Mujeres ligeras

Reviews of this film do not make clear that it apparently is available in both sound and silent versions. The version of this film borrowed from our local library was the silent version as apparently this film was Capra's 2nd talkie and last silent (per Moviediva web site). It had a very distracting soundtrack that did not match the moods on the screen at all. Still, if you are a Capra or Stanwyck fan, the silent version is better than none at all and worth the time. Hopefully, I will be able to see a sound version on Turner or AMC.

I'm contributing this mainly to comment on what most of the other reviews say that I disagree with: Ralph Graves was perfect in this role. Yes, he's wooden, but that's what works so perfectly with Barbara Stanwyck. Where it really matters is in their romantic scenes: first on his balcony, then at breakfast and particularly after his father leaves and they really get together for the first time. I'm not saying he's a good actor in general, but they had great chemistry in this film, and that's worth a lot. He's a realistic type of man, very focused and businesslike; some people think an artist couldn't be like that, but that's not true. It's frustrating to see everyone remarking on the clever performances of Marie Prevost and Lowell Sherman and denigrating Graves. The picture hangs together very well precisely because all the roles are ideally cast. Doubtless Stanwyck and Capra supply the magic. It's a film that's new to me, and I keep going back to it.

It's the old hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold story but Barbara Stanwyck and director Frank Capra make it shine. Not only is Stanwyck great but there isn't a bad performance by anyone in the film, even down to the minor characters. Capra attains a naturalness from his actors rare at this point in the talkies. The only complaint might by that Ralph Graves' accent is more convincing for a cowboy than a son of the upper crust, but that's a quibble. Other pluses are Jo Swerling's smart dialogue with hardly an unnecessary line and John Walker's cinematography, the best of its time (the night scene as Stanwyck spends the night on Graves' couch is a marvel of lighting, pacing and atmosphere).

Although this is not the type of film I'd usually watch, I was blown away by its intensity and depth of emotion. It's a fabulously made picture about hope: finding hope when it seems impossible, finding hope when it's not being looked for, finding hope when it's felt that it's not deserved.

Unlike a lot of films from around 1930, time is taken for proper character development which is essential to a picture of this nature. Each person is allowed to evolve into someone real, three-dimensional and believable. The care in creating such authenticity isn't just confined to the leads, the supporting characters, even their two friends, who aren't quite comedy relief but do lighten the mood are proper rounded characters. Unlike your typical Warner Brothers quickie in which a hundred things happen at quickfire machine gun speed, there's hardly any action in this at all. Scenes are used to tell the story and build the tension. It's a relatively long film but it most certainly does not drag.

What is also incredible is that this was made in 1930 - have you seen most of the absolute rubbish that was made in 1930? Why is this so good? Is it because of Frank Capra's direction or because of Barbara Stanwyck? The technical professionalism, the acting and the overall feel of this is light years ahead of most of the output from that year. If you didn't know any better you'd probably guess that this was made in the 1940s. The question is, if a film from 1930 could be made this good, why were most films from that year so dreadful! Frank Capra doesn't use any particularly obvious gimmicks, fancy techniques or wacky camera angles, just perfect filmmaking, perfect photography, perfect acting and above all, perfect storytelling. He distils the story with razor-sharp focus directly on the emotions and mental anguish of Stanwyck's character, 'Kay.' The world outside of her relationship with 'Jerry' is made to seem fuzzy and unfocused in comparison with the intensity of what she is experiencing. It takes skill to make a story so entertaining in which there's so little action, one where the characters themselves rather than what they're doing, is what we're watching but Capra manages it.

It's equally refreshing that a film which garners its drama from the inequality of society that it manages to criticize the system without condemning it, the rich aren't the typical lazily written pantomime moustache-twirling villains exploiting the poor often seen in films about the haves and the have-nots but are treated with some sympathy. Had this been made a year later when The Great Depression had properly started however, this might have been handled differently?

Capra enforces the feel is isolation experienced by Kay as she becomes part of that alien high-society world with some beautiful imagery. There are the long shots to the exclusive penthouse suites showing how far away from the real world they are. When Kay stays over in Jerry's apartment for the first time she's not sure she's meant to be there, she knows she doesn't really belong and the way the camera films this from an outside window surreptitiously makes us the viewer also a little uneasy as well, are we supposed to be watching this? We're outsiders as well, we're not meant to be there either. The us and them motif is even used in the edge of the seat climax: when Kay's friend has to find Jerry she has to struggle up the stairs to the top of the skyscraper where he lives because she's not allowed the easy ride up in the elevator.

It's not a fantastic film but it is a proper film and I can't help again just being amazed how this could possibly have been made when most films in 1930 were sheer dross. I am also amazed that this was only Barbara Stanwyck's third talkie because she's impossibly good. There's probably a Star Trek episode where a movie made in the 1940s slipped back to 1930 through some time vortex, can't think of any better explanation.

One reviewer here complimented the whole cast of "Ladies of Leisure." Well, I must respectfully disagree. I found Ralph Graves' performance to be rather wooden. Graves had been in films since he was teenager just after Word Ware I had ended, but clearly he found it difficult to deliver a natural performance in the sound medium.

I do recommend the film for historical purposes if nothing else. It was released in the Spring of 1930 and may have been filmed in late 1929. That would definitely qualify "Ladies of Leisure" as a member of that first generation of sound films dating from 1928 to 1930.

One thing I wondered about is whether a boom mic was used. I think someone else opined that hidden mics, placed here and there around the set were still used in this production. I do know from my reading that sound film technology was making progress just about on a week by week basis in those early days.