Two Kinds of Women (1932) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Not as naughty as it thinks it is.
'Two Kinds of Women' was directed by William de Mille (lower-case 'd'), the brother of Cecil De Mille (upper-case 'D') and the differing orthography is significant: Cecil De Mille made upper-case movies in a big way, whilst William de Mille made lower-case movies in a small way. 'Two Kinds of Women' is competent but not compelling. This drama dabbles rather shallowly in the haedonism of Prohibition-era America, with Miriam Hopkins checking into a posh Manhattan hotel and then sauntering into the speakeasy that operates openly right down the street.

I've never fancied Hopkins, though in one scene here she wears a spectacular pair of black leather gauntlet gloves. She plays Emma Krull (any relation to Felix Krull?), a sheltered young woman from Sioux Falls, South Dakota (speaking her dialogue in an odd accent with broadened vowels) who accompanies her Comstocking senator father (Irving Pichel, very good) to sinful New York City. She crosses paths with Phillips Holmes as a Connecticut playboy (speaking in a peculiar mid-Atlantic accent; what is it with these accents?). Now get this. Holmes's character has been a wastrel and a womaniser all his life, but as soon as he meets Hopkins he decides he wants to marry her and get a white picket fence. I thought this was the line he was telling her to get her into bed ... but no, he really wants to marry Miss Krull and raise some little krullers.

But while Phillips drinks a screwdriver, we learn his guilty secret. He once got drunk in New Haven and woke up married to Wynne Gibson. (Serves him right for being in New Haven.) Gibson has been bleeding him dry (I'll have a dry Gibson, to go with that Phillips screwdriver) ever since. Now he wants a divorce, but he won't let her shake him down for a settlement. Holmes offers to sell his sapphire studs, so I guess he must be desperate. The neurasthenic Phillips Holmes is a performer whom I consistently dislike, but here he's lumbered with some unfortunate dialogue. He tells Gibson she has an icebox for a heart, then in the next scene he tells Hopkins that Gibson has a cash register for a heart. Which is it, buddy: an icebox or a cash register?

Along the way, we get some *really* bad rear-projection shots of Manhattan. At the climax, when one character falls out a penthouse window, it's more obvious than it needs to be that the plummeting body is a dummy. More positively, one scene between Hopkins and Holmes takes place at a gymkhana, and de Mille stages this with actual equestrians riding past, instead of stock footage.

One sequence impressed me very much. In the speakeasy, the camera pans along the hands of the customers at the bar, concealing their faces and bodies. Using only hand gestures and voice-overs, de Mille swiftly conveys several different dramas unfolding in this ginmill. Less effective is a party scene in which a mulatta songstress warbles jazz while the guests' body movements keep time with the music ... walking in tempo, drinking in tempo, but none of them actually dancing. Elsewhere, de Mille gives the actors (or allows them to use) some truly dire blocking, as if they were in a stage play rather than a movie. And why do so many doors in this movie have chequerwork panelling?

There are some excellent performances here. James Crane, previously unknown to me, is impressive as a desperate crook. Josephine Dunn is good in a comedy-relief role that turns out to be crucial to the plot. Stanley Fields (whom I usually dislike) and the very underrated Edwin Maxwell are good too. I was especially impressed with Robert Emmett O'Connor as Tim Gohagen, a mysterious party goer who seems to have contacts in high places: when the penthouse party gets raided, one of the detectives looks right at O'Connor and pretends not to see him. In all, I'll rate this movie 6 out of 10. I wish that William de Mille were better known, but there's no question that his brother Cecil was the better director.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It's easy to dismiss Miriam Hopkins as a cornfed miss
AlsExGal14 December 2022
Senator Krull of South Dakota (Irving Pichel) is planning a trip to New York City to preach against New York City. His daughter Emma (Miriam Hopkins) pleads with dad to take her with him. She is devoted to him and does want to take care of him, but those lights of the big city also beckon.

When she gets there she goes out on the town with a friend and winds up meeting the wealthy Joseph Gresham Jr. (Phillips Holmes). They end up seeing lots of each other and it looks like it is getting serious. But Joe has a secret. He married a party girl one night (Wynne Gibson as Phyllis) and she wants one hundred thousand dollars in order to give him a divorce. They only had the one night together - he hasn't lived with her since the wedding night. And he is right when he says that he could have the marriage annulled because of that. But that would also alert his dad who would kick him out for soiling the family name by getting into such a predicament in the first place. So when Phyllis falls to her death from her high rise apartment, Joe is suspect number one.

If I didn't know when this film was made I would have thought it was one of those made about the time that the production code came into being, because all of the moralizing Senator Krull does just seems over the top unless you are trying to impress a censor. It is extremely puzzling given that this is the reason the Krulls are here in the first place. Why does a South Dakota senator feel it necessary to lecture people in New York? Would a New York senator go to South Dakota to lecture the locals about agriculture subsidies?

Wynne Gibson is good as the party girl wife, and she was always good at brassy parts, but she was usually best when she was playing a person with a good heart and rough edges, and here she is a mercenary person.

I enjoyed this, but it is probably only mildly recommended unless you are a fan of the precode Paramounts as I am.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A depression-era moral tale that alternates between shocking twists and desperation for reform.
mark.waltz29 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Acting honors are split in this film between the two blonde ladies who play the two different kinds of women: innocent senator's daughter Miriam Hopkins and veteran New York party girl Wynne Gibson. Hopkins' father, Irving Pichel, playing quite a different role than he played in many other films, is the epitome of morals and anti-vice as a senator who has been speaking out about immoral corruption in New York City. When his daughter goes to New York on vacation with pal Adrienne Ames, she finds herself falling in love with playboy Phillips Holmes who is already married to Gibson who had basically got him drunk, seduced him and married him against his knowledge. He is desperate for a divorce, not because he wants to marry Hopkins, but because he wants to be free. Gibson is having an affair with on an amoral man who wants her to take Holmes for every cent she can get out of him. This leads to tragedy in a very shocking scene (one of the most memorable in pre-code drama) and scandal for senator Pichel and his seemingly innocent daughter Hopkins, as well as legal issues for Holmes.

Those who found Hopkins too hammy in films made after the code era (especially once she began appearing in films with Bette Davis whom she constantly tried to upstage) will find her riveting in this film as well as many of her other films up through the mid-thirties and through the screwball comedies she made afterwards. Her character alternates between sweetness and feistiness, quite sassy for a girl in her early twenties obviously raised to be ladylike, and finds herself quite out of her element when she visits New York. Scenes with her and Gibson are very well-acted on both sides, and it is hard to choose who gets more sympathy.

It is obvious that Gibson is playing another one of those trashy girls with a heart of gold who has bitten off more than she can chew in life and only has one way out. I have always found Gibson to be a truly underrated, forgotten actress who made the most out of every type of part she played, having found her absolutely delightful in "Aggie Appleby, Maker of Men" I'm fascinated by her ever since. That feeling did not change with this film. Holmes, just coming off his unforgettable performance in "An American Tragedy", plays another dour anti-hero, and I'm not quite sure that he is worthy of Hopkins' love. Josephine Dunn is very funny in a small part that provides the twist in the last real. While "Two Kinds of Women" may not be the best pre-code movie ever made, it is fascinating in its way and once you see it, you may never forget it.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Consider the morals of yesterday and today
ecaulfield1 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Because this film was part of the UCLA Film and Television Archive's Sin Uncensored: Hollywood Before the Code program, I was disappointed that it was a little talky and bland in spots rather than filled with the risqué humor I expected. However, the intersection of various elements of the plot made the film engrossing as it continued toward its conclusion. Almost as if the screenwriter intended the film for an audience in 2005, in Two Kinds of Women, the main character's (Miriam Hopkins) father is a Senator from South Dakota who believes that New York City is corrupting the rest of the nation. His daughter has not had the pleasure of living in New York, but she is culturally ambitious enough to read The New Yorker and to know how to spend an evening in New York way past her 'bedtime,' once she gets to the city. She develops a relationship with playboy Phillips Holmes who, predictably, is reformed just by knowing her. Although I found Hopkins as charming as ever, she needed more to do, more mischief to conduct with double entendres in this earlier part of the film, so this is the duller part of the plot. But the film escalates in drama and symbolism when the cast has a party in the art deco set of a penthouse. It's the Prohibition era, and the partygoers learn dances that we would probably laugh at today and the alcohol flows effusively. This 'outlandish' activity takes place against the backdrop of the troubled Senator on the radio reaching heights of hysteria about New York and the history of the Nordic race until he has a breakdown and must stop his address. His dramatization of the country's cultural problems using over-the-top language is a funny part of the film, but actually the events at the party symbolize the tawdry world he condemns: one man is so used to his wife being perpetually drunk that she is set up in a rather comatose state behind a screen with a drink in her hand so that she can drink without anyone having to look at her; two other partygoers demonstrate the reprobate lifestyle the Senator is railing against, one who allows death to occur based on his greed from gambling debts and the other who becomes the victim, we should probably believe because of her similar greed for a divorce settlement. Eventually, Hopkins' love (Holmes) needs to be saved from prosecution for the murder, and this is a moral test for the Senator. Will he stand by his daughter who believes in Holmes and jeopardize his image as the puritanical official who will stand no immoral behavior, like that which has tainted his daughter? Perhaps this plot sounds a little paint-by-the-numbers. But the party scene has such significant consequences for people who were so oblivious to their own actions, even while the Senator desperately tried to warn them, that this climactic scene is rather dark and dramatic. Although the ending turns out well for our leads, the viewer sees that the Senator may also luck out even after choosing to stand by his daughter. Because he takes her side, this makes him look good to his rural voters back home. Thus, politics still trumps all. How moral are we human beings anyway? This film seems more the serious drama with a little early 1930's sinful humor rather than a pure pre-Code Lubitsch-touch comedy, which I expected with Hopkins. Although it might seem a bit stiff at times, it is still entertaining to see how this society deals with the culmination of events that occur in the reprobate world they created.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Sappy and Preachy
view_and_review15 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
"Two Kinds of Women" is a movie based upon the play, "New York," which I think is a more apt title. I don't know what the "two kinds of women" were in this construction site porta-potty of a movie. This movie was so sappy and preachy that there would be no need for a Sunday service after watching it.

A senator from South Dakota named Senator Krull (Irving Pichel) went to New York to debate another senator. The premise of the debate was that New York was not representative of the rest of the United States, and if anything, it was ruining the young impressionable people of the United States.

Tagging along with him was his daughter Emma (Miriam Hopkins). She wanted to experience New York even as her father criticized it. Country girl visits the big city. "Why look daddy, they have buildings," is all I could hear from Emma even when she didn't say a word.

When Emma got to New York she visited a speakeasy with a friend and met Joseph Gresham Jr. (Phillips Holmes), a local rich playboy. He hit her with a one-two combo of charm and game so smooth she never saw it coming. Before she knew it she was out until the crack of dawn. By round two she was in love, and so was he.

Little did Emma know, Joey-poo was married to Phyllis 'Phil' Adrian (Wynne Gibson). He'd gotten drunk one night and married her, and she was not granting Joe a divorce without a huge payment. But don't worry about Phil. The writers disposed of her in the most implausible and fat-fingered way, it was infuriating.

This is the fourth movie from that era in which a man got drunk then married a woman (see "Party Girl" (1930), "Slightly Married" (1932), and "Anybody's Woman" (1930)). Was that a common occurrence among rich guys back then? It seems wholly absurd. Getting drunk and getting a woman pregnant is one thing, but to get drunk and marry a woman is something entirely different. There are a lot more steps involved in getting married than getting pregnant, which should give a dude ample time to dry out. Hollywood's point was that nice, unsuspecting men were ruining their lives by getting drunk and being preyed upon by lascivious women.

"Two Kinds of Women" went on to be a city versus country movie which showed more of the city's negative qualities than its good ones. Personally, I say any movie focused on high-society folks and their frivolity is showing a city's negative qualities.

This movie was a female version of "Big City Blues" starring Eric Linden. In "Big City Blues" he went to the big city and was chewed up and spit out. Emma, in "Two Kinds of Women," similarly went through the ringer, but she had a man that she loved so she wouldn't be broken. After all, she'd known him for a week. That's practically a lifetime when you're in love.

Imbued with all the strength and courage love gives you, Emma went to Phil to get her to give Joseph up at a lot less than her current asking price: $100,000. Maybe it was because Phil was slightly inebriated, or maybe because she needed a pure soul to speak to her, but she agreed. She'd give up Joseph with no money down in hopes that he'd do the right thing later.

Later he wouldn't have to deal with her because she died. But O! How she died.

She got into a drunken argument with her boyfriend of sorts (hard to know what he was to her). In the midst of the argument she opened the door to the balcony thinking it was the door to another room. Why a balcony door looks like a room door, I don't know. But get this, she stumbled onto the balcony and fell to her death because the RAILING ONLY WENT UP TO HER SHINS!!!

Are you serious!?

I know it was 1933 but architects and builders weren't THAT dumb. No way they'd build a high rise with a balcony and a guardrail only calf high. It was such a poor plot device to kill of a character to make things easy for the main characters to carry on their love affair.

In the end they tried to convey the message that New York, while hedonistic, has its good qualities. Just look, Emma found a good man there and Phil, Joe the playboy's wife, even decided to give him up after having a heart-to-heart with Emma. Would a city full of bad apples have these two?

Free on Odnoklassniki.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

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


Recently Viewed