Director: George B. Seitz
Year: 1937
Rating: 5.0
When I saw that the script was credited to Herman Mankiewicz, I got ready for sharp witted amusing dialogue that he was famous for. Mankiewicz was the fellow who was often brought in by the studios to fix scripts that were not working or give the dialogue some punch. He was a legend in the business - a journalist in Europe for years, the theater critic for the New Yorker, the man who brought other writers like Ben Hecht to Hollywood, a member of the Algonquin Round Table, the brother of Joseph Mankiewicz and perhaps most famously as the scriptwriter of Citizen Kane with Welles. Other films he contributed to were The Wizard of Oz, Dinner at Eight, Pride of the Yankees and Comrade X. But this film falls well short of brilliance.
The plot is pedestrian, obvious and misses opportunities. The dialogue has a few hits, but mainly singles. Director George Seitz was about to enter into his Andy Hardy film series phase and doesn't add anything unexpected to it. A disappointment in this not only because Mankiewicz is attached to it but because it has a stellar cast - Edna May Oliver, Maureen O'Sullivan and Walter Pidgeon along with some solid character actors. It was mainly Edna that made me want to watch this - her raised eyebrows and droll sarcasm is always a treat. Here she mainly uses that from the peanut gallery.
The premise of the film is that the owner of a major NYC newspaper dies and left no will. Their search leads them to a spinster in Nebraska where an aunt (Edna) and her niece (Maureen) live quiet lives. Right away you expect that the spinster refers to Edna but in fact it is Maureen who is not exactly spinster territory. She is for women's rights though and Edna tells her "Shut up about women's rights and you may find a man". Off they go to NYC and meet the chauvinistic editor played by Pidgeon. No women reporters allowed - they are just not smart enough. So, what does our women's right lady do? Falls in love of course.
The two big stories that she helps get are one regarding whether a visiting Queen is pregnant and whether there will be a big strike. That's it? The best you could come up with? How about a murder or big city corruption? Another reviewer suggested that Edna and Maureen should have solved a murder. Yes. The reviewer should have helped Mankiewicz with this script. It needed some pop. It didn't really need Pidgeon shouting every line. Edna in her Hildegarde Withers films was well versed in solving murders. She needed to do it again. Or at a minimum, Edna should have played the spinster who became owner and she battled with the editor to make changes. Just her starched voice and sharp arrows would have given it some levity.
Year: 1937
Rating: 5.0
When I saw that the script was credited to Herman Mankiewicz, I got ready for sharp witted amusing dialogue that he was famous for. Mankiewicz was the fellow who was often brought in by the studios to fix scripts that were not working or give the dialogue some punch. He was a legend in the business - a journalist in Europe for years, the theater critic for the New Yorker, the man who brought other writers like Ben Hecht to Hollywood, a member of the Algonquin Round Table, the brother of Joseph Mankiewicz and perhaps most famously as the scriptwriter of Citizen Kane with Welles. Other films he contributed to were The Wizard of Oz, Dinner at Eight, Pride of the Yankees and Comrade X. But this film falls well short of brilliance.
The plot is pedestrian, obvious and misses opportunities. The dialogue has a few hits, but mainly singles. Director George Seitz was about to enter into his Andy Hardy film series phase and doesn't add anything unexpected to it. A disappointment in this not only because Mankiewicz is attached to it but because it has a stellar cast - Edna May Oliver, Maureen O'Sullivan and Walter Pidgeon along with some solid character actors. It was mainly Edna that made me want to watch this - her raised eyebrows and droll sarcasm is always a treat. Here she mainly uses that from the peanut gallery.
The premise of the film is that the owner of a major NYC newspaper dies and left no will. Their search leads them to a spinster in Nebraska where an aunt (Edna) and her niece (Maureen) live quiet lives. Right away you expect that the spinster refers to Edna but in fact it is Maureen who is not exactly spinster territory. She is for women's rights though and Edna tells her "Shut up about women's rights and you may find a man". Off they go to NYC and meet the chauvinistic editor played by Pidgeon. No women reporters allowed - they are just not smart enough. So, what does our women's right lady do? Falls in love of course.
The two big stories that she helps get are one regarding whether a visiting Queen is pregnant and whether there will be a big strike. That's it? The best you could come up with? How about a murder or big city corruption? Another reviewer suggested that Edna and Maureen should have solved a murder. Yes. The reviewer should have helped Mankiewicz with this script. It needed some pop. It didn't really need Pidgeon shouting every line. Edna in her Hildegarde Withers films was well versed in solving murders. She needed to do it again. Or at a minimum, Edna should have played the spinster who became owner and she battled with the editor to make changes. Just her starched voice and sharp arrows would have given it some levity.