Those We Love (1932) Poster

(1932)

User Reviews

Review this title
10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
A familiar but well-rendered story of the "tie that binds"
briantaves5 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Those We Love, one of K.B.S.'s top productions, is a sentimental story of family love, one of the very few occasions when director Robert Florey was called upon to depict a domestic milieu. Unfortunately, the property it was adapted from was rather poor and lacking in originality, although F. Hugh Herbert's screenplay contributed many improvements. While well-handled by the filmmakers in nearly all respects, Those We Love is very old-fashioned in the treatment of the theme, based upon a tired mixture of the romantic triangle, the "vamped" husband, and alas, "the tie that binds."

Despite the movie's having its origins on the stage, Florey manages to create a smoothly cinematic motion picture which has nothing in common with the stilted, unimaginative techniques often applied to such projects during the early years of sound. Those We Love is a well-mounted presentation, fast yet evenly paced, and cleverly photographed to minimize the script's reliance on dialogue rather than visuals to create the plot. There is basically a two-act narrative structure, beginning with the meeting of the couple on Armistice Day, their courtship and the early months of their marriage. It then skips ahead a dozen years, by which time they have a teen-age son and their union will be tried by temptation. Despite having the most minimal resources and only a few sets, the mood of both these different eras is effectively captured, especially in the opening scenes of post-World War I celebration.

The picture has the advantage throughout of an excellent performance by Mary Astor as the wife who must decide, uncertain of her husband's fidelity, whether to try and continue their marriage. She is well supported, especially by Lilyan Tashman (in a sprightly role as the temptress, although she was gravely ill and had only a few months to live), Hale Hamilton and many of the others in smaller roles and bits. Regrettably, it is true that the scenes with Astor are far superior to the ones in which she does not appear. The primary disadvantage of the movie is the periodic overplaying of Kenneth MacKenna, only sometimes credible in his role as Astor's husband, although he does improve considerably toward the end. Child actor Tommy Conlon, while sincere, seems almost caricatured by today's standards--despite the universal praise his acting received from critics at the time.

Even with these drawbacks, Those We Love is a generally better-acted film than most produced on a similar budget at K.B.S. or studios of its level. The primary distinguishing asset of the movie is the tension-filled, and rather more honest than usual climax, as the female rivals, Astor and Tashman, confront one another. Tashman turns out not to be the stereotypical "home-wrecker" or libertine, but the victim of an unhappy marriage and a cruel and philandering husband, waiting for an indiscretion on her part as an excuse for divorce; she is under constant surveillance and MacKenna is to be used as co-respondent. Although Astor still condemns Tashman, the viewer's reaction is one of considerably more understanding if hardly moral acquittal. This sympathetic treatment of a woman victimizing others as she has been herself adds an extra level of depth and complexity to the characters and emotional drama of Those We Love. Thus, while following the general expectations of the genre, the picture offers a few original touches (along with some satirical injections of humor) that maintain interest throughout and allow for a more universal audience appeal.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
m astor in an early talkie
ksf-229 March 2018
Mary Astor had been in films for ten years already by now. Mostly silents, of course. and she would go on to get an Oscar for "The Great Lie" in 1941. Here she's "May", the wife of author Freddie Williston (Ken MacKenna). Lilyan Tashman plays the (married) woman running after Freddie.... Tashman has a most interesting story here on her imdb bio page. Sadly, Tashman died quite young at 37. May sees some suspicious things at the house when she returns early, and doesn't trust Freddie any longer. We watch as the plot thickens. Some other big names in here. Edwin Maxwell is "Marshall". Keep an eye out for comedian Bert Roach, who usually played the drunk, or the jolly character in the background. Cecil Cunningham is the pompous, rich old lady who fires May. Cunningham had just broken into hollywood, and would play similar parts for many years. Moves pretty slow. Lots of talking... you can tell this started out as a play. It's pretty average. the usual misunderstandings, married couples who aren't sure where things stand. Directed by Robert Florey, who had started en france, and worked his way to hollywood.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Westchester County: Den of Iniquity
boblipton7 February 2019
There's good news and bad news for Kenneth MacKenna. The good news is that his first novel is finally published and at the bookstores (remember bookstores?). The bad news -- for the new author, at any rate -- is that it's Armistice Day, so no one is buying books. Except that when he goes on the street, he finds Mary Astor with his book. So they get married. Things are tough at first, but by 1931, he's established and prosperous and buys a house in Westchester County. He's up there by himself, because Miss Astor is in Baltimore working on a collection of folk songs and his son is at camp. So there's only the welcome wagon, headed by Lilyan Tashman, who wants to make herself very welcome.

It's from a stage play co-written by George Abbott, with F. Hugh Herbert doing the screenplay. The direction is by Robert Florey, and I expect that's why this movie is not as good as it might have been. Visually it's fine. With Mary Astor, how could it not be? Florey directs the visuals very well, with Arthur Edeson doing his usual fine job running the camera, but the line readings are a bit mechanical. Everyone is very emphatic, turning every line into a speech. Maybe it's the sound system at Tiffany Studios, where this was filmed.

Whatever the reason for the failures, it's a fine story, nevertheless. Miss Astor, of course, would become a fine actress, and Mr. McKenna would be no slouch as a supporting actor.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Has Its Pluses & Minuses
Snow Leopard24 July 2001
This is a hard film to evaluate. On the one hand, it makes a serious attempt to deal honestly with the damage that suspicion and unfaithful thoughts can do to a marriage and to family relationships, and the characters are mostly sympathetic. On the other hand, the story is loaded with coincidences and implausible developments, and it moves slowly as well.

The opening scene is rather nice, though coincidence-dependent: a young author accidentally meets a woman (Mary Astor) who has just bought the first copy of his new book. They soon are married, and live happily with their son. Some time later, problems arise when an opportunistic woman in the neighborhood tries to seduce the husband, and although he resists, the appearances create deep suspicions in his wife, setting up a chain of events that threaten the happiness of the entire family. All of the characters work pretty well in themselves, and the situation lends itself to some interesting possibilities. But the movie relies far too much on coincidences to set up the key events. There are also too many times when the film gets bogged down, dragging out several scenes unnecessarily.

Due to the nature of the story, it's not always a fun film to watch. It has its good points and its weaknesses, and whether it is worth seeing depends on whether the story sounds interesting to you or not.
13 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
If only every potential divorcing parents were as nice as these two...
mark.waltz27 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
If married couples on the brink of divorce as a result of one of the partner's obvious infidelity worked as smoothly as Kenneth MacKenna and Mary Astor to try and remain civilized, then the world wouldn't have to put up with such lame T.V. shows as "Divorce Court" and anything "reality". This long married couple has seemed to have a picture perfect marriage, their relationship beginning on the very same day that MacKenna's first book (the movie's title) was published. Ironically, it was also the day armistice was declared in 1918, so his book got pretty much overlooked on the shelves, except by the lovely Astor, a nanny to a wealthy woman's grandchildren. MacKenna advertises to try and find her after signing her copy, and eventually gets her out of her cold-hearted boss's mansion and becomes a successful writer. But when he leaves before Astor and their nice young son do to go on a vacation, he encounters bored married socialite Lilyan Tashman at a cocktail party and temptation takes over. Astor happens to arrive early, discovers the encounter, and being a woman with pride, decides to leave him during which time Tashman makes further attempts to bring MacKenna into her web.

History has shown that broken homes create bitter adults, but even though there is only a touch of that here, the couple want to do what is only best for their adorable teenaged son (Tommy Conlon), a sweet kid who thinks that he has the most perfect parents in the world. It explodes into confrontation when Tashman's husband shows up, naming MacKenna as correspondent. Will Astor, even knowing that MacKenna is pretty much done with Tashman, give in and take him back, even lie to protect him as a larger way of protecting their son? Or will she, like so many other wronged wives, take the vindictive path and go after him for everything he's got? This is a great showcase for the performance of Mary Astor, one of the great unspoken stars of early talkies who could play both noble and evil women with great convincing. She's superb here, and if I was in young Conlon's shoes, I'd think she was perfect, too. Even MacKenna (then married to superstar clothes horse Kay Francis) gets sympathy, pretty much just doing what men do. Like Lucile Watson told Norma Shearer in "The Women", when men feel they need to change their lives, they usually do it with another woman rather than changing their hairstyle or re-decorating the house.

Infidelity isn't all that simple, however, but it does happen even to the nicest of people, and when married couples who have the potential of getting over the bumps in the marital road work together to get past these mistakes, they can do it with dignity and nobility. This 80+ year old movie is certainly not a reflection of today, let alone its own time, as divorce has created a lot of headlines over the years and the desire of the public for dirt is unquenchable. Certainly if the married couple here had grown to hate each other over the years, staying together for the sake of their son would be a grave mistake. But there is still a thing I believe called true love, and no relationship goes without some sort of barrier to keep it from being perfect. There are moments that modern audiences may consider laughable (especially the last line given to young Conlon), but in retrospect when one considers the morality of the situation (based upon a play by the legendary George Abbott), this becomes easier to tolerate and even the guilty husband may win you over as he tries to atone from his horrible mistakes.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Wife blamed for cheating
HotToastyRag12 March 2019
I don't know why it was such a popular theme during the early 1930s to have an unfaithful husband inadvertently blame his wife for his straying, because she neglected him or went away to care for her sick mother. If a man's left alone, he's not responsible for his actions? If you don't like that theme either, don't rent Those We Love.

Since you already know what happens, the beginning of the film is quite sad. Kenneth MacKenna has just written and published his first novel, and he happens to bump into the first purchaser of his book on the street, Mary Astor. He kisses her in thanks, and then pursues her romantically. Their courtship is so romantic and so sweet, it's unthinkable that Kenneth will end up cheating on her, as the synopsis reveals. Well, as the movie progresses, they marry and have a child, and then temptation takes its form in Lilyan Tashman.

Just like another Mary Astor film Smart Woman, the overwhelming theme of this film is that a wife is to blame for her husband's infidelity, and that after such betrayal is committed, it's her job to apologize and beg forgiveness. And just like Smart Woman, the husband's character is not written to be a wonderful person, so the audience can at least understand why the wife fights so hard to keep him.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
I had a hard time really caring...
planktonrules15 December 2016
Freddie (Kenneth MacKenna) has just returned from the war and has written a book. His publisher believes in him but tells him it will take time and several books before he's famous. Soon he sees a woman on the street with his book in her arms! May (Mary Astor) is his first fan...and Freddie is certainly a fan of hers as well. Soon they are married and the film jumps ahead many years. Now they have a nearly grown son and Freddie is a butt-head. That's because a married floozy is throwing herself at him and instead of immediately stopping this, he lets her flirtations go on too long. However, despite this he does love his family...and only the most understanding (and perhaps stupid) of wives could forgive his stupidity.

There is a HUGE problem with the movie....I just didn't care much about the characters. Freddie was difficult to love and his wife seemed like a bit of a doormat. But mostly, they were bland characters and I never particularly felt involved with any of them.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Very Disappointing
JohnHowardReid17 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I've given this little movie (and I emphasize the word "little") a generous 3/10, mainly because the lovely Mary Astor is in it. She does not have the largest part, unfortunately. It's the rather dull and not particularly charismatic Kenneth MacKenna who has the major role. MacKenna had wisely switched from acting to directing at this stage of his career, so why he accepted the lead role in this little "B" is a mystery. The script is nothing special. It's one of those plots where nothing happens except in the hapless and totally unwarranted conclusions of one of the participants. Alas, it's the lovely Mary Astor's character who is so light of brain and so lacking in trust, self-confidence and plain ordinary common sense that she makes an issue of a nothing. Yet up to this point, she has seemed quite sensible. Ineeed, reasonably engaging. No hint of stupidity at all! If the script had painted her as an idiot in the opening scenes, we would have been prepared for her false conclusions. But this isn't the way her character is put across! Not only is the script and Miss Astor at fault here, but director Robert Florey should have made a decision to stick to his initial ploy to play the movie as a comedy. That how he wisely starts, but halfway through, he suddenly switches to soap opera and plays the script's nonsense as dull-as-dishwater drama. And what happened to the editor's shears? Even at 60 minutes, "Those Who Love" would be drearily dull, yawnful slogging. But at 82? 82 minutes? Someone has got to be just plain incompetent! Writer? Producer? Director? Editor? Take your pick! Or maybe all four?
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Mary Astor Makes You Believe!!
kidboots9 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Robert Florey tried his hand at everything - experimental ("The Loves of Zero"(1927)), musical ("The Cocoanuts"(1929)) but he was at his best giving a touch of class and distinction to the many programmers on his list of credits. "Those We Love" was adapted by F. Hugh Herbert from the play by George Abbott and with cinematography by Arthur Edeson - with these credentials as well as the beauteous Mary Astor and the snappy Lilyan Tashman in the cast it couldn't miss and was a programmer in name only!! Beautiful Mary Astor had scored the year before with "Smart Woman" and "Other Men's Women", leaving the ingénue twenties behind and becoming identified as a smart, young married woman.

This film is highly effective and starred Mary as May, yet another young matron, loving wife of Fred Williston (Kenneth MacKenna, at the time Kay Francis' husband), a struggling writer. They meet during an Armistice Day parade - he claims she is "his public", meaning one of the only people to have purchased his book but in a novel twist when he rings her she appears to be a bored housewife. Things are not what they seem and in reality she is a governess to a pretty stuffy society lady's children. They marry and dutiful May insists on returning to work as a music teacher while Fred can work on his next novel. The years go blissfully by - but with Lilyan Tashman on the horizon there are rocky roads ahead. Trouble happens when they move to a country house and Tashman plays Valerie Parker, a neighbour who has a husband who "doesn't understand her" - in reality he is a vindictive, philandering brute (Earl Fox) who has hired private detectives to put her on the spot.

It's the old, old story - May makes a surprise visit, finds Valerie's clothes scattered about and suspects infidelity. It hadn't happened then but when May decides to return (encouraged by Hale Hamilton, a family friend) she steps right into the middle of a sticky scandal as Fred has been unfaithful and it is left to Junior to decide his parent's fate. It does sound syrupy and maudlin but in Mary Astor's capable hands it is anything but - she makes you believe and it is no wonder she had such a long and varied career. And, yes, this is a World Wide Picture whose logo featured a lady holding two globes balanced precariously in front of her.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
No No No No No
CatherineYronwode20 November 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I tend to rate early talkies far higher than the average IMDb rater does because i love pre-code films and i make an effort to view them from within the mindset of their own era. Thus it is not uncommon for me to rate a pre-code drama at 8, 9, or even 10, while the averaged IMDb rating is only a 6 or 7. Not so with this stinker.

First, Mary Astor: Great performance, covering about 16 years of elapsed time, expressive gestures, beautiful line readings. Just a gem, as always.

Second, Kenneth MacKenna: His teeth are grotesque, his character is disgusting, and his line readings are filled with his teeth.

Third, Lilyan Tashman: Please. No. She is a terrible ham actress. As IMDb reports: "Tashman is alleged to have been romantically involved with Joan Crawford, Greta Garbo and Kay Francis, and to have gotten into physical altercations with Lupe Velez, Constance Bennett and Alona Marlowe, during her time as an actress in Hollywood." It shows. Also, per IMDb: She was "charged with assault in 1931, when she beat actress Alona Marlowe after catching her in husband Edmund Lowe's dressing room." And THAT, my friends, makes her performance in this role, one year later, bizarre.

Fourth, Tommy Conlon: A young actor who is charismatic and sincere. He works very well with Mary Astor, less so with the teeth-faced MacKenna.

Fifth: Everyone else: A small cast, filled out with a lovely assortment of character actors, all doing their usual fine turns.

Sixth: Mary Astor co-authoring a book on American folk songs ... that was a delightful surprise.

I hated this movie. I wanted Mary Astor to rise up and shoot Kenneth MacKenna in the teeth with a pearl-handled derringer. The fact that i am telling you that she did not do so constitutes a spoiler. So be it.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed