I'm not altogether familiar with everyone who appears here, but three names are enough to begin forming an opinion. Carole Lombard, appearing in the primary supporting role, was a great actress, and a comedic genius. Louise Brooks, here in a bit part, was a legend of the silent era, ahead of her time. Eugene Pallette, in a secondary supporting role, demonstrated swell range and versatility in his career. Here, all three - and their costars - are reduced to portrayals that too often feel dull and lifeless. I know the deficient acting isn't the fault of the players, which means it must be accounted for by either weak writing or weak direction.
There are some strong ideas in the adapted screenplay concocted between Ethel Doherty and Arthur Kober. I detect lively and varied character writing, and sharp and sometimes cutting dialogue. The narrative is complete and cohesive, and like the scene writing that builds it, is slanted strictly toward fun. The situational comedy at the heart of 'It pays to advertise' produces light amusement that's good for some soft chuckles. And yet - more so than not, half the runtime has passed before a real sense of entertainment manifests. Even still, and almost as prevalent in the second 30 minutes as in the first, there are instances where scenes are overfull, or self-indulgent, and unnecessary to either the levity or the story being told. Other scenes feel underwhelming, or ill-considered. I think the writing is stronger than not in wide strokes, but it's a bumpy ride.
That leaves the direction. Frank Tuttle's name isn't well known to me, but I suppose it should be, seeing as how he betrayed fellow leftists to fascists in the U. S. government during the McCarthy era. That doesn't speak to his worth as a filmmaker, of course, but to his character - yet if 'It pays to advertise' is any indication, one facet is just as flawed as the other. If the cast isn't to blame, nor the writing, for the broadly spiritless lack of meaningful merriment, then it must be Tuttle. This picture is derived from a play, and with the absence of any music for 98% of the duration, it certainly feels like it. If Tuttle took the notion of such adaptation a step too far, perhaps that explains the restrained air about the acting and the entertainment at large. It's worse than that, though: so wholly bereft is the feature of real, lasting mirth that it comes across not as a motion picture, not as a stage play, but almost as more of a table reading, with no vigor beyond what one may summon while seated in a chair. I don't know about Norman Foster, Richard Gallagher, or others involved here, but I do know that Lombard, Brooks, and Pallette are far, far better than this.
I want to like this more than I do, but the passing enjoyment to be obtained herein is scarcely greater than what any fundamental presentation of light and sound may portend. It's harder still to take pleasure in the production when the cinematography and sound design seem flat and hollow, diminishing what can be perceived on a rudimentary level of some intended jokes. And with that, it's difficult to care much about rounding details like art direction or production design. I began watching with high expectations based on the cast alone, but the level of Good Times to be had with the feature can maybe best be visualized as a bell curve - a mostly straight line along the horizontal axis, with a thin, short protrusion in the middle. There is some value here, but plainly not enough to make it especially worthwhile. Unless you have a distinct reason to seek it out, 'It pays to advertise' isn't really a movie I can recommend.
