Waterloo Bridge

Since the story is so well known by some of the very good reviewers here, I am merely adding my surprise at the discovery of the talent of Mae Clarke. I had no idea she had done this original version and according to the collected IMDb data, Ms. Clarke was just 20 years old when she worked on this excellent adaptation of the play. There is no need to compare her performance to Vivien Leigh's later remake, because that film had no real grit and Clarke's performance was one of the best I have ever seen from a performer despite her youth. The film was shot soon after talkies began and her screen presence and non theatrical emoting was astonishingly on target. The director, Whale, must have had a good rapport because her scenes with all of the players came off honest and not a bit dated. I can see that Davis would have liked to play the part as someone mentioned, but she could not have done a better job. I just discovered it on the Turner channel and became so engrossed in Clarke's performance, I called people to get a copy and watch this actress' work. Quite remarkable.

It's not often one sees a film of this era with as much straightforward, realistic acting and characterization. It's not perfect in that regard, of course, and there's still a bit of the silent era heavy makeup and staging, but the honest and unstylized delivery of actor after actor is astonishing.

Although Mae Clarke's performance as Myra is justifiably lauded, Kent Douglass's (his screen name here) clean, fluid, unexaggerated portray is a delight to watch (in spite of the aforementioned eye makeup). Both Frederick Kerr and Enid Bennett as Roy's step-father and mother are priceless. The scenes between Mary, Roy's mother, and Mae are especially satisfying for their unassuming honesty.

I never thought I would enjoy this production of "Waterloo Bridge" more than the 1940 remake with Robert Taylor and Vivien Leigh. For one thing, this version is a straight narrative which is more suspenseful than the flashback construction of the remake. Secondly, Kent Douglass has that boyish quality which makes his naiveté much more believable than Robert Taylor's. And finally, the pacing and casting of the supporting actors by James Whale couldn't be beat. Ethel Griffies, as the heartless landlady, Enid Bennett, as Douglass' sympathetic but forceful mother, and Doris Lloyd, Clarke's practical but unfeeling prostitute friend, were all standouts. I had never seen Mae Clarke in such a strong dramatic role, which she handles more beautifully than I ever thought she could, conveying her anguish at loving a man but being ashamed of having become a prostitute. And, of course, there is Bette Davis in a small inconsequential role very early in her career; she was still a pleasure to watch. By all means, see this film! You won't regret it.

Waterloo Bridge (1931)

An amazing movie. Set in London during World War I, directed by the man who directed the original (and also amazing) Frankenstein, and with photography by the less known but first rate Arthur Edeson (Frankenstein, yes, but also Casablanca, no less). And throw in an astonishing actress, Mae Clarke, and you can see why it doesn't falter. She plays a struggling chorus girl and prostitute with snappy, lively believability. The lead male, Douglass Montgomery, playing a sweet hearted American soldier, is also a surprise face, totally charming, a perfect complement to Clarke. As characters, the young soldier's bright optimism brings out the best in the struggling but good hearted street girl.

The story is fast, and not completely predictable, and has a blow-out of an ending, really nice. Though set in the teens it feels modern (maybe too modern, historically). I never knew that London had a kind of Blitz experience in WWI, just as they would a decade after this film was released, and looking it up I found the Germans used zeppelins over London in the first war much the same was as they did (with planes) in WWII--to demoralize the civilian population. It adds tense excitement to the film throughout, and to the last scenes in particular, even if it isn't completely realistic (for some reason people don't scramble for cover even as the bombs are being dropped, maybe to portray that stiff upper lip thing).

Is this just a silly romance? No, no way, not when the two actors in it are so fresh and convincing, giving sparkling, nuanced performances miles away from the stiffness we associate with early sound films (or with many silent movies). This is a first rate and fast movie and honest, only 79 minutes long, with fully formed soundtrack and solid supporting cast (including a young Betty Davis, who is already confident and familiar as the sister of the leading man). The LeRoy remake of 1940 is a testimony to the strength of the story (and it is also really good). But if you want to see an early gem on its own terms, here it is. Highly recommended.

Mae Clarke is a revelation as a prostitute in the original "Waterloo Bridge". The film was eclipsed by the 1940 remake starring Vivian Leigh and until recently this earlier version was unavailable. This pre-code version holds up beautifully and is better in many ways because of its frankness and because of Mae Clarke's ferocious performance. Kent Douglas plays the 19 year old soldier who falls in love with the prostitute, not realizing her true profession.The movie seems more realistic than the remake because, Douglas looks and acts like a callow 19 year old,and Clarke is very believable as the prostitute who tries to protect her soldier lover from the truth about herself. Neither Clarke nor Douglas became major stars and you can see that they lack the larger than life glamour of Vivian Leigh and Robert Taylor who starred in the remake.However, Clarke and Douglas add a touch of realism which was a hallmark of many of the pre-code movies and which wouldn't be found in American movies in abundance until the 1970's.