Hollywood felt the need to teach us morality in the early 1930s such as with WEEKEND MARRIAGE (1932) and LUXURY LINER (1933). The delivery however of this Warner Brothers sermon is not given by the charismatic firebrand preacher but by Doris from the delicatessen in Spar. This is not a good film.
Weren't things different once upon a time! This is firmly rooted in the morality of the early thirties and the moral being preached in this was the same as was preached in so many others of the early thirties: know thy place. Watched today the message feels chauvinistic and regressive but although these people look like us, they are from a very different society, a society where such moralising worked.
Marriage was massively important. It was such a different thing back then - it wasn't just a romantic commitment, it was vital for survival. What else could most young women do - there were no other options. Young women needed to get married primarily to have somewhere to live - especially during The Depression. In early thirties movies it seems crazy to us how people seem to marry each other at the drop of a hat but marriage was for security. At the most basic level, marriage was a contract to look after a man, give him children and he will give you somewhere to live. These themes were explored much better in other films.
CALL HER SAVAGE may have been the only decent film John Dillon directed. This is not his finest hour, he doesn't manage to make you care about his cast, he doesn't make them real. Walter Byron is basically Captain Hook from the Christmas Pantomime, Dorothy MacKaill is insipid and H B Warner, the 'concerned dad' is acting like they're making a silent movie. Only Joan Blondell in her little role as feisty little sister acts like she's in a normal film.
Its stilted and unnatural feel possibly wasn't all Mr Dillon's fault, production was being disrupted at the time as Warner's recording equipment was being replaced as this was being made. Ironically the 'inventors' of the talkies were now having to play catch up with the other studios but nevertheless, others at Warners managed to make decent pictures then. This just feels amateurish and unpolished.
I've said that Dorothy MacKaill's character Marie is rather insipid but for the story to work, she has to be nothing more than a mouse. Girls in 1931 would however be able to relate to someone like this more so than to someone more interesting like Joan Crawford, it doesn't make for entertainment though. Whilst the attitudes prevalent of the time makes uncomfortable viewing today, this was how things were and how people thought. Marie nearly ruins her life by trying to be different, trying to marry the man of her choice, not the choice of her parents. It should not annoy us that having one's own mind was frowned upon, that's what kept society working then.
What's been mentioned is how a supporting role from Joan Blondell outshines all the established stars. Joan shortly-to-become-the-sexiest-woman-in-the-world Blondell isn't actually that good but her co-stars are just so dull. She wasn't bad - in fact her performance in this as the sassy sister (or only character actually with any character) helped to secure her long time contract.....in films a lot better than this.
