The Duke of West Point

Louis Hayward is the fifth generation of his family to attend Wet Point, but with his British accent -- explained by eight years in English Public Schools -- athletic achievements, and cocky attitude, upperclassmen like Alan Curtis look to clip his wings, without success. Nonetheless, his room mates, Tom Brown and Richard Carlson, like him, and he tears up the football gridiron because of his skill at rugby. But when Carlson's mother falls sick, and Carlson feels he must resign, Hayward telegraphs her the money with orders not to tell Carlson, lest he resign anyway.... and he's caught out while doing so. He refuses to resign, so the cadets subject him to the Silence; no one will speak to him. Only his room mates are exempt.

Alfred Green does his typically good job directing this movie, which never talks about service or patriotism, just loyalty to the Army. Still, despite its length, it's good to watch, and the way editor Grant Whytock manages to make Hayward a great football and ice hockey player is fascinating for those on the look for it. With Joan Fontaine, Don Barry, Charles D. Brown, Jed Prouty, and Jonathan Hale.

Following in the footsteps of 'Brown of Harvard' this supremely nondescript buddy movie detailing the activities of a group of young jocks on the football field at West Point has one sole reason to merit your attention in the form of young actress standing on the sidelines by the name of Joan Fontaine, relatively new to pictures and thus cast dramatically against what was soon to become type.

At the time treading water when she was loaned by RKO to United Artists to make this movie she gives a performance the likes of which she would never gave again as a graceful and patrician young lady dressed to the nines in a fashion recalling the young Myrna Loy.

In the 1920s to the mid-1930s, William Haines was one of the most popular leading men in Hollywood. MGM found a formula and they put Haines in the same sort of film again and again....and again. In each of them, Haines played a very talented guy who had a HUGE ego. He would alienate those around him and eventually he would crash and burn. But by the end of the film, he would do something selfless and regain everybody's trust and respect. However, despite these films being popular with audiences, MGM stopped making them in 1934. Why? Because Haines was openly gay, and the new, tougher Production Code called for Hollywood to 'clean up its act'...and that meant gay actors had to hide very deep in the closet. Haines refused...and his film career was over at that point.

I mention all this because although Haines was gone from the screen by 1938, this sort of movie still existed. While "The Duke of West Point" was not made by MGM and didn't have Haines, it was in every way another Haines movie. The plot here is exactly the same...the only big difference was that this one starred Louis Hayward.

Steven Early is an American raised in England...which would account for Hayward's accent. Following his graduation from Cambridge, he arrives at West Point to become a cadet...which is odd, since he already would have a bachelor's degree. Regardless, he makes a pain of himself with his brashness although in most cases he's able to back it up. His grades are good and he's a valuable member of the football team. However, he's so arrogant and flaunts the rules...and you know eventually he (like Haines in his films) would get his comeuppance. The only question is how bad will he fall and what does he do to gain everyone's respect?

It's interesting that Steven's love interest was played by Joan Fontaine. He played a Brit...but Fontaine was also British and she hides her accent quite well. Both are very good.

The film, because it is so formulaic and predictable, it's not a great movie....it's more an agreeable and familiar time-passer. Not a bad film...just nothing all that new despite the change in leading man.

In the 1930's, a lot of movies were released about well-off scalawags with hearts of gold. The population, groaning under weight of the Depression, loved to see depictions of glamorous and wealthy people that showed they were `just like us.' Partly, these movies undermined the class resentment that might otherwise have grown during hard times, partly they held out the promise to everyman that one day he, too, could share in the good life.

By the time `The Duke of West Point' came along, however, this sort of thing was getting pretty old hat. What's interesting about it, however, is that it is the `Duke's' very otherness that makes him stand out as the star, not his common-placeness. The titular `Duke' is actually an American raised in England and schooled at Cambridge who goes to West Point out of family tradition. He speaks like an Englishman and has a variety of bizarre idiosyncrasies, but has an infuriating tendency to always get his own way, a characteristic that makes upperclassmen resent him. In spite of his relatively slight build, he also happens to be an outstanding athlete, apparently able to master any sport in seconds.

All this sets him up to be an insufferable snob, and he is, really. But he does have the ubiquitous heart of gold, and the audience largely sees him through the eyes of his everyman American roommates (played by Richard Carlson and Tom Browne), who he will go to any length to support, even at potential disgrace to himself. There is a curious ambiguity when he receives his comeuppance, at the hands of almost the entire school (apart from those loyal roommates): Yes, he deserves it, and he needs to be taught a lesson, but, no, he isn't such a bad guy as all that.

In the end, I found it hard to root for the Duke. He breaks rules for the fun of it, acts like he is doing the American military a favor by attending its finest institution and woos the one girl within miles of the campus. I also found it hard to watch all those endless sporting events - I have no real interest in ice hockey, football or `ruggers,' although I suppose in the days before television a sports fan would have been thrilled to see a sporting event shot so professionally. This film is an interesting relic of a bygone age, and little more.

Approximately 10-15 min into this movie, technical issues such as lighting & other (minor) aspects problematic to most films leading up to the late 30's, prompted an urge to search elsewhere, for yet another 'oldie but a goodie'...., succumbed to these little gold nuggets of compelling brilliance, followed by a well-structured & fascinating, human-interest story.

Personally, it was one of (if not) the, best directorial {and acting} presentations, for having communicated, the often misunderstood notion, of accurately defining what is, authentic character. Love finding hidden treasures like this film that are decades old, but still have a relevant connection almost 80 years later.