the unseen "other" in the movie. It is only mentioned when Joan Crawford can't pay a $30 fine and gets sentenced to a week in jail, and Clark Gable proclaims that rich playboy Franchot Tone has thrown a hundred people out of work to court Joan. The little bits here and there, Healy and the three stooges, Fred Astaire, Sterling Holloway with a wonderful "You're crucifying me" cry, are not undeveloped as I thought -- they are bit gags by talented bit players. They were not meant to be developed. How could anyone have foreseen the great careers these bit players would have in the future?
Note the flying carpet to Bavaria scene is a prototype for the Wizard of Oz trip to Oz scene. Note the whole "Dancing Lady" musical which we get to see in the last 15 minutes is an extended metaphor for wild and passionate sex. The movement is from rauchy atmostphere (the Burlesque house) to work and seduction (Gable and Tone), to sex (the play), to marriage (the closing kiss). This is a very happy and cheerful movie.