I never thought I would enjoy this production of "Waterloo Bridge" more than the 1940 remake with Robert Taylor and Vivien Leigh. For one thing, this version is a straight narrative which is more suspenseful than the flashback construction of the remake. Secondly, Kent Douglass has that boyish quality which makes his naiveté much more believable than Robert Taylor's. And finally, the pacing and casting of the supporting actors by James Whale couldn't be beat. Ethel Griffies, as the heartless landlady, Enid Bennett, as Douglass' sympathetic but forceful mother, and Doris Lloyd, Clarke's practical but unfeeling prostitute friend, were all standouts. I had never seen Mae Clarke in such a strong dramatic role, which she handles more beautifully than I ever thought she could, conveying her anguish at loving a man but being ashamed of having become a prostitute. And, of course, there is Bette Davis in a small inconsequential role very early in her career; she was still a pleasure to watch. By all means, see this film! You won't regret it.
63 Reviews
Heart-stirring performance reveals Mae Clarke to have been an exceptional actress!
Ziggy544614 December 2006
This sensational 1931 pre-code classic is the first of three films based on the play by Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Robert E. Sherwood, who felt the film had improved on his play. Carl Laemmle, Jr. (charge of production since 1929), son of Carl Laemmle (founder of Universal Pictures), bought the rights to Waterloo Bridge in early 1931 and initially felt none of the director's under contract with Universal could pull off a film adaptation of the play. However, he had seen the little-known film based on a play (by playwright R.C. Sheriff) entitled, Journey's End (1930), which featured a volatile setting and theme of World War I. It was the first film directed by the then relatively unknown James Whale, who had directed the play in New York and London as well. He was hired by Laemmle to direct Waterloo Bridge, however, Whale found himself uncertain about the original screenplay, which he demanded for a new screenwriter. Benn W. Levy and Tom Reed wrote a new screenplay, bringing the story back to a drama film (instead of a war movie). With Universal having serious difficulties financially, Laemmle reportedly gave Whale an insignificant budget of $250,000 and only 26-day's to shoot the film.
Rose Hobart (a Universal contract player) had been originally given the part of Myra Deauville (a chorus girl), but when she discovered that the studio was not renewing her contract, she regrettably refused to do the film. Whale chose then Columbia contract player Mae Clarke to replace Hobart. (Laemmle agreed to cast Clarke from her recent popularity in The Public Enemy.) Her co-star would be Douglass Montgomery (appearing as Kent Douglass) as the roll of Roy Cronin (an American soldier under Royal Canadian Forces). Even though they were filming on a tight schedule, with Montgomery being heavily inexperienced, Whale would take three days out of production just to work with him. The film also features a 23-year old Bette Davis in a small roll as Cronin's sister Janet. It would be Davis' third and final film with Universal before signing a seven-year deal with Warner Bros.
Waterloo Bridge opens with a fantastic shot of a stage show and the individual shots of the chorines are brilliant, with each looking smutty and profane. Afterwards, Myra backstage (singers and dancers making lots of noise in their underwear) saids goodbye to her gig as a chorus girl. (Myra becomes stranded in England after her show closes at the beginning of World War I.) A couple of years past, Myra is on the streets selling her body to the soldiers who spill out from the Waterloo Station. During an air raid in London, Roy meets Myra, and falls in love with her, unaware she is a prostitute. Montgomery's Roy is a handsome blonde but in many ways is clueless. He's certainly a likable heartfelt young man who is much too dull to identify a prostitute when he sees one. Clarke plays Myra as a intelligent woman, but frightened, secretly unhappy, and susceptible to outbursts. Really, Clarke amazingly complies Myra's conflicted emotions and impulses in a courageous portrayal of a woman horribly suffering. She believes herself to be nothing but trash and she's wrong - just as Roy's mother Mrs. Mary Cronin Wetherby (Enid Bennett) believes herself to be a fine woman.
Whale's direction was truly incredible, as he added a delicate mixture of realism and impressionism, but what makes Waterloo Bridge is Clarke's astonishing performance and the very real chemistry between her and co-star Montgomery (Whale stages the dialogue with great sophistication and slyness). Clarke will always be remembered as the wife (Elizabeth) of Dr. Henry Frankenstein in the 1931 Frankenstein (also directed by Whale) and for the girl that received half a grapefruit in the face by James Cagney in The Public Enemy (1931). However, in Waterloo Bridge, she proves to be more than just that, as she gives a striking performance that even two-time Academy Award winner Vivien Leigh herself couldn't come close to matching in the restrained 1940 remake. Of course, she was never a staple name like Leigh, however, she is simply a pleasure to watch as the main character - without question the finest performance of her unfortunate career. James Whale's 1931 Waterloo Bridge is vastly superior to the 1940 remake, as well as, the 1956 remake Gaby.
Rose Hobart (a Universal contract player) had been originally given the part of Myra Deauville (a chorus girl), but when she discovered that the studio was not renewing her contract, she regrettably refused to do the film. Whale chose then Columbia contract player Mae Clarke to replace Hobart. (Laemmle agreed to cast Clarke from her recent popularity in The Public Enemy.) Her co-star would be Douglass Montgomery (appearing as Kent Douglass) as the roll of Roy Cronin (an American soldier under Royal Canadian Forces). Even though they were filming on a tight schedule, with Montgomery being heavily inexperienced, Whale would take three days out of production just to work with him. The film also features a 23-year old Bette Davis in a small roll as Cronin's sister Janet. It would be Davis' third and final film with Universal before signing a seven-year deal with Warner Bros.
Waterloo Bridge opens with a fantastic shot of a stage show and the individual shots of the chorines are brilliant, with each looking smutty and profane. Afterwards, Myra backstage (singers and dancers making lots of noise in their underwear) saids goodbye to her gig as a chorus girl. (Myra becomes stranded in England after her show closes at the beginning of World War I.) A couple of years past, Myra is on the streets selling her body to the soldiers who spill out from the Waterloo Station. During an air raid in London, Roy meets Myra, and falls in love with her, unaware she is a prostitute. Montgomery's Roy is a handsome blonde but in many ways is clueless. He's certainly a likable heartfelt young man who is much too dull to identify a prostitute when he sees one. Clarke plays Myra as a intelligent woman, but frightened, secretly unhappy, and susceptible to outbursts. Really, Clarke amazingly complies Myra's conflicted emotions and impulses in a courageous portrayal of a woman horribly suffering. She believes herself to be nothing but trash and she's wrong - just as Roy's mother Mrs. Mary Cronin Wetherby (Enid Bennett) believes herself to be a fine woman.
Whale's direction was truly incredible, as he added a delicate mixture of realism and impressionism, but what makes Waterloo Bridge is Clarke's astonishing performance and the very real chemistry between her and co-star Montgomery (Whale stages the dialogue with great sophistication and slyness). Clarke will always be remembered as the wife (Elizabeth) of Dr. Henry Frankenstein in the 1931 Frankenstein (also directed by Whale) and for the girl that received half a grapefruit in the face by James Cagney in The Public Enemy (1931). However, in Waterloo Bridge, she proves to be more than just that, as she gives a striking performance that even two-time Academy Award winner Vivien Leigh herself couldn't come close to matching in the restrained 1940 remake. Of course, she was never a staple name like Leigh, however, she is simply a pleasure to watch as the main character - without question the finest performance of her unfortunate career. James Whale's 1931 Waterloo Bridge is vastly superior to the 1940 remake, as well as, the 1956 remake Gaby.
Mae Clarke gives a ferocious performance as a prostitute .
mush-26 September 1999
Mae Clarke is a revelation as a prostitute in the original "Waterloo Bridge". The film was eclipsed by the 1940 remake starring Vivian Leigh and until recently this earlier version was unavailable. This pre-code version holds up beautifully and is better in many ways because of its frankness and because of Mae Clarke's ferocious performance. Kent Douglas plays the 19 year old soldier who falls in love with the prostitute, not realizing her true profession.The movie seems more realistic than the remake because, Douglas looks and acts like a callow 19 year old,and Clarke is very believable as the prostitute who tries to protect her soldier lover from the truth about herself. Neither Clarke nor Douglas became major stars and you can see that they lack the larger than life glamour of Vivian Leigh and Robert Taylor who starred in the remake.However, Clarke and Douglas add a touch of realism which was a hallmark of many of the pre-code movies and which wouldn't be found in American movies in abundance until the 1970's.
Mae Clarke took my breath away!
moondog-89 September 2001
Having seen Mae Clarke being carried away by Frankenstein and getting a grapefruit in the face by James Cagney, I had a clear image of her but not of her talent.
I agree with the other reviewers that this is one knock-out performance. At a time when many actors in early talkies were still being very stagey (with stilted manners and playing to the back row), Mae Clarke built a performance that was modern and genuine.
The whole production is good (especially Arthur Edeson's cinematography and James Whale's direction), but Clarke's acting is what I'll always remember.
I agree with the other reviewers that this is one knock-out performance. At a time when many actors in early talkies were still being very stagey (with stilted manners and playing to the back row), Mae Clarke built a performance that was modern and genuine.
The whole production is good (especially Arthur Edeson's cinematography and James Whale's direction), but Clarke's acting is what I'll always remember.
Mae Clarke Steals the Show
movingpicturegal5 December 2006
Really excellent pre-code film, set in wartime London where an ex-chorus girl/current street walker (played by Mae Clarke) heads over to Waterloo Bridge to try and find herself a soldier on leave, and she meets wealthy, baby-faced, nineteen-year-old raw/green Roy and invites him up to her flat. He immediately falls in love and thinks she's a "good girl", unaware of her real walk of life. She falls for him too, but keeps putting him off, racked with guilt over her secret "career". Meanwhile he keeps pressing on, sneaking in her window, tricking her into meeting his family for a weekend of tennis, tea, and cocktails, asking her to marry him, etc. - he's completely smitten!
Top-notch acting and a good deal of chemistry between the two leads helps make this a really interesting, absorbing film. Their conversations together come across as quite realistic, and the performance given here by Mae Clarke is amazing - extremely well-done and memorable. I also enjoyed seeing a very young Bette Davis who appears here in a very small role as Roy's sister. Only one thing that bothered me about this film is, why oh why, as I have often seen done in period films made during this time, do they have the actresses appearing in modern, early 30s dresses, rather than period costume? Oh well, still a really first-rate film, well worth seeing.
Top-notch acting and a good deal of chemistry between the two leads helps make this a really interesting, absorbing film. Their conversations together come across as quite realistic, and the performance given here by Mae Clarke is amazing - extremely well-done and memorable. I also enjoyed seeing a very young Bette Davis who appears here in a very small role as Roy's sister. Only one thing that bothered me about this film is, why oh why, as I have often seen done in period films made during this time, do they have the actresses appearing in modern, early 30s dresses, rather than period costume? Oh well, still a really first-rate film, well worth seeing.
Real acting, real characters
conrad-574 December 2006
It's not often one sees a film of this era with as much straightforward, realistic acting and characterization. It's not perfect in that regard, of course, and there's still a bit of the silent era heavy makeup and staging, but the honest and unstylized delivery of actor after actor is astonishing.
Although Mae Clarke's performance as Myra is justifiably lauded, Kent Douglass's (his screen name here) clean, fluid, unexaggerated portray is a delight to watch (in spite of the aforementioned eye makeup). Both Frederick Kerr and Enid Bennett as Roy's step-father and mother are priceless. The scenes between Mary, Roy's mother, and Mae are especially satisfying for their unassuming honesty.
Although Mae Clarke's performance as Myra is justifiably lauded, Kent Douglass's (his screen name here) clean, fluid, unexaggerated portray is a delight to watch (in spite of the aforementioned eye makeup). Both Frederick Kerr and Enid Bennett as Roy's step-father and mother are priceless. The scenes between Mary, Roy's mother, and Mae are especially satisfying for their unassuming honesty.
A stab at happiness
bkoganbing20 August 2015
I wasn't prepared for how radically different this first film version of Waterloo Bridge was from the MGM version in 1940 that starred Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor. For one thing this was before the Code was in place and we could be a lot more frank.
This version was a lot less romantic. Mae Clarke was an unapologetic street walker. She started out as an American chorus girl stranded in London during World War I when a lot of the theater closed. Now she's got to do what a girl's got to do to pay the rent. She picks up a most innocent Douglass Montgomery on Waterloo Bridge and it's his innocence that gets to her.
Without going into detail she takes a stab at happiness, but after meeting his family she sees that she can never fit in. And if you've seen the more popular Leigh/Taylor version as Paul Harvey used to say you know the rest of the story.
Waterloo Bridge was originally on Broadway in 1930 and ran for 64 performances, closed no doubt due to the Depression as many shows were. It starred Glenn Hunter and June Walker and I daresay this is probably close to the original stage version that Robert Sherwood wrote if not an exact transfer.
Bette Davis had a small supporting role as Montgomery's sister in this film. Certainly Davis would have been outstanding in the lead, but I have no complaints with what Mae Clarke did with the role. Also outstanding is Ethel Griffies as Clarke's mercenary and realistic landlady who has no qualms about gentleman callers.
If you like the classic MGM version, this original screen version from Universal is worth a look to contrast.
This version was a lot less romantic. Mae Clarke was an unapologetic street walker. She started out as an American chorus girl stranded in London during World War I when a lot of the theater closed. Now she's got to do what a girl's got to do to pay the rent. She picks up a most innocent Douglass Montgomery on Waterloo Bridge and it's his innocence that gets to her.
Without going into detail she takes a stab at happiness, but after meeting his family she sees that she can never fit in. And if you've seen the more popular Leigh/Taylor version as Paul Harvey used to say you know the rest of the story.
Waterloo Bridge was originally on Broadway in 1930 and ran for 64 performances, closed no doubt due to the Depression as many shows were. It starred Glenn Hunter and June Walker and I daresay this is probably close to the original stage version that Robert Sherwood wrote if not an exact transfer.
Bette Davis had a small supporting role as Montgomery's sister in this film. Certainly Davis would have been outstanding in the lead, but I have no complaints with what Mae Clarke did with the role. Also outstanding is Ethel Griffies as Clarke's mercenary and realistic landlady who has no qualms about gentleman callers.
If you like the classic MGM version, this original screen version from Universal is worth a look to contrast.
Sweet, not saccharine, daring, and some sharply fresh performances
secondtake3 December 2009
Waterloo Bridge (1931)
An amazing movie. Set in London during World War I, directed by the man who directed the original (and also amazing) Frankenstein, and with photography by the less known but first rate Arthur Edeson (Frankenstein, yes, but also Casablanca, no less). And throw in an astonishing actress, Mae Clarke, and you can see why it doesn't falter. She plays a struggling chorus girl and prostitute with snappy, lively believability. The lead male, Douglass Montgomery, playing a sweet hearted American soldier, is also a surprise face, totally charming, a perfect complement to Clarke. As characters, the young soldier's bright optimism brings out the best in the struggling but good hearted street girl.
The story is fast, and not completely predictable, and has a blow-out of an ending, really nice. Though set in the teens it feels modern (maybe too modern, historically). I never knew that London had a kind of Blitz experience in WWI, just as they would a decade after this film was released, and looking it up I found the Germans used zeppelins over London in the first war much the same was as they did (with planes) in WWII--to demoralize the civilian population. It adds tense excitement to the film throughout, and to the last scenes in particular, even if it isn't completely realistic (for some reason people don't scramble for cover even as the bombs are being dropped, maybe to portray that stiff upper lip thing).
Is this just a silly romance? No, no way, not when the two actors in it are so fresh and convincing, giving sparkling, nuanced performances miles away from the stiffness we associate with early sound films (or with many silent movies). This is a first rate and fast movie and honest, only 79 minutes long, with fully formed soundtrack and solid supporting cast (including a young Betty Davis, who is already confident and familiar as the sister of the leading man). The LeRoy remake of 1940 is a testimony to the strength of the story (and it is also really good). But if you want to see an early gem on its own terms, here it is. Highly recommended.
An amazing movie. Set in London during World War I, directed by the man who directed the original (and also amazing) Frankenstein, and with photography by the less known but first rate Arthur Edeson (Frankenstein, yes, but also Casablanca, no less). And throw in an astonishing actress, Mae Clarke, and you can see why it doesn't falter. She plays a struggling chorus girl and prostitute with snappy, lively believability. The lead male, Douglass Montgomery, playing a sweet hearted American soldier, is also a surprise face, totally charming, a perfect complement to Clarke. As characters, the young soldier's bright optimism brings out the best in the struggling but good hearted street girl.
The story is fast, and not completely predictable, and has a blow-out of an ending, really nice. Though set in the teens it feels modern (maybe too modern, historically). I never knew that London had a kind of Blitz experience in WWI, just as they would a decade after this film was released, and looking it up I found the Germans used zeppelins over London in the first war much the same was as they did (with planes) in WWII--to demoralize the civilian population. It adds tense excitement to the film throughout, and to the last scenes in particular, even if it isn't completely realistic (for some reason people don't scramble for cover even as the bombs are being dropped, maybe to portray that stiff upper lip thing).
Is this just a silly romance? No, no way, not when the two actors in it are so fresh and convincing, giving sparkling, nuanced performances miles away from the stiffness we associate with early sound films (or with many silent movies). This is a first rate and fast movie and honest, only 79 minutes long, with fully formed soundtrack and solid supporting cast (including a young Betty Davis, who is already confident and familiar as the sister of the leading man). The LeRoy remake of 1940 is a testimony to the strength of the story (and it is also really good). But if you want to see an early gem on its own terms, here it is. Highly recommended.
this time Myra really does convince as a lady of pleasure
didi-511 June 2007
The version of 'Waterloo Bridge' from 1940, with Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor, has always been a favourite, so I welcomed the chance to finally see the earlier take with Mae Clarke and Kent Douglass.
Similar in some ways to the remake, the 1931 version is a lot grittier and more direct. It is clear what Myra's job is right from the start, and Clarke looks the part. You never could really imagine Vivien Leigh street-walking.
As Roy the Canadian soldier home on leave, Kent Douglass is a little stiff and reserved, but he puts across well the desperation of a man in love, no matter what. It's an old story, but done well here.
Despite a few histrionics and a relatively short running time, this film is entertaining (an old woman loses potatoes in an air raid and won't move off the bridge without them), and poignant (Myra feels at home at last with Roy's country folks, but we know it won't last).
It can be found on the DVD set 'Forbidden Hollywood, volume 1'.
Similar in some ways to the remake, the 1931 version is a lot grittier and more direct. It is clear what Myra's job is right from the start, and Clarke looks the part. You never could really imagine Vivien Leigh street-walking.
As Roy the Canadian soldier home on leave, Kent Douglass is a little stiff and reserved, but he puts across well the desperation of a man in love, no matter what. It's an old story, but done well here.
Despite a few histrionics and a relatively short running time, this film is entertaining (an old woman loses potatoes in an air raid and won't move off the bridge without them), and poignant (Myra feels at home at last with Roy's country folks, but we know it won't last).
It can be found on the DVD set 'Forbidden Hollywood, volume 1'.
"Change will do you good"
Steffi_P15 September 2010
The coming of sound to Hollywood was such a mighty upheaval as far as the mechanics of filmmaking went, that those years from 1928 to 1931 were in many ways a testing ground for new approaches, and a trial for directors. Of those that succeeded, there were old pros like Michael Curtiz, Raoul Walsh, Ernst Lubitsch and John Ford who were able to make incredibly smooth transitions simply by weaving sound in as another layer in their existing technique. And then there were the newcomers from theatre backgrounds, people like George Cukor, Rouben Mamoulian and of course James Whale who were accustomed to directing dialogue but completely unused to the world of movies. Cukor and Mamoulian got off to shaky starts, and their earliest films are rather poor. Whale however seems to have had taken instantly to the talkie medium, picking up film grammar with ease and yet with the unique approach of the outsider.
In Waterloo Bridge, Whale's second picture, we open with a sweeping tracking shot, reminiscent of those with which the afore-mentioned Mr Curtiz often opened his pictures both before and after the sound barrier. Whale isn't yet savvy enough to use this to key us into the setting and introduce ideas as Curtiz would, but his complex and vibrant arrangements show his understanding of the movement and unlimited scope of cinematic space, with a shot ironically inside a theatre! In dialogue scenes Whale has a distinct way of framing actors, often from the knees up with their heads very close to the top of the shot, which seems emphasise the height of the frame as being equal to the width. The camera is constantly moving round, often giving us 360-degree coverage of a location. It's as if Whale, freed from the limited proportions of the stage, is now striving to give us a sense of the "real world" spaces that motion pictures can take place in.
Another great thing about Whale is that he makes very abrupt and effective changes in focus. Take the moment when Mae Clarke and Kent Douglass both realise that the other is American. Up until that point the whole scene had been in long mid-shots, with a lot of movement in the frame, but then we suddenly cut in to these bold close-ups with no intermediary ground, and the moment is given great weight as the point at which the couple "clicked". There's an even better example in the scene when Clarke and Montgomery get to know each other in her apartment. Again this is mostly in mid-shot, with the occasional head and shoulders shot. However, once Douglas has left and Clarke slips into character for her "night job", there is again this very jarring cut to a close-up, this time of Clarke in her dressing-table mirror. It's a sudden and very deliberate stepping from the carefree world of the courting couple to the very private space of Clarke and it makes the shift in tone at this point all the more palpable.
The leading couple, Clarke and Douglass (later credited as Douglass Montgomery in pictures such as Little Women) were two of the many stars who were fairly noticeable in the early sound era, but would soon fade into obscurity for one reason or another. I have seen them both in a number of other roles, but never has either of them been as good. Clarke has a really natural feel for the dialogue, and shows great understatement with her near-deadpan facial expressions. Douglass too is very restrained, managing to give a believable portrait of Roy's naiveté, his one break into powerful emotions very credible. "Restraint" and "understatement" are not words that could be applied to the rest of the cast, who by and large are a delightful rogues gallery of hammy oddballs. We have some sharp-tongued cockneys like the potato woman and the landlady, played by Rita Carlisle and Ethel Griffies respectively, both of whom would roughly reprise their roles for the 1940 remake. Best of all however is Frederick Kerr in one of his unfortunately small number of film appearances, doing his typical blustering aristocrat act. Many of his curmudgeonly mutterings were no doubt written specifically for, if not by, Kerr himself. Players like these add spice to the production and give contrast to the subtlety and seriousness of the leads.
Waterloo Bridge is one of those pictures that have been revived today by the magic wand of the "pre-code era" label. This tends to be a bit of a double-edged sword, because while on the one hand it allows for DVD releases of pictures that would otherwise be nigh-on impossible to see, it means they also tend to get remembered and analysed for their sauce and sass more than for anything else. But aside from the somewhat frank handling of prostitution that marks it as a product of its time, Waterloo Bridge is a fine, stirring drama, which thanks to the efforts of its cast and director has a sense of realism, immediacy and intimacy rarely seen in pictures of that age.
In Waterloo Bridge, Whale's second picture, we open with a sweeping tracking shot, reminiscent of those with which the afore-mentioned Mr Curtiz often opened his pictures both before and after the sound barrier. Whale isn't yet savvy enough to use this to key us into the setting and introduce ideas as Curtiz would, but his complex and vibrant arrangements show his understanding of the movement and unlimited scope of cinematic space, with a shot ironically inside a theatre! In dialogue scenes Whale has a distinct way of framing actors, often from the knees up with their heads very close to the top of the shot, which seems emphasise the height of the frame as being equal to the width. The camera is constantly moving round, often giving us 360-degree coverage of a location. It's as if Whale, freed from the limited proportions of the stage, is now striving to give us a sense of the "real world" spaces that motion pictures can take place in.
Another great thing about Whale is that he makes very abrupt and effective changes in focus. Take the moment when Mae Clarke and Kent Douglass both realise that the other is American. Up until that point the whole scene had been in long mid-shots, with a lot of movement in the frame, but then we suddenly cut in to these bold close-ups with no intermediary ground, and the moment is given great weight as the point at which the couple "clicked". There's an even better example in the scene when Clarke and Montgomery get to know each other in her apartment. Again this is mostly in mid-shot, with the occasional head and shoulders shot. However, once Douglas has left and Clarke slips into character for her "night job", there is again this very jarring cut to a close-up, this time of Clarke in her dressing-table mirror. It's a sudden and very deliberate stepping from the carefree world of the courting couple to the very private space of Clarke and it makes the shift in tone at this point all the more palpable.
The leading couple, Clarke and Douglass (later credited as Douglass Montgomery in pictures such as Little Women) were two of the many stars who were fairly noticeable in the early sound era, but would soon fade into obscurity for one reason or another. I have seen them both in a number of other roles, but never has either of them been as good. Clarke has a really natural feel for the dialogue, and shows great understatement with her near-deadpan facial expressions. Douglass too is very restrained, managing to give a believable portrait of Roy's naiveté, his one break into powerful emotions very credible. "Restraint" and "understatement" are not words that could be applied to the rest of the cast, who by and large are a delightful rogues gallery of hammy oddballs. We have some sharp-tongued cockneys like the potato woman and the landlady, played by Rita Carlisle and Ethel Griffies respectively, both of whom would roughly reprise their roles for the 1940 remake. Best of all however is Frederick Kerr in one of his unfortunately small number of film appearances, doing his typical blustering aristocrat act. Many of his curmudgeonly mutterings were no doubt written specifically for, if not by, Kerr himself. Players like these add spice to the production and give contrast to the subtlety and seriousness of the leads.
Waterloo Bridge is one of those pictures that have been revived today by the magic wand of the "pre-code era" label. This tends to be a bit of a double-edged sword, because while on the one hand it allows for DVD releases of pictures that would otherwise be nigh-on impossible to see, it means they also tend to get remembered and analysed for their sauce and sass more than for anything else. But aside from the somewhat frank handling of prostitution that marks it as a product of its time, Waterloo Bridge is a fine, stirring drama, which thanks to the efforts of its cast and director has a sense of realism, immediacy and intimacy rarely seen in pictures of that age.
Waterloo Bridge - Best Prostitute Performance Ever
arthur_tafero18 March 2022
There have been dozens of prostitute storylines in Hollywood films over the decades, but few, if any, can match the emotional powerhouse performance of Mae Clarke as a streetwalker who shields her naive lover, a WW1 soldier on leave. Kent Douglas is very believalbe as the young soldier as well. The storyline is deliciiously conceived and delivered by the actors, but the writer is the one who makes this film possible. And that would be Robert Sherwood, who wrote the original play on Broadway. In the class of Brief Encounter and a few other great war relationsip films.
It is a sin Mae Clarke didn't get an Oscar for this!
the_mysteriousx10 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I've seen this film three times now and each time I see it, I see more layers to Mae Clarke's performance. It's a wonderful performance and looked at from 90 years later, her character is one who is entrenched in self-hate, depression and loneliness. These kinds of subjects would only be touched on in early Hollywood. Until the method actors of the 1950s, the deeper emotions of characters were things that were hidden from the main storyline.
Watching Clarke act, she does several small physical touches that show the great pain her character is in. Early on, when she tries to rush Roy out of her apartment, Myra refuses to look him in the eye. Roy is so upset at her roller-coaster of emotions, he grabs her to look into her eyes. James Whale gets a close up of Mae and once she finally makes eye contact with him, her anger turns into an avalanche of tears. She spends a lot of her time self-hating and unable to look Roy in the eyes. It's a heartbreaking moment. In the very end, Myra similarly is avoiding Roy as he must make his train to go back to the war - her self-loathing prevents her from allowing herself to agree to marry him. He insists on loving her and forgives her for having had to prostitute herself, and she hugs him. Still, the self-loathing in her, you see her hand on his back patting him rather than holding tightly. However, a moment later she completely gives in to her love and fully embraces him. The second hug is her allowing herself to feel the love she truly feels for him.
Her self-hate and shame over her prostituting herself and her painful childhood cause her to constantly go back-and-forth in her behavior with others. She has lived such an isolated and lonely life that she clearly suffers from deep depression. If one can read between the lines, we can see director Whale and Clarke showing a beautiful soul who just cannot overcome the shame of her very rough life; The scarring is too thick.
I could probably write an essay on this, but this film succeeds where other early sound films fail in how it is a foray into what would become a character study by the 1950s. Myra grows enough in the film that she can allow Roy to love her in the end, but she can never truly get over her deep anguish.
Douglas Montgomery is also to be commended for a sensitive and thoughtful performance as a somewhat naive, but well-meaning and loving young soldier who, like Myra, is just a lonely person in the middle of the war.
James Whale's own experiences as a soldier in WW1 certainly must have helped him in delivering the pathos of these characters. It's also the first film he made in which he began his trademark style - dolly moves through walls, comic side characters, and tender close-ups of characters in pain - in this film - the tragic Myra; in the future - the tragic Frankenstein monster.
This is a wonderful, tragic love story, and a film about how depressed, lonely and self-hating characters can never truly rid themselves of their pain. Mae Clarke suffered nervous breakdowns in her life in the years following this film. Considering the intensity of her performance, one wonders how much of this pain she may have really lived. She gives one of the best female performances of the 1930s in Waterloo Bridge and certainly should have won an Oscar for this.
Watching Clarke act, she does several small physical touches that show the great pain her character is in. Early on, when she tries to rush Roy out of her apartment, Myra refuses to look him in the eye. Roy is so upset at her roller-coaster of emotions, he grabs her to look into her eyes. James Whale gets a close up of Mae and once she finally makes eye contact with him, her anger turns into an avalanche of tears. She spends a lot of her time self-hating and unable to look Roy in the eyes. It's a heartbreaking moment. In the very end, Myra similarly is avoiding Roy as he must make his train to go back to the war - her self-loathing prevents her from allowing herself to agree to marry him. He insists on loving her and forgives her for having had to prostitute herself, and she hugs him. Still, the self-loathing in her, you see her hand on his back patting him rather than holding tightly. However, a moment later she completely gives in to her love and fully embraces him. The second hug is her allowing herself to feel the love she truly feels for him.
Her self-hate and shame over her prostituting herself and her painful childhood cause her to constantly go back-and-forth in her behavior with others. She has lived such an isolated and lonely life that she clearly suffers from deep depression. If one can read between the lines, we can see director Whale and Clarke showing a beautiful soul who just cannot overcome the shame of her very rough life; The scarring is too thick.
I could probably write an essay on this, but this film succeeds where other early sound films fail in how it is a foray into what would become a character study by the 1950s. Myra grows enough in the film that she can allow Roy to love her in the end, but she can never truly get over her deep anguish.
Douglas Montgomery is also to be commended for a sensitive and thoughtful performance as a somewhat naive, but well-meaning and loving young soldier who, like Myra, is just a lonely person in the middle of the war.
James Whale's own experiences as a soldier in WW1 certainly must have helped him in delivering the pathos of these characters. It's also the first film he made in which he began his trademark style - dolly moves through walls, comic side characters, and tender close-ups of characters in pain - in this film - the tragic Myra; in the future - the tragic Frankenstein monster.
This is a wonderful, tragic love story, and a film about how depressed, lonely and self-hating characters can never truly rid themselves of their pain. Mae Clarke suffered nervous breakdowns in her life in the years following this film. Considering the intensity of her performance, one wonders how much of this pain she may have really lived. She gives one of the best female performances of the 1930s in Waterloo Bridge and certainly should have won an Oscar for this.
When Prince Charming is a dilemma rather than a solution
AlsExGal28 May 2021
This 1931 Pre-Code version is somewhat forgotten since MGM remade it in 1940 with bigger stars. The 1940 version with Robert Taylor and Vivien Leigh may be sanitized, but it is a tender and sweet story. But this one from Universal has its points.
The two leads, Mae Clarke as Myra, the prostitute prowling the streets of WWI era London, and Kent Douglass as Roy, the naive soldier who falls in love with her, are excellent. Their performances are natural and ring with authenticity.
Even if Myra did not have this "big secret" that she is keeping from Roy, you've got to wonder why he so badly wants to marry someone who is a master at passive aggressive behavior and abruptly turns from agreeable to abrasive. If you know her complete story her behavior makes sense, but otherwise you are likely to end up like Claude Rains' character in Kings Row - living in isolation out in the boonies trying to hide your mad wife.
Actually, though she denies being a chorus girl, Myra actually IS one. The opening scene shows her in the chorus. Her employment is probably too sporadic for her support. She seems very hard on herself. Doris Lloyd is also very good as Kitty, Myra's older friend and fellow streetwalker. Kitty has no delusions. For her, it's a job like any other job. She hopes to save enough money to eventually retire in relative comfort.
Waterloo Bridge steers clear of sermonizing. Clarke manages to show the thrill Myra gets from walking around London, looking for customers, of being your own boss. This is quite a statement to make about prostitution, and very much Pre-Code. The realization creeps in that Myra and Roy's relationship is a one way street. And Roy remains a bit of an enigma, including his sexuality. You're never sure what he sees in Myra. Is it an adventure from his affluent but stultifying background, like joining the Army? These questions make Waterloo Bridge all the more intriguing.
Director James Whale imbues the production with an elegance of spirit, while still maintaining a rudimentary realism. The sets, contrasting the vividness of London landmarks with Myra's drab and Spartan apartment, are major strengths.
Do note Bette Davis as Roy's sister. She isn't given anything to do here that would make her stand out. Universal also put her in "Seed" which I haven't seen, and "The Bad Sister" in which everything that can be done to make Bette look drab and plain is done. And with that Universal decided she wasn't worth keeping around, which would be Warner Brothers' good luck.
The two leads, Mae Clarke as Myra, the prostitute prowling the streets of WWI era London, and Kent Douglass as Roy, the naive soldier who falls in love with her, are excellent. Their performances are natural and ring with authenticity.
Even if Myra did not have this "big secret" that she is keeping from Roy, you've got to wonder why he so badly wants to marry someone who is a master at passive aggressive behavior and abruptly turns from agreeable to abrasive. If you know her complete story her behavior makes sense, but otherwise you are likely to end up like Claude Rains' character in Kings Row - living in isolation out in the boonies trying to hide your mad wife.
Actually, though she denies being a chorus girl, Myra actually IS one. The opening scene shows her in the chorus. Her employment is probably too sporadic for her support. She seems very hard on herself. Doris Lloyd is also very good as Kitty, Myra's older friend and fellow streetwalker. Kitty has no delusions. For her, it's a job like any other job. She hopes to save enough money to eventually retire in relative comfort.
Waterloo Bridge steers clear of sermonizing. Clarke manages to show the thrill Myra gets from walking around London, looking for customers, of being your own boss. This is quite a statement to make about prostitution, and very much Pre-Code. The realization creeps in that Myra and Roy's relationship is a one way street. And Roy remains a bit of an enigma, including his sexuality. You're never sure what he sees in Myra. Is it an adventure from his affluent but stultifying background, like joining the Army? These questions make Waterloo Bridge all the more intriguing.
Director James Whale imbues the production with an elegance of spirit, while still maintaining a rudimentary realism. The sets, contrasting the vividness of London landmarks with Myra's drab and Spartan apartment, are major strengths.
Do note Bette Davis as Roy's sister. She isn't given anything to do here that would make her stand out. Universal also put her in "Seed" which I haven't seen, and "The Bad Sister" in which everything that can be done to make Bette look drab and plain is done. And with that Universal decided she wasn't worth keeping around, which would be Warner Brothers' good luck.
An early, much cruder version has no finesse at all...
Doylenf4 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
How anyone can praise this crude film version after seeing the marvelous WATERLOO BRIDGE with Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor, is beyond comprehension.
MAE CLARKE's Myra is a far cry from the role as played by VIVIEN LEIGH in the remake. She plays a common American girl with a Brooklyn accent and the "Yeah" responses are a bit jarring when one is expecting a less coarse character. DOUGLASS MONTGOMERY (billed in final credits as KENT DOUGLASS) is wildly improbable as a soldier smitten with her no matter how many times she lets him down. BETTE DAVIS has a nothing role in a bit part.
Their melodramatic confrontations during the last twenty minutes of the film are beyond belief (extravagant bits of overacting)--even given the fact that this is a cruder version of the story when sound was only a few years old and silent acting was still the rage.
Just awful. And it ends abruptly with Clarke losing her life during a bombing on the bridge. The End.
It has none of the beautifully shaded performances in the MGM remake of 1940, including a sterling supporting cast. Instead, this one is mounted with low-budget production values (and I mean a shoe-string budget) with no subtlety at all. And there's no pre-code braveness in the scene where Myra tells the aristocratic lady why she must not marry her son, Roy. She simply says, "I picked him up on Waterloo Bridge." Explanation over. Nothing bold there.
Summing up: For once, the original is not the best version by any means. VIVIEN LEIGH and ROBERT TAYLOR have never been surpassed as Myra and Roy in the tender, exquisitely acted 1940 film classic.
MAE CLARKE's Myra is a far cry from the role as played by VIVIEN LEIGH in the remake. She plays a common American girl with a Brooklyn accent and the "Yeah" responses are a bit jarring when one is expecting a less coarse character. DOUGLASS MONTGOMERY (billed in final credits as KENT DOUGLASS) is wildly improbable as a soldier smitten with her no matter how many times she lets him down. BETTE DAVIS has a nothing role in a bit part.
Their melodramatic confrontations during the last twenty minutes of the film are beyond belief (extravagant bits of overacting)--even given the fact that this is a cruder version of the story when sound was only a few years old and silent acting was still the rage.
Just awful. And it ends abruptly with Clarke losing her life during a bombing on the bridge. The End.
It has none of the beautifully shaded performances in the MGM remake of 1940, including a sterling supporting cast. Instead, this one is mounted with low-budget production values (and I mean a shoe-string budget) with no subtlety at all. And there's no pre-code braveness in the scene where Myra tells the aristocratic lady why she must not marry her son, Roy. She simply says, "I picked him up on Waterloo Bridge." Explanation over. Nothing bold there.
Summing up: For once, the original is not the best version by any means. VIVIEN LEIGH and ROBERT TAYLOR have never been surpassed as Myra and Roy in the tender, exquisitely acted 1940 film classic.
Mae Clarke is Unforgettable!!!
kidboots15 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Mae Clarke is right up at the top of the list of most under rated actresses. No matter how small the role or how over shadowed - her role in "Three Wise Girls" was put in the shade by Jean Harlow's bigger and flashier part, but Mae definitely gave the best, most poignant performance in the film. Did she ever give a bad performance??? Compared to the glossy, shallow 1940 remake, this 1931 version of "Waterloo Bridge" has an elegant simplicity. In the 1940 version, Vivien Leigh is a brilliant ballerina who only takes to prostitution when she thinks her Officer sweetheart has been killed, but in this earlier version Mae Clarke (except for a fleeting opening scene) is already a hardened prostitute, who tries to discourage soldier Roy from a relationship she knows will only end in disaster.
Unfortunately, chorus girl Myra decides to try out for "The Bing Boys" instead of "Chu Chin Chow" and two years later "Chu Chin Chow" is still running and Myra is working as a prostitute. Walking along Waterloo Bridge, her usual haunt, she meets Roy (Kent Douglass) an impressionable soldier who helps her pick up an old woman's vegetables. He falls instantly in love with her and wants her to meet his parents but she is not so sure. They are very welcoming - Frederick Kerr is just so right as Roy's almost deaf step father and Bette Davis, in a very small role as Janet, is charming and effective. That evening Myra confesses her past to Roy's mother (Enid Bennett) and while she is sympathetic and admiring of Myra's honesty, agrees that she cannot marry Roy. Myra flees to London and by the time she and Roy are re-united , he knows about her past but doesn't care. She sends him back to the front with a promise of marriage, happy and secure, knowing she loves him, then as the camera pans away she walks right into an exploding bomb.
James Whale more than confirmed his importance as a new major director. There are some wonderful scenes of powerful emotion and the outdoor scenes of the bridge in an air-raid with the search lights and hurrying people are pictorially beautiful. Mae Clarke has so many moments, a touching scene, where she picks up an Officer (Billy Bevan) then in a moment of conscience rejects him. Moments later, realising she has been rude to him and also that she needs the money - "I'm sorry Mister, I didn't mean it" but it is too late. Another scene - trying to discourage Roy, she laughs hysterically at him, all the while hiding her face in her arms. She was so outstanding that it makes you wonder why she wasn't given better parts. Almost matching her was Kent Douglass (soon to be Douglass Montgomery) - he was just heartbreaking as the innocent soldier who loves Myra, whatever her past. the scene where Mrs Hobley (Ethel Griffies) tells him the truth about Myra's occupation is extremely emotional but Douglass carries it off and makes you really believe in him.
A word about "The Bing Boys" - it wasn't quite the dud the film made out. "The Bing Boys Are Here" were a series of revues that opened in 1916 with George Robey and Violet Lorraine. It introduced the song "If You Were the Only Girl in the World" and the production lasted 378 performances. There were two other revues - "The Bing Boys Are There" and "The Bing Boys on Broadway" - all in all the three revues clocked up over 1,000 performances. "The Bing Boys" and "Chu Chin Chow" were the two biggest musical hits of World War 1.
Highly, Highly Recommended.
Unfortunately, chorus girl Myra decides to try out for "The Bing Boys" instead of "Chu Chin Chow" and two years later "Chu Chin Chow" is still running and Myra is working as a prostitute. Walking along Waterloo Bridge, her usual haunt, she meets Roy (Kent Douglass) an impressionable soldier who helps her pick up an old woman's vegetables. He falls instantly in love with her and wants her to meet his parents but she is not so sure. They are very welcoming - Frederick Kerr is just so right as Roy's almost deaf step father and Bette Davis, in a very small role as Janet, is charming and effective. That evening Myra confesses her past to Roy's mother (Enid Bennett) and while she is sympathetic and admiring of Myra's honesty, agrees that she cannot marry Roy. Myra flees to London and by the time she and Roy are re-united , he knows about her past but doesn't care. She sends him back to the front with a promise of marriage, happy and secure, knowing she loves him, then as the camera pans away she walks right into an exploding bomb.
James Whale more than confirmed his importance as a new major director. There are some wonderful scenes of powerful emotion and the outdoor scenes of the bridge in an air-raid with the search lights and hurrying people are pictorially beautiful. Mae Clarke has so many moments, a touching scene, where she picks up an Officer (Billy Bevan) then in a moment of conscience rejects him. Moments later, realising she has been rude to him and also that she needs the money - "I'm sorry Mister, I didn't mean it" but it is too late. Another scene - trying to discourage Roy, she laughs hysterically at him, all the while hiding her face in her arms. She was so outstanding that it makes you wonder why she wasn't given better parts. Almost matching her was Kent Douglass (soon to be Douglass Montgomery) - he was just heartbreaking as the innocent soldier who loves Myra, whatever her past. the scene where Mrs Hobley (Ethel Griffies) tells him the truth about Myra's occupation is extremely emotional but Douglass carries it off and makes you really believe in him.
A word about "The Bing Boys" - it wasn't quite the dud the film made out. "The Bing Boys Are Here" were a series of revues that opened in 1916 with George Robey and Violet Lorraine. It introduced the song "If You Were the Only Girl in the World" and the production lasted 378 performances. There were two other revues - "The Bing Boys Are There" and "The Bing Boys on Broadway" - all in all the three revues clocked up over 1,000 performances. "The Bing Boys" and "Chu Chin Chow" were the two biggest musical hits of World War 1.
Highly, Highly Recommended.
Waterloo Bridge- The Original-Gritty and Forceful ***
edwagreen4 December 2006
Mae Clarke does a remarkable job in the same year that James Cagney put a grapefruit in her face in "Public Enemy." Miss Clarke is quite effective as the heroine of "Waterloo Bridge."
As a prostitute working the streets of London during World War 1, Clarke gives a tour de force as a woman who can be loving one moment and difficult to handle in the next.
The story deals also with class warfare when during an air-raid, Clarke meets a wealthy Canadian serving in the British army. He falls for her and she loves him but she knows that their differences would prevent them from true happiness. Brought to his country estate, his kindly mother, played by a charming Enid Bennett, warns against such a liaison. Fred Kerr, as his step-father, provides comic relief as a deaf elderly British officer.
One weak link in this film is Kent Douglass, who portrays the young man. Naive and kind, the chemistry is really not there between himself and Miss Clarke. He is only effective briefly in a scene with veteran actress Ethel Griffies, who portrays a greedy, conniving landlady.
The film has worn well through the many years and is worth seeing due to Miss Clarke's excellent performance. Am sure that Vivien Leigh and Leslie Caron, who both starred in the remakes, learned a lot from Miss Clarke. Look for Bette Davis as Douglass's sister. This was her first film and it is interesting to see how she evolved into the great talent that she was.
As a prostitute working the streets of London during World War 1, Clarke gives a tour de force as a woman who can be loving one moment and difficult to handle in the next.
The story deals also with class warfare when during an air-raid, Clarke meets a wealthy Canadian serving in the British army. He falls for her and she loves him but she knows that their differences would prevent them from true happiness. Brought to his country estate, his kindly mother, played by a charming Enid Bennett, warns against such a liaison. Fred Kerr, as his step-father, provides comic relief as a deaf elderly British officer.
One weak link in this film is Kent Douglass, who portrays the young man. Naive and kind, the chemistry is really not there between himself and Miss Clarke. He is only effective briefly in a scene with veteran actress Ethel Griffies, who portrays a greedy, conniving landlady.
The film has worn well through the many years and is worth seeing due to Miss Clarke's excellent performance. Am sure that Vivien Leigh and Leslie Caron, who both starred in the remakes, learned a lot from Miss Clarke. Look for Bette Davis as Douglass's sister. This was her first film and it is interesting to see how she evolved into the great talent that she was.
A genuine surprise in the talent of Mae Clarke
MOSSBIE23 June 2011
Since the story is so well known by some of the very good reviewers here, I am merely adding my surprise at the discovery of the talent of Mae Clarke. I had no idea she had done this original version and according to the collected IMDb data, Ms. Clarke was just 20 years old when she worked on this excellent adaptation of the play. There is no need to compare her performance to Vivien Leigh's later remake, because that film had no real grit and Clarke's performance was one of the best I have ever seen from a performer despite her youth. The film was shot soon after talkies began and her screen presence and non theatrical emoting was astonishingly on target. The director, Whale, must have had a good rapport because her scenes with all of the players came off honest and not a bit dated. I can see that Davis would have liked to play the part as someone mentioned, but she could not have done a better job. I just discovered it on the Turner channel and became so engrossed in Clarke's performance, I called people to get a copy and watch this actress' work. Quite remarkable.
This original of the more famous remake is a story more efficiently told
jacobs-greenwood11 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This original version of the Robert Sherwood play is quite different than the more famous MGM remake starring Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor. The story is more efficiently told, and without flashbacks, such that this film is nearly half an hour shorter.
It was directed by James Whale, and the screenplay was written by Benn Levy and Tom Reed. The most notable aspect of this movie is Mae Clarke's terrific performance as the conflicted streetwalker Myra Deauville; Kent Douglass aka Douglass Montgomery is pedestrian as the soldier from a wealthy family she meets, Roy Cronin, who's unaware of her (oldest) profession.
Whereas the later film version of the play has Myra and Roy meet and fall in love before she turns to prostitution, as her only means of support, after she's been led to believe that he's died in the war, in this one they meet after the former chorus girl had already been walking the streets for a couple of years, with friend Kitty (Doris Lloyd). Myra meets Roy on the titled London bridge during an air raid while both help an old woman (Rita Carlisle aka Carlyle) to the safety of a shelter. They then spend some innocent time together in her shabby apartment, interrupted by her landlady Mrs. Hobley (Ethel Griffies), who'd earlier asked for Myra's back rent. Naive Roy sees Myra as an out of work chorus girl who's just down on her luck, but she refuses to take advantage of his innocence, is insulted by his offer to pay her bills, and even throws him out, before they reconcile briefly and he leaves on friendlier terms.
Roy is only nineteen, and even though he's no longer under the illusion that the war in France is a fun adventure, he's still worlds away from the weary realist that Myra has become. In their brief time together, Roy fell hopelessly in love with Myra and he pursues her with flowers and a new pink dress she'd mentioned in that prior meeting. Neighbor Kitty emboldens Roy's savior complex, and plants the seed that all Myra needs is a (wedding) ring. Later, Roy tricks Myra into visiting his family's estate in the country, where she reluctantly meets his mother Mary (Enid Bennett), sister Janet (Bette Davis), and father-in-law Major Fred Wetherby (Frederick Kerr). Ruth Handforth plays Augusta, their maid. Roy's family welcomes her with open arms but Myra's guilt about "what she is" causes her to tell Mary that she's not really a chorus girl. The next day, it's clear that Mary hasn't told the others what Myra had shared about her life. Finding herself still accepted among Roy's family is too much for Myra and, still feeling unworthy, she flees back to London by train.
Myra is conflicted, she tries but can't seem to go back to doing what she always had. Roy returns to Myra's apartment in London, but finds only Mrs. Hobley, who tells him what he didn't know about the woman with whom he'd fallen in love. But still, he searches for her. Myra successfully avoided Roy until she can't help but try to glimpse him as his regiment meets to leave for the front on Waterloo Bridge. He sees her and makes her promise to marry him when he returns. An air raid begins just as the troop truck has driven away, and Myra is killed by a bomb dropped from a German Zeppelin (in lieu of Leigh's suicide) as the film ends, her monogrammed purse and white fox fur lay on the pavement.
It was directed by James Whale, and the screenplay was written by Benn Levy and Tom Reed. The most notable aspect of this movie is Mae Clarke's terrific performance as the conflicted streetwalker Myra Deauville; Kent Douglass aka Douglass Montgomery is pedestrian as the soldier from a wealthy family she meets, Roy Cronin, who's unaware of her (oldest) profession.
Whereas the later film version of the play has Myra and Roy meet and fall in love before she turns to prostitution, as her only means of support, after she's been led to believe that he's died in the war, in this one they meet after the former chorus girl had already been walking the streets for a couple of years, with friend Kitty (Doris Lloyd). Myra meets Roy on the titled London bridge during an air raid while both help an old woman (Rita Carlisle aka Carlyle) to the safety of a shelter. They then spend some innocent time together in her shabby apartment, interrupted by her landlady Mrs. Hobley (Ethel Griffies), who'd earlier asked for Myra's back rent. Naive Roy sees Myra as an out of work chorus girl who's just down on her luck, but she refuses to take advantage of his innocence, is insulted by his offer to pay her bills, and even throws him out, before they reconcile briefly and he leaves on friendlier terms.
Roy is only nineteen, and even though he's no longer under the illusion that the war in France is a fun adventure, he's still worlds away from the weary realist that Myra has become. In their brief time together, Roy fell hopelessly in love with Myra and he pursues her with flowers and a new pink dress she'd mentioned in that prior meeting. Neighbor Kitty emboldens Roy's savior complex, and plants the seed that all Myra needs is a (wedding) ring. Later, Roy tricks Myra into visiting his family's estate in the country, where she reluctantly meets his mother Mary (Enid Bennett), sister Janet (Bette Davis), and father-in-law Major Fred Wetherby (Frederick Kerr). Ruth Handforth plays Augusta, their maid. Roy's family welcomes her with open arms but Myra's guilt about "what she is" causes her to tell Mary that she's not really a chorus girl. The next day, it's clear that Mary hasn't told the others what Myra had shared about her life. Finding herself still accepted among Roy's family is too much for Myra and, still feeling unworthy, she flees back to London by train.
Myra is conflicted, she tries but can't seem to go back to doing what she always had. Roy returns to Myra's apartment in London, but finds only Mrs. Hobley, who tells him what he didn't know about the woman with whom he'd fallen in love. But still, he searches for her. Myra successfully avoided Roy until she can't help but try to glimpse him as his regiment meets to leave for the front on Waterloo Bridge. He sees her and makes her promise to marry him when he returns. An air raid begins just as the troop truck has driven away, and Myra is killed by a bomb dropped from a German Zeppelin (in lieu of Leigh's suicide) as the film ends, her monogrammed purse and white fox fur lay on the pavement.
Mae Clarke Gives An Astonishly Powerful Performance
soren-7125913 July 2018
This is the best of the filmed versions of this story. There isn't a lot of plot in this gritty, earthy early talkie but there is an astonishingly powerful tour de force performance by Mae Clarke. I had always admired her fragile beauty and strong second lead performances in many films over the years but I'd never seen this one in which she plays a prostitute or "party girl" as they used to call them in the early sound films, a girl who is forced into prostitution in London after her show closes and she cannot get decent work. There's a blitz going on and zeppelins are reigning bombs down onto London streets and people must take shelter underground. Life is extremely difficult but onto the scene comes American Douglass Montgomery whose family, wealthy as can be, live outside of London on a marvelous estate and his sister turns out to be none other than Bette Davis. Will the family accept her? Will she tell them she is a street walker?
The drama unfolds and gradually grips you fully if you like pre-code movies. Montgomery and Clarke as the young lovers have a real chemistry between them. Clarke's performance totally inhabits her space as she handles objects, uses her entire body in her performance and shows a remarkable range of emotion that seems to ripple through her entire body. I had the feeling that the actress was almost possessed by the spirit of her character. At times quiet and introspective,she then her emotions rush to the forefront and in one near final scene she belts out her anguish with astonishing power and range that blew me away. I take this to be one of the great acting performances in the history of movies and it is absolutely THE most underappreciated Academy Award quality performance ever given. You may not agree but over the last 46 years I've been teaching film history at the university level and I'd stake my reputation that for its period of time there isn't anything quite like it. It is whole decades ahead of its time.
You may marvel as I did at how modern her acting is and not stilted or theatrical as her contemporaries such as Bette Davis come across now. It is a performance that one would marvel at if given today. And yet her projection is also worthy of a great stage performance as well, for this is also after all basically a filmed play.
James Whale is always a fascinating director. What he coaxed out of Mae Clarke in this film is something for the ages and any acting student can learn a lot about how to move about a room, use your hands, modulate your voice and use every part of your body to create a real character. It is all the more extraordinary that Whale did this in just a few weeks and with a shoestring budget. After the film I just sat for a while in rapt amazement, so grateful that this performance has been captured on film and I had the privilege to watch it. In a word, wow!.
MUCH earthier and seamy than the 1940 re-make--this is really not a romantic film at all
planktonrules5 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The 1940 version of WATERLOO BRIDGE is so different that you really need to look at these completely different films. While the later version is much more romantic and polished, it suffers from some plot problems that keep it from being a great film--and this is all due to the sleazy elements of the 1931 version being chopped out to please censors.
The 1931 version was directed by James Whale, and yes, this is the same guy who directed all the great early horror films at Universal. Because of his style AND the Pre-Code era's tendency to focus on the seamier aspects of life, it is so very different from the later film. Instead of being a struggling ballerina driven to eventually sell her body out of desperation and hunger (1940), the heroine is a prostitute when the film begins. So, with the Pre-Code morality, the story is essentially about a man who falls for a whore--not realizing her lifestyle. This must have been seen as pretty hot stuff back in its day and even today would probably make a few eyebrows raise! Because of this element, the film is much more of a tragedy than a romance. In fact, having a character be a hooker is a pretty sure way to keep the film from being romantic. So, if you are looking for a romance, see the later version.
Overall, this version of the film is more coherent and makes a lot more sense than the re-make. In the re-make, Ms. Leigh marries Robert Taylor and then becomes a prostitute even though she knows he comes from a rich family--this just doesn't make sense. She easily could have let them know of her plight and avoided all the mess that ensued (making Vivian just "too dumb to live"). Instead, Mae Clark is a basically decent person but she's still a hooker who can't allow herself to either admit to her man what she is nor can she allow herself to marry him--this is a much better plot and DOES make sense. However, aside from the non-romantic aspect of this, the ending of the film is just terrible in this original film. Frankly, although I generally prefer this earlier film, the 1940 version ended much better. So overall, this is a very interesting film due to its subject matter but the film does suffer a bit from the lousy ending.
The 1931 version was directed by James Whale, and yes, this is the same guy who directed all the great early horror films at Universal. Because of his style AND the Pre-Code era's tendency to focus on the seamier aspects of life, it is so very different from the later film. Instead of being a struggling ballerina driven to eventually sell her body out of desperation and hunger (1940), the heroine is a prostitute when the film begins. So, with the Pre-Code morality, the story is essentially about a man who falls for a whore--not realizing her lifestyle. This must have been seen as pretty hot stuff back in its day and even today would probably make a few eyebrows raise! Because of this element, the film is much more of a tragedy than a romance. In fact, having a character be a hooker is a pretty sure way to keep the film from being romantic. So, if you are looking for a romance, see the later version.
Overall, this version of the film is more coherent and makes a lot more sense than the re-make. In the re-make, Ms. Leigh marries Robert Taylor and then becomes a prostitute even though she knows he comes from a rich family--this just doesn't make sense. She easily could have let them know of her plight and avoided all the mess that ensued (making Vivian just "too dumb to live"). Instead, Mae Clark is a basically decent person but she's still a hooker who can't allow herself to either admit to her man what she is nor can she allow herself to marry him--this is a much better plot and DOES make sense. However, aside from the non-romantic aspect of this, the ending of the film is just terrible in this original film. Frankly, although I generally prefer this earlier film, the 1940 version ended much better. So overall, this is a very interesting film due to its subject matter but the film does suffer a bit from the lousy ending.
A great film!
tfun286 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
First I have to apologize for my bad English, but I hope the text can be understood nevertheless.
I think that this is a great movie. It appears astonishingly modern. What I appreciated most is, that the story is not about a conflict between bad and good characters. Rather it's about the inner conflict of Myra, who hates herself, so she can't accept the love of another man. The mirror scene, when she puts on her make up before she walks the streets, is amazing in that respect. In the mirror we see her on one hand through the look of the others, of her 'clients' (as well of us, the spectators), who see in her (only) the prostitute. On the other hand it is also her own look at that part of herself, which she hates. So one could say, that she sees herself through the others. (I like this 'lacanian' logic though it may seem presumptuous).
As well the final scene, where they kiss while in the background London is bombarded by a zeppelin, is great. There seems to be a relation between the war and the strange love affair, which is only possible in a world which is out of control.
The second thing I noticed was, that there are many long shots and just a few close ups. So it has an incredibly realistic look. It reminded me somehow of the films by Ingmar Bergmann, who (as far as I remember) also tried to explore the torn subject.
The ending is erratic. Why is she killed? Is it a punishment from god? For me it seems a bit like it, because we see in the last scene the fur again, which Myra had received from a 'client' in the first scene. So it could be read as a symbol for her greed or her morally wrong decision (leaving the theater), that led her astray. But her death could be also read as a 'carpe diem' motif, which points again at the war, that confronts the human being with the possibility of a sudden, unexpected, unjustified death by accident.
It is exactly this (moral) ambiguity, which makes this a great movie.
I think that this is a great movie. It appears astonishingly modern. What I appreciated most is, that the story is not about a conflict between bad and good characters. Rather it's about the inner conflict of Myra, who hates herself, so she can't accept the love of another man. The mirror scene, when she puts on her make up before she walks the streets, is amazing in that respect. In the mirror we see her on one hand through the look of the others, of her 'clients' (as well of us, the spectators), who see in her (only) the prostitute. On the other hand it is also her own look at that part of herself, which she hates. So one could say, that she sees herself through the others. (I like this 'lacanian' logic though it may seem presumptuous).
As well the final scene, where they kiss while in the background London is bombarded by a zeppelin, is great. There seems to be a relation between the war and the strange love affair, which is only possible in a world which is out of control.
The second thing I noticed was, that there are many long shots and just a few close ups. So it has an incredibly realistic look. It reminded me somehow of the films by Ingmar Bergmann, who (as far as I remember) also tried to explore the torn subject.
The ending is erratic. Why is she killed? Is it a punishment from god? For me it seems a bit like it, because we see in the last scene the fur again, which Myra had received from a 'client' in the first scene. So it could be read as a symbol for her greed or her morally wrong decision (leaving the theater), that led her astray. But her death could be also read as a 'carpe diem' motif, which points again at the war, that confronts the human being with the possibility of a sudden, unexpected, unjustified death by accident.
It is exactly this (moral) ambiguity, which makes this a great movie.
WATERLOO BRIDGE (James Whale, 1931) ***
Bunuel197614 June 2007
There’s nothing particularly Pre-Code about this essentially dated “woman’s picture” – apart from the fact that the heroine is a prostitute (ironically, given the narrative’s London setting, it did get censored on its U.K. release!). Unfortunately, the audio on Warners’ DVD (the second title I’ve watched from their FORBIDDEN Hollywood COLLECTION VOL. 1) is rather low – with dialogue that’s even harder to make out through the thick British accents!
Reportedly, Tom Reed’s original draft had rendered Robert E. Sherwood’s play virtually unrecognizable – before trusted Whale scribe Benn W. Levy was roped in for a rewrite and chose to stick close to the source material. His one major addition is the central couple’s visit to the young soldier’s family estate, which provided some of the film’s best moments; however, his original intention of utilizing the poster of the long-running musical “Chu Chin Chow” (eventually filmed in England in 1934 and recently issued in an intriguing “Special Edition” 3-Disc Set through VCI!) to delineate the progress in the heroine’s fall from grace wasn’t followed through. Given the film’s theatrical origins and primitive technical quality (such as the obvious use of back-projection for the London backgrounds), it generally lacks the trademark Whale stylistics – evident only in his inventive manipulation of studio sets and especially the tragic finale (filmed in an inspired overhead shot); actually, he was under pressure to bring in the picture quickly and cheaply, because Universal was virtually broke at the time.
Though it goes without saying that I disagree with Michael Elliott’s **** rating and his assertion that WATERLOO BRIDGE is superior to FRANKENSTEIN (1931), there’s still a lot to admire here – to begin with, a surprisingly excellent performance from leading lady Mae Clarke (a role for which Rose Hobart was originally slated). Clarke would be fairly stilted in Whale’s next film, FRANKENSTEIN – but, that same year, also saw her famously on the receiving end of James Cagney’s grapefruit in THE PUBLIC ENEMY (1931)! A very young but believable Douglass Montgomery (billed as Kent Douglass) is effective, both as the love-struck soldier and when he rages in front of Clarke’s tactless landlady for daring to insult her. However, his inexperience put further strain on Whale’s tight shooting schedule and the actor had to be extensively rehearsed.
The supporting cast is equally good: Doris Lloyd as Clarke’s lively companion, Ethel Griffies as the nagging landlady (a role she recreated for the 1940 MGM version!), Enid Bennett as Douglas’ surprisingly understanding mother (the actress had been Maid Marian to Douglas Fairbanks’ ROBIN HOOD [1922] in the Silent spectacular), Frederick Kerr as his endearingly doddering stepfather (he would virtually reprise his role wholesale for FRANKENSTEIN!) – plus a nice early role for Bette Davis as Douglass’ sister, who cheekily dotes on the slightly-deaf Kerr. The crew is practically identical to the one that would soon after work on FRANKENSTEIN – and which seems to me to have been shot on some of the very same sets!
I’ve watched the glossy remake several years back but don’t recall it enough to compare – except that I know it was considerably bowdlerized: if I’m not mistaken, in the later version, the heroine is a ballerina who only turns to prostitution when the soldier goes back to war and his family subsequently shun her! By the way, this is the sixth non-horror Whale film that I’ve watched – which brings me to a total of ten; therefore, I’m still half-way through his filmography...
Reportedly, Tom Reed’s original draft had rendered Robert E. Sherwood’s play virtually unrecognizable – before trusted Whale scribe Benn W. Levy was roped in for a rewrite and chose to stick close to the source material. His one major addition is the central couple’s visit to the young soldier’s family estate, which provided some of the film’s best moments; however, his original intention of utilizing the poster of the long-running musical “Chu Chin Chow” (eventually filmed in England in 1934 and recently issued in an intriguing “Special Edition” 3-Disc Set through VCI!) to delineate the progress in the heroine’s fall from grace wasn’t followed through. Given the film’s theatrical origins and primitive technical quality (such as the obvious use of back-projection for the London backgrounds), it generally lacks the trademark Whale stylistics – evident only in his inventive manipulation of studio sets and especially the tragic finale (filmed in an inspired overhead shot); actually, he was under pressure to bring in the picture quickly and cheaply, because Universal was virtually broke at the time.
Though it goes without saying that I disagree with Michael Elliott’s **** rating and his assertion that WATERLOO BRIDGE is superior to FRANKENSTEIN (1931), there’s still a lot to admire here – to begin with, a surprisingly excellent performance from leading lady Mae Clarke (a role for which Rose Hobart was originally slated). Clarke would be fairly stilted in Whale’s next film, FRANKENSTEIN – but, that same year, also saw her famously on the receiving end of James Cagney’s grapefruit in THE PUBLIC ENEMY (1931)! A very young but believable Douglass Montgomery (billed as Kent Douglass) is effective, both as the love-struck soldier and when he rages in front of Clarke’s tactless landlady for daring to insult her. However, his inexperience put further strain on Whale’s tight shooting schedule and the actor had to be extensively rehearsed.
The supporting cast is equally good: Doris Lloyd as Clarke’s lively companion, Ethel Griffies as the nagging landlady (a role she recreated for the 1940 MGM version!), Enid Bennett as Douglas’ surprisingly understanding mother (the actress had been Maid Marian to Douglas Fairbanks’ ROBIN HOOD [1922] in the Silent spectacular), Frederick Kerr as his endearingly doddering stepfather (he would virtually reprise his role wholesale for FRANKENSTEIN!) – plus a nice early role for Bette Davis as Douglass’ sister, who cheekily dotes on the slightly-deaf Kerr. The crew is practically identical to the one that would soon after work on FRANKENSTEIN – and which seems to me to have been shot on some of the very same sets!
I’ve watched the glossy remake several years back but don’t recall it enough to compare – except that I know it was considerably bowdlerized: if I’m not mistaken, in the later version, the heroine is a ballerina who only turns to prostitution when the soldier goes back to war and his family subsequently shun her! By the way, this is the sixth non-horror Whale film that I’ve watched – which brings me to a total of ten; therefore, I’m still half-way through his filmography...
Hidden by a glitzier classic film
theowinthrop5 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Turner Classic Film network was showing several "before the Hays Code" films from the 1930s last night, and I was able to watch this 1931 version of the Robert Sherwood play WATERLOO BRIDGE. Actually this version is closer to the original, written with the background of World War I in mind, than the classic 1940 Robert Taylor - Vivian Leigh version. But the latter has gotten exactly that status - it is a "classic" film, because Leigh was the star of the horizon at that moment in 1940. She just won the Oscar for Scarlett O'Hara in GONE WITH THE WIND, and this gave the studio the impetus to pull out the stops. Top notch cast and director, as well as better film productions assets. Ironically, looking at the cast for the 1931 film, it suffers. Yes it is by James Whale...but his best recalled films are FRANKENSTEIN, THE INVISIBLE MAN, and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN - hardly love stories. He did do the 1936 SHOWBOAT, but that seems an accident to his career. Such is the damage a good reputation can sometimes do to fully appreciate everything that the person did to earn his or her reputation.
The stars of this are Douglas Montgomery (here named Kent Douglas) and Mae Clarke. Mae is immortal for one moment on film. In the middle of an argument over breakfast with her bored boyfriend Jimmy Cagney (in PUBLIC ENEMY) he pushes a grapefruit into her face! She was a fine actress, but hardly of star quality. As for Montgomery, he was an above capable performer too, but his smooth, blond, bland features did not go very far. I suppose his best known part was in Katherine Hepburn's LITTLE WOMEN as "Laurie" the boy in the house next door who falls for Jo. I feel his best performance is in the 1935 MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD. He also played Stephen Foster (whom he resembled a little) in the forgotten early biography MELODY LANE.
Two other performers in the cast are worth noting. One is old Frederick Kerr, here playing Montgomery's step-father, a doctor and major in the British Army, who spends most of the film in the countryside, enjoying his fine old port and going through one of those "What...what" characters, which were supposed to represent the kindly old, eccentric British upper classes. He played a similar role (albeit as a German) as Baron Frankenstein (Colin Clive's father) in FRANKENSTEIN, so I take it Whale liked his screen personae. The other, ironically, is Bette Davis. She is Montgomery's sister, and (aside from shouting into her deaf step-father's ear to repeat what he claims he did not hear) she has little to do. It was her third film. Davis later said (in her partial autobiography MOTHER GODDAMN) that she would have loved to play Myra. She did - more memorably - as Mildred, the waitress turned prostitute in OF HUMAN BONDAGE.
Actually Clarke is very appealing as Myra. At the start of the film she is shown on the closing night of a West End Musical (she was in the chorus), and Whale is clever enough to show her yawning at one point (it does add to the realism of that moment). In the remake, Leigh was a promising ballerina whose romance with young Taylor causes her teacher (Maria Ouspenskaya) to throw her out of the troupe. The idea of chorus girls apparently was not classy enough for Leigh's screen personae in 1940. Myra can't find another show to get into (it's wartime, and there have been cut-backs in productions). Ironically, she tells her friend Kitty (Doris Lloyd) she could have been in the chorus of CHIN CHIN CHOW but chose the other show. It's like having the chance to do HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS, but opting for MR. PRESIDENT. CHIN CHIN CHOW set a West End record in the late teens and early 1920s.
Because she can't get back into a show Myra - facing financial necessity - turns to prostitution. She is at Waterloo Bridge when she meets Montgomery during a zeppelin air raid (Waterloo Bridge is a favorite spot to pick up "Johns"). The two of them end up going to her apartment by taxicab (shades of Eliza Doolittle there). And they fall into love over a dinner of fish and chips. But Myra can't bring herself to confess what she does for a living - Montgomery is a naive American whose mother married an English country doctor. He does not have any idea about whores. Myra is somewhat older, and she too is American (her parents were two alcoholics in East St. Louis, which is also the area Barbara Stanwyck comes from in the next film BABY FACE). She's more aware of the uglier side of life.
Myra's moment of realization that she can't marry Montgomery is when she visits his mother, step-father, and sister in the country. His mother (Enid Bennett) gently explains that she would not be fit for Montgomery. Bennett does not push Clarke away (and she does apparently sympathize with her), but she brings Clarke back to that reality that she tried to avoid. Clarke flees back to London, but Montgomery follows. Myra can't bring telling him. Instead it is her landlady (Ethel Griffes) in a moment of self-interest who reveals the truth - and gets Montgomery's best moment of reaction in the film in her face as a result.
There is an element of melancholy in this that Whale succeeded in maintaining to the end and then some. I won't ruin the end of the film, but suffice it to say the love is as doomed as a flowering plant that is transplanted to a desert. It is a worthy film - not up to the later film's production and star quality - but well worth seeing.
The stars of this are Douglas Montgomery (here named Kent Douglas) and Mae Clarke. Mae is immortal for one moment on film. In the middle of an argument over breakfast with her bored boyfriend Jimmy Cagney (in PUBLIC ENEMY) he pushes a grapefruit into her face! She was a fine actress, but hardly of star quality. As for Montgomery, he was an above capable performer too, but his smooth, blond, bland features did not go very far. I suppose his best known part was in Katherine Hepburn's LITTLE WOMEN as "Laurie" the boy in the house next door who falls for Jo. I feel his best performance is in the 1935 MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD. He also played Stephen Foster (whom he resembled a little) in the forgotten early biography MELODY LANE.
Two other performers in the cast are worth noting. One is old Frederick Kerr, here playing Montgomery's step-father, a doctor and major in the British Army, who spends most of the film in the countryside, enjoying his fine old port and going through one of those "What...what" characters, which were supposed to represent the kindly old, eccentric British upper classes. He played a similar role (albeit as a German) as Baron Frankenstein (Colin Clive's father) in FRANKENSTEIN, so I take it Whale liked his screen personae. The other, ironically, is Bette Davis. She is Montgomery's sister, and (aside from shouting into her deaf step-father's ear to repeat what he claims he did not hear) she has little to do. It was her third film. Davis later said (in her partial autobiography MOTHER GODDAMN) that she would have loved to play Myra. She did - more memorably - as Mildred, the waitress turned prostitute in OF HUMAN BONDAGE.
Actually Clarke is very appealing as Myra. At the start of the film she is shown on the closing night of a West End Musical (she was in the chorus), and Whale is clever enough to show her yawning at one point (it does add to the realism of that moment). In the remake, Leigh was a promising ballerina whose romance with young Taylor causes her teacher (Maria Ouspenskaya) to throw her out of the troupe. The idea of chorus girls apparently was not classy enough for Leigh's screen personae in 1940. Myra can't find another show to get into (it's wartime, and there have been cut-backs in productions). Ironically, she tells her friend Kitty (Doris Lloyd) she could have been in the chorus of CHIN CHIN CHOW but chose the other show. It's like having the chance to do HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS, but opting for MR. PRESIDENT. CHIN CHIN CHOW set a West End record in the late teens and early 1920s.
Because she can't get back into a show Myra - facing financial necessity - turns to prostitution. She is at Waterloo Bridge when she meets Montgomery during a zeppelin air raid (Waterloo Bridge is a favorite spot to pick up "Johns"). The two of them end up going to her apartment by taxicab (shades of Eliza Doolittle there). And they fall into love over a dinner of fish and chips. But Myra can't bring herself to confess what she does for a living - Montgomery is a naive American whose mother married an English country doctor. He does not have any idea about whores. Myra is somewhat older, and she too is American (her parents were two alcoholics in East St. Louis, which is also the area Barbara Stanwyck comes from in the next film BABY FACE). She's more aware of the uglier side of life.
Myra's moment of realization that she can't marry Montgomery is when she visits his mother, step-father, and sister in the country. His mother (Enid Bennett) gently explains that she would not be fit for Montgomery. Bennett does not push Clarke away (and she does apparently sympathize with her), but she brings Clarke back to that reality that she tried to avoid. Clarke flees back to London, but Montgomery follows. Myra can't bring telling him. Instead it is her landlady (Ethel Griffes) in a moment of self-interest who reveals the truth - and gets Montgomery's best moment of reaction in the film in her face as a result.
There is an element of melancholy in this that Whale succeeded in maintaining to the end and then some. I won't ruin the end of the film, but suffice it to say the love is as doomed as a flowering plant that is transplanted to a desert. It is a worthy film - not up to the later film's production and star quality - but well worth seeing.
Fascinating Pre-Code Melodrama with a Gritty Mae Clarke Performance
EUyeshima24 January 2007
This is fairly typical of the pre-code genre and has only a fleeting similarity to the glamorous 1940 MGM version with Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor. Directed by James Whale before he peaked with "Frankenstein" and "Showboat", this film is set in WWI London and stars the long-forgotten Mae Clarke, an actress best known for being the recipient of James Cagney's grapefruit attack in "The Public Enemy". She plays Myra, an American chorus girl who turns to prostitution when her show closes. Unlike Leigh's ethereal ballerina in the later film, Clarke's Myra is all bitterness with a shaft of hope in the form of an American soldier named Roy, whom she accidentally meets during an air raid. He comes from a wealthy family who find out about her profession, which leads to the inevitable consequences.
Clarke is solid as Myra, though she does go overboard in her breakdown scene. Kent Douglass is rather wooden as Roy, though he certainly captures the soldier's callow nature. Done on the cheap by Universal and at only 81 minutes, it's an interesting and sometimes poignant curio thanks mostly to Whale's dexterity with melodrama. A freshly scrubbed, 23-year old Bette Davis shows up in the inconsequential role of Roy's sister.
Clarke is solid as Myra, though she does go overboard in her breakdown scene. Kent Douglass is rather wooden as Roy, though he certainly captures the soldier's callow nature. Done on the cheap by Universal and at only 81 minutes, it's an interesting and sometimes poignant curio thanks mostly to Whale's dexterity with melodrama. A freshly scrubbed, 23-year old Bette Davis shows up in the inconsequential role of Roy's sister.
Not quite as good as the "real one."
1930s_Time_Machine20 November 2022
It's difficult to watch this without comparing it to the more famous. More syrupy 1940 version with Vivienne Leigh. This film does not play straight into your emotion centres like the remake but nevertheless is still a worthwhile watch. It's essentially the same story but is surprisingly more realistic. Mae Clarke gives such an outstanding performance full of nuance and authenticity you will wonder why she didn't become a bigger star. You can really believe in her, you can personally sense the conflicting emotions tearing her apart. That's a testament to Mae Clarke's acting and James Whale's direction.
A lot of weight is given to the fact that this is made by the notable director, James Whale; he does create a believable London with a gritty and authentic atmosphere and does get 110% out of Mae Clarke but his slow and careful approach does make the story sluggish at times. There can sometimes be just too many long, wistful looks into the distance!
His choice of lead, the completely inexperienced Douglas Montgomery was picked precisely because of his inexperience. Not having had any real acting experience was meant to give him a fresh and natural nativity but in reality it just makes him seem not a good actor. Not everything James Whale made was good (The appalling Invisible Man, for example) as this demonstrates. It's got class and is very engaging but not, unlike the remake, a classic.
A lot of weight is given to the fact that this is made by the notable director, James Whale; he does create a believable London with a gritty and authentic atmosphere and does get 110% out of Mae Clarke but his slow and careful approach does make the story sluggish at times. There can sometimes be just too many long, wistful looks into the distance!
His choice of lead, the completely inexperienced Douglas Montgomery was picked precisely because of his inexperience. Not having had any real acting experience was meant to give him a fresh and natural nativity but in reality it just makes him seem not a good actor. Not everything James Whale made was good (The appalling Invisible Man, for example) as this demonstrates. It's got class and is very engaging but not, unlike the remake, a classic.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
