Get Your Man

There are two kinds of silent comedies: those starring recognized comedic actors (Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Charlie Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy, and so on), whatever their level of renown, and those starring actors who, whatever their level of renown, were not famous specifically for their comedy. The former are almost always guaranteed to be a blast; for the latter, results may vary significantly. Even before we consider the film itself, having a legend like Clara Bow attached to your picture is guaranteed to attract viewers, but not necessarily elicit laughs, and that's without even considering whether or not there will be expression herein of values that have not aged well over the past several decades. With all this very firmly in mind, how does Dorothy Arzner's 'Get your man' hold up? As if all this dry prattle weren't evidence enough, suffice to say that more than ninety years later, it's no premier gut-buster, and for both good and ill, it does dally with values that are alien to our modern world. It is still modestly fun, though, and sometimes that's all a flick needs to be to succeed.

It's fair to wonder exactly how this was received by audiences in 1927; in 2023, it takes fifteen minutes to earn its first laugh. In fairness, that paucity is no doubt informed by the tenor of the movie (bearing touches of romantic drama), and the changing of societal mores over the years. There's also the fact that, simply put, the feature as it exists is both damaged and incomplete. (Also in fairness, it takes only another ten to earn the second laugh, and yes, there are more.) None of this is to say that the title isn't enjoyable, because it certainly is, and it would be even if we weren't treated to specific highlights. I'll even say that it picks up as it goes along, building to a strong finish in the last minutes. Even as it presents in its extant form the story is rich with potential, and I'd rather like to see Louis Verneuil's play itself, or even a new period adaptation. The situational humor - peppered intermittently with splendid gags - really is a minor delight; the cast at large is wonderfully charming and capable, including Josephine Dunn and Harvey Clark, among others. And in all manners this is very well made, including Arzner's sharp direction, gorgeous sets and costume design, lovely hair and makeup, and even some unexpectedly smart cinematography.

One way or another this is no major must-see. It feels like some faults shine through even despite the status of the picture; one doesn't need to be familiar with Verneuil's stage play to get a sense that this screenplay had cut some corners. Even if you're a devotee of the silent era, or a huge fan of someone involved, I wouldn't say it's a priority; just as much to the point, there's nothing here to change the minds of those who have difficulty engaging with older cinema. I, who love silent films, also sat with mixed to high expectations based simply on the involvement of Bow at the peak of her career, and my reaction is relatively mild. Nonetheless it remains worthwhile on its own merits; owing to how language changes, there are even some bits that are even funnier now than they would have been upon release. Failing that, in the very least it is to be treasured as a (mostly) surviving silent feature. Nearly one century later there's nothing about 'Get your man' that comes across as a stroke of brilliance, not even some terrific shot composition, or the best of the comedy - yet while it may not demand viewership, it's still solidly if softly entertaining, and for those who are receptive to the style, I'm pleased to give it a fair recommendation.

As a boy, handsome Charles "Buddy" Rogers (as Robert Albin) was betrothed to fetching young Josephine Dunn (as Simone de Valens), by respective fathers Josef Swickard (as the Duke of Albin) and Harvey Clark (as the Marquis de Valens). Seventeen years later, the French noble class prepare for Mr. Rogers' pre-arranged wedding. Rogers is sent to the city (Paris) to pick up a string of pearls for the bride, and meets sexy Clara Bow (as Nancy Worthington). Rogers continually runs into Ms. Bow, a New Yorker spending her first unchaperoned day in the romantic city.

By their third meeting, Rogers and Bow are clearly becoming attracted to each other. They fall in love in a wax museum. Bow thinks, "It must be fate." Rogers is stricken with Bow, but feels honor-bound to go through with his Saturday wedding to Ms. Dunn. Sadly, Rogers and Bow part. But, Bow has a plan to "Get Your Man". She stages an automobile accident at Rogers' château, and ingratiates herself into the family. After learning that Rogers' intended wife has a lover, Bow is more determined than ever to break up the unhappy couple.

Reels #2 and #3 of this slightly damaged, six reel feature are lost, but it's still a cohesive, enjoyable film.

The missing footage contains more of Bow and Rogers romancing in Paris, then Bow's staged accident at his château. The accident and aftermath are certainly missed, but it isn't too difficult to comprehend what's happened. Director Dorothy Arzner and photographer Alfred Gilks capture their stars beautifully. That Rogers catches his sleeve on a suitcase while packing, and has to kick a fallen pillow out of the way gives his performance a natural spontaneity. Bow is fresh and playful. The supporting cast is a treasure chest. Hopefully, this film has been saved from any further deterioration.

******* Get Your Man (12/4/27) Dorothy Arzner ~ Clara Bow, Charles 'Buddy' Rogers, Harvey Clark

Get Your Man is a great silent starring Buddy Rogers. This was his second co-starring with Clara Bow, the first being 1927's Wings. Set in France, the tale starts with a young Buddy at a betrothal ceremony to a young French girl. Then, when they've grown up and are getting ready for the big day, Clara the American girl shows up. After falling in love with Buddy, Clara starts an elaborate plan to 'get her man'. Overall, it is a light, cute comedy.

This movie is basically a trite variation on the "Ruritania" romances that were still popular at the time, and unfortunately so, because the wonderfully modern and very American Clara Bow was bound to seem out of place amidst aristocrats of the Old Country. "Get Your Man" is set there to provide the plot with its necessary mechanism: Arranged marriage between nobles, an outdated concept even then that provides the necessary conflict here, as Clara learns she must liberate her newfound French love from pre-arranged imminent nuptials. Neither he or his intended really want to go through with it, but they both feel obligated to follow their titled parents' wishes to unite the family trees.

Clara is pretty unlikely as a wealthy American socialite "touring the Continent," but then the equally all- American Charles "Buddy" Rogers is no more credible as a French baronet or whatever he's supposed to be. There's nothing wrong with making such leaps in a movie as frivolously escapist as this one. But the problem is that the "refined" setting means Clara has to be relatively restrained, getting few opportunities for the kind of ebullience that is her trademark. Late in the movie there's a bit quite obviously shoehorned in to provide at least one opportunity for her natural physicality, when she wildly throws things about her guest bedroom in order to fake some sort of amorous abandon that others will hear (thus creating a scandal that will free Rogers from his wedding). And indeed it's the highlight here.

Otherwise, this is a pleasant enough but forgettable vehicle cranked out on the Paramount assembly at a time when Bow was making one movie after another--six in this year alone. Significant chunks of it are presumed permanently lost, and those gaps are filled in by a combination of titles and production stills.

Unfortunately, that includes most of what was obviously intended as the standout novelty sequence, in which the two leads find they're been locked overnight in a creepy Madame Tussaud's-style wax museum. Seeing Clara assume the same comical "I'm scared!" expression in multiple, very posed-looking publicity stills does not, alas, give much sense of how the gags would have played out in the complete original sequence. But hey, we'll take what we can get with what survives of her movies.

According to IMDb, portions of this film are missing--heck, two of the six reels are supposedly missing! However, despite this, I decided to give the film a watch and was surprised that the story worked out pretty well despite the missing reels. As for the remaining ones, they're in reasonably good shape but with a little degradation here and there.

When the story begins, Duke Robert is betrothed to Simone. What's so odd about this? Well, Simone is an infant and Robert looks to be about 4!

Years pass and Robert (Buddy Rogers)goes into town (Paris) to have some pearls re-strung. Once there, he meets vivacious Nancy (Clara Bow) and they soon hit it off. The trouble is that he's engaged and so they part.

Here is where the missing reels occur.

Now apparently Nancy's been in some sort of accident and is staying in Robert's home and I assumed neither she nor he realized this. Later in one of the reels you learned she arranged this accident! Robert's father is the one who took her in and he is very taken by Nancy...as is Simone's father. Later, Nancy learns separately that neither Simone nor Robert want to marry each other but are doing so simply out of obligation. So, to help them (and herself) she hatches a scheme that might enable the engagement to be broken. This scheme includes getting engaged to one of the fathers! So how does it all work out in this light romance? See for yourself...it's posted on YouTube.

As I said above, despite missing a portion of the film, the overall film is STILL worth seeing--which is rather surprising. The story also works well because if Bow's character just schemed to split up an engagement, she would have been a jerk and the story wouldn't have worked. But instead of being just a schemer, she's quite likable and the story sweet and well done.

I would sure love to learn one day that they've found the missing reels. This HAS happened with quite a few films in recent years, so we can only hope!