Gentleman's Fate

A dying gangster reveals himself as the true father of a young society man, thus turning that GENTLEMAN'S FATE completely upside down...

According to cinematic legend, all the talkie MGM films starring John Gilbert were dreadful - the result of a bitter hatred between Gilbert (the highest paid star in Hollywood, with a $1.5 million contract) & studio boss Louis B. Mayer. A determination on Gilbert's part to fulfill the contract, and a campaign instituted by Mayer to destroy Gilbert's career - including spreading the rumor that Gilbert's voice was 'high & feminine', culminated in several unwatchable movies.

Not entirely true. The Studio had a huge financial investment in Jack Gilbert and was not going to completely cut its own throat by showcasing him in nothing but dreck. However, of the 8 MGM talkies in which he appeared as solo star (1929 - HIS GLORIOUS NIGHT; 1930 - REDEMPTION; WAY FOR A SAILOR; 1931 - GENTLEMAN'S FATE; THE PHANTOM OF Paris; WEST OF Broadway; 1932 - DOWNSTAIRS; 1933 - FAST WORKERS) most, including GENTLEMAN'S FATE, were rather ghastly.

Poor editing, a tawdry story line about unpleasant people, unattractive sets and a depressing climax all work together to sink the film. Poor Gilbert seems deflated, obviously embarrassed by appearing in such a poor film. His rather cold appearance & demeanor make it hard to sympathize with his character. What makes matters worse is that he is continually upstaged by Louis Wolheim, who actually gives a noteworthy performance as Gilbert's older, plug-ugly brother. (That these two could actually be siblings is one of the script's most unbelievable contrivances.)

Two lovely ladies, Leila Hyams & Anita Page, grace the film with their presence, but they are sadly wasted. Their romantic tribulations are meaningless to the audience because it is so difficult to warm up to Gilbert, the object of their affections. Paul Porcasi, Frank Reicher & John Miljan all strive to make their small roles meaningful, but they are largely defeated by the unforgiving script.

Marie Prevost has some good moments as a slatternly moll, but it is very sad to see her scenes with Gilbert. One is inevitably reminded that both their lives would be cut short by acute alcoholism, her final circumstances being especially atrocious.

Finally, about The Voice. There was nothing at all strange or unnaturally high about Gilbert's voice. As a matter of fact, it was of medium range & rather cultured & refined. That was the crux of the problem, of course. While it is possible that no voice could have ever matched the perfect one viewers heard in their minds while watching his strong, virile silent roles, the reality was very different from what they wanted to hear (imagine Robert Montgomery's voice coming out of Clark Gable's mouth.) Gilbert was doomed from his first scene in his debut talkie; his war with Mayer only intensified the agony. He would die in 1936, forgotten by most of his former fans, at the age of only 36.

What on earth is everyone's problem with this movie? It has some awkward movement but so did most movies of this era before Hollywood developed its amazing (and often irritating) slickness. The story is kind of a goofy fantasy as are most movies from since they day they were born to the present moment. This is a really fun movie with a great cast. Anita Page and Marie Provost were great bad girls, especially Provost as the gangland superflooze. George Cooper and John Miljan were very entertaining bad boys. But Louis Walheim was the real gem of the piece, sort of a cross between Shrek and Marie Dressler dressed like a guy. As for John Gilbert , I can see how how this may have been a form of career sabotage because he wasn't able to be nearly as gallant as his public wanted to see him. But he demonstrated great range and his chemistry with the whole cast and particularly with Walheim and Page was wonderful. The dialogue was good and the much of the shooting was visually interesting. Of course it doesn't hurt to be a big fan of pre code gangster movies, Hollywood history, and Depression Era cultural history.

Gentleman's Fate is okay, nothing more. To maintain momentum it repeatedly lurches off into another plot tangent, peters out and then lurches again until it finally lurches to a blah finish. It begins with the dapper and handsome Mr. John Gilbert as a pampered Park Avenue- type playboy rising uncharacteristically at 7:30am to declare that he is finished playing the field and determined to marry and settle down with pretty Leila Hyams. Just as he is proposing to her to the strains of "Little White Lies" on the radio over morning coffee against the skyline of the Big Apple, the phone rings, and here is the first lurch. The caller is his wealthy, powerful, Italian-accented "guardian," suddenly informing him that his biological father is dying in Jersey City and wants to see him. He is directed to the "Ritzi" hotel, a dive where he discovers he has a biological brother (played by Louis Wolheim who looks absolutely nothing like Gilbert, an irony which the script is forced to address momentarily) and a gangster father succumbing to a bullet wound from a mob fight. The dying father gives Gilbert an emerald necklace which he in turn passes on to his fiancée, but soon she finds out that it had been stolen from a friend of hers. When she realizes her fiancée is not what she thought, she breaks the engagement, and in a fit of disappointment, Gilbert joins the mob and learns the bootlegging trade. Just when he has mastered it, another lurch. Anita Page shows up as the moll of a rival gang sent to spy on Gilbert's gang, but she switches loyalties, falls in love with Gilbert, and…. I won't go on, lest I spoil the plot for those who haven't seen the film. Marie Prevost provides comic relief, such as she can, as a Ritzi denizen who spends her time uttering inanities while feeding her face with whatever foodstuffs are available.

The photogenic and refined Gilbert is called upon to enact various states including carefree, exuberant, poetic, romantic and passionate, drunk and angry. He is good to excellent at all of them. He is eminently watchable. His voice was indeed high pitched, but not extremely so. One can only guess that his molten lover image from the silent days hung over his screen persona to such an extent that audiences expected more depth from the vocal chords. There is no logical reason why Gilbert should be cast in this role. Antonio Moreno, perhaps, or maybe even Ricardo Cortez, but Gilbert? Clearly, MGM was out to sabotage him and to his credit he stood up and did justice to the thankless task presented to him.

Earlier this morning I was watching a movie on TCM from 1931 - "Gentleman's Fate". It was the first "talkie" that John Gilbert did after reigning as the matinée idol of the "silents", and the fateful movie that revealed his nasally throated voice, sadly. Yet, it was a great teaching on how movies struggled with sound after being quiet for many years.

The awkward moves and scene flows of each actor, and no music rising or lowering under scenes, made for an interesting movie.

In my opinion though, the best part in the whole flick was when a character was coming down the stairs obviously intoxicated.

The "dame" who sees him is cracking and eating walnuts and asks,

"Hey. Are you plastered?" In which he replies, "Plastered? Sistah ... I'm Stuccoed!" Another character enters the scene as the drunkard leaves. The "dame" reaches out her hand to offer the cracked walnuts and says, "...nuts?"

He looks at the drunk struggling to climb back up the stairs, looks back at her and just nods..."...yes".

Ya just can't get dialog like that anymore! Loved it.

This was MGM's big hope of getting on the Warner Brothers' gangster film bandwagon. Although this turned out to be a reasonable gangster movie which does look very much like a real Warner picture, there's not much emotion to engage you.

Warner's Mervyn LeRoy was loaned to MGM to give this that gritty underworld edginess he had given to LITTLE CEASAR which he'd made a few months earlier. LeRoy certainly succeeds; again he perfectly encapsulates the shabby seedy and constantly dangerous feel of the era. He further enhances this by contrasting it with the upper class society world Jack, played by John Gilbert believed he was born into. It proves that MGM could also make a WB gangster movie but something is missing: it lacks soul.

That emotional disengagement is what would reduce this from 'great' to just 'good.' This film is however not 'good' but just 'ok' and that's because the acting is atrocious, really atrocious. Being made in 1931 is no excuse for bad acting, the style is deliberate and down to the director. Mervyn LeRoy made excellent films so it's ofd that he was so below par with this - especially considering he had a bigger budget than he was used to at Warners - maybe that was the problem? You also wonder whether Jack Warner might have said to his employee, LeRoy, that it might be a good idea if he didn't make this picture for a rival studio quite as good as he could? What is surprising is how little influence Mervyn LeRoy seems to have over how John Gilbert performs. John Gilbert, who was possibly the biggest star of the silent screen so he knew what his fans wanted...or what they wanted five years earlier. You can't teach an old dog new tricks especially when that old dog thinks what it's doing is what is needed and also when it's being paid $10,000 a week to do it. Long moody stares and even longer dramatic pauses don't cut the mustard anymore! Perhaps Mervyn LeRoy was too nervous to risk changing Gilbert's tried and trusted style?

Watching films from 1929/30 you can tell which actors will succeed in the talkies and which ones won't: John Gilbert definitely looks like one that won't. He comes across very much like an actor rather than a real believable character. He's not a bad actor, he's just not suited for this. Someone who is a bad actor is Louis Wolheim. He plays the brother and although it's sad to learn that he died just a few days after filming this, he still is the worst actor in the world. He's truly appalling - well, he is to us in the 21st century. It's interesting to get a peak into the minds of those who were alive then to see what they considered to be good acting.

Personally I'm not much of a fan of LITTLE CAESAR and I didn't actually find this particularly worse. Those are both massively inferior to PUBLIC ENEMY and the the magnificent lesser known Paramount gangster film of 1931, CITY STREETS. This is still worth watching but if you're a fan of thirties gangster films, it's absolutely essential.