Opiniones de usuarios

This little precode film deals with the unfortunate fact that hormonal activity peaks at the same time in life that critical decisions must be made. In this case we have a couple half-way through college - Betty and Mike - that are starting to suffer certain "urges". Mike wants to get married, but Betty thinks that if Mike drops out of college to marry her, he'll regret it someday and she wants them to wait. In the meantime, popular coed Duke Galloway sees an opportunity in this romantic intermission and starts to put the moves on Betty.

All of this angst leads Mike to drink heavily one night and fall for the charms of local waitress Dora Swale. Dora is OK with the fact that this is a one night stand, but just as Mike is getting ready to leave her house, Dora's dad appears, and he is not at all happy about the situation.

If this seems very frank and daring for 1932, it is. There are no big name stars in this film. The biggest name is John Halliday as Professor David Matthews who acts as a father figure to Mike, even though he is given to handing out confusing advice. He and Barbara act as an analog for the possible future Mike and Betty - they were in love and waited to finish their education. After graduation they found that there was nothing to pick up where they had left off, and are now heading into middle age alone. The best lines go to Arline Judge as Dora. She doesn't look like her, but Arline's voice, her movements, and definitely her attitude are precode Stanwyck.

I've already mentioned how things stay the same - the hormonal challenges of late adolescence/early adulthood. How things have changed is the lesson this film seems to teach - that college is optional and even a possible obstacle in seeking true happiness, and maybe it was in 1932 when people married earlier and needed less skill to make a living wage. Today, however, it is an essential rite of passage to a middle class lifestyle, and even then there are no guarantees.

Based upon a play, "The Age of Consent" is a film of ideas. Although it might first seem like just another flippantly written pre-code story about young love, the title is the first clue. The age of consent in a particular jurisdiction is the age at which one can legally consent to sexual acts. Knowing this, the viewer might consider it an allusion to the line between immaturity and maturity that the students of State University ride. They are not yet ready for the responsibilities of adult life, but the educational process asks them to consider the large issues of life.

A stone bench on campus is the second clue to the serious ideas this film explores. "In loco parentis" is a Latin phrase meaning "in the place of a parent" and it is a concept regarding the (if you will, fiduciary) legal role of a college, upon accepting a student in its care, to assume some responsibilities of a parent and, therefore, some legal liabilities. That phrase is carved into this bench, where we see Professor David Matthews (John Halliday) offer parental advice and comfort to student Mike Harvey (Richard Cromwell).

Both legal concepts figure heavily in the story. The campus is a seemingly idyllic setting where students can exist in an ivory tower, away from the harsh realities of the outside world, to explore controversial and abstract ideas, like free love. But innocence resides there with burgeoning passions and the difficulties they present.

The moral relativism that many feared would result from abstract ideas and newer scientific principles, e.g. Darwinism and a revised astronomical view of man's place in the universe, come head to head with the "older" moral certainties of absolutism and church dogma. Will love find a place in the crossfire?

This film features good, sparkling dialogue and some excellent acting. The ending may be a surprise for many viewers.

This is a better cultural artifact than a movie . . . but it's a very watchable movie. Catch it on TCM.

The alert is for Richard Cromwell, who plays the young man in what I'll call "a situation" with a townie waitress. He's a pretty good actor I've not seen in any other pictures -- and a 24-carat ringer for Leonardo DiCaprio! Their resemblance is beyond close; it's frightening: looks, body language, the whole package. (I am not a good judge of voices, but I don't think they're too far apart.) . . . Since IMDb is insisting on 10 lines' worth of comment even tho' I'm done, I agree w/ the other posted comments about the snappy yet smarmy pre-Code tone of this movie. That's what makes it such an artifact. If I were Robert Osborne (and we're all SO lucky I'm not), this movie would be double-billed with "The Story of Temple Drake," a bleaker look at the same good-time era starring Miriam Hopkins.

The Age Of Consent is a terribly dated before the Code film with a Victorian era plot and loaded with sexual innuendo. This would have made a great Cecil B. DeMille silent film.

The Age Of Consent began as a play called Cross Roads which had the misfortune of opening on Broadway within two weeks of the Stock Market crash. After that Broadway closed a lot of shows because folks couldn't afford the theater. Cross Roads only ran 28 performances and Franchot Tone and Sylvia Sidney were in the supporting roles that Eric Linden and Arline Judge play on the screen.

The leads are Richard Cromwell and Dorothy Wilson who are in love and going through a lot of angst. Dorothy's a good kid who doesn't want to give it up before she has a wedding ring on her finger. Richard's even ready to quit school. But when she says no he goes off with the local waitress at the college hangout Arline Judge.

Catching him alone with his daughter puritanical dad Richard Barlow says no one is going to disgrace my daughter, marry her or else because she's still a minor. Poor Cromwell sees his whole life slipping away, all the plans he had for his future, just gone up in smoke.

It all kind of works out for most of the cast. John Halliday is her as the wise science professor who acts as mentor and father figure to the college kids. Barlow's part is interesting his type is still around today, ignorant and proud of it. Look for a young Betty Grable as one of the coeds.

It's an interesting story and typical of the times. But thank God we seem to have moved away from the attitudes expressed by Barlow in The Age Of Consent.

The title and synopsis suggest that this might be some silly pre-code fluffy nonsense but it's absolutely not! This is a mature and thought provoking drama with naturalistic acting, realistic dialogue giving a shocking insight into who we were in the 1930s.

Hopefully I'm not making it sound like some dry documentary - this is pure slap you in the face type melodrama but also a real education! It explains so much about the attitudes and ideas of the time. What makes it so compelling isn't just the themes it's the likeability and the surprising realism of the characters. Even Eric Linden who's often atrocious is great in this. Likewise, pretty Arline Judge who's pretty awful in other pictures in this, with a good director, is fantastic, channeling her 'inner-Barbara Stanwyck.'

University life in 1932...or really the late twenties when this was written, doesn't seem too different to how it was in my time in the 1980s. Although nobody's arguing about whether Pink Floyd or Yes are best or what to watch on the TV, they're still a) not discussing course work and b) obsessed with sex. It's all weirdly relatable.

The plot, which as I say, explains the attitudes of so many 1930s movies centres on a student who has sex with a waitress....they're caught by her dad who informs the student that she's under-age...so he has two choices according to the law: a) go to jail or b) marry his daughter. Before the eleventh century, if you had sex with someone you were legally married.... times hadn't changed too much had they but this is the 1930s not the Middle Ages! I was staggered that this was the pronouncement of a court.

'But we don't love each other.' they'd argue. 'What's love got to do with marriage?' they'd reply ad though answering the most absurd question ever, 'Marriage isn't about love, it's about doing the right thing.' I guess this explains why so many people in 1930s pictures get married so quickly without really getting to know each other. No sex before marriage wasn't just an idea, it was part of our make-up, one of our unbreakable, unquestionable Ten Commandments.

To a lesser degree, the other topic this pokes into is class. When I was in Oxford there was a distinct line between town and gown. It was either Dr Who or Star Trek where two separate communities existed on the same planet in the same space but were separated somehow so they never knew of each other's existence - Oxford was a bit like that in the eighties but in the late twenties of this film, that segregation was even wider. Only the super-rich could afford to go to university back then so what happened between this testosterone filled student and the randy teenage waitress is an exploration of what happens classes clash - could an entitled son of a millionaire live happily ever after with an 'uneducated' working class daughter of a labourer? Society says they must!

This belongs with those other early thirties pictures such as NIGHT COURT, BABY FACE, SHE HAD TO SAY YES, BAD GIRL etc. Which make you realise that you wouldn't really want to have lived back then.

The Pre-Code era lasted from about 1930 to mid-1934. During this time, Hollywood had a production code but routinely ignored it. In other words, though they set up a board to oversee films to ensure that they were wholesome, these folks were essentially a rubber stamp for the studios. As a result, all sorts of amazingly adult plots made their way to the big screen. Plots involving abortion, adultery, homosexuality and premarital sex were surprisingly common...that is, until the new and tougher Production Code was enforced starting in July, 1934...after which, films became quite sanitized and wholesome...and occasionally a bit dull or cryptic. In other words movies either needed to be nice and sweet or they needed to talk around subjects...implying much but saying and doing very little.

It's very obvious that "The Age of Consent" is a Pre-Code picture....and it seems to loudly scream that when the story begins. With frequent mentions of sex, petting and lines like "You'd be much nicer is you loosened your morals", you can't help but be shocked at the sort of stuff our grandparents and great-grandparents were watching way back in the day.

The story is set at a sex-crazed college where students never seem to be in classes and mostly spend their time trying to get their dates into the sack. In the case of Mike, he and his girlfriend are interesting because they are clearly being overwhelmed by their hormones...so much so that they debate about dropping out of college in their final year because they can't wait to to the old horizontal mambo. But problems develop when Mike foolishly goes out with another girl...and finds that she's both underage AND her father threatens to press charges unless he marries her! Oddly, it appears in the film as if the pair never really did anything other than drink a bit and stay out late at her house. So what's to become of Mike? Will one night of foolishness destroy his life?

The message to the film is oddly Pre-Code and essentially says that it's a good idea to drop out of college because sex is grand! I am sure some parents back in the day did not appreciate this! Overall, a film that isn't very good but it never is dull!

Unlike a lot of early sound films, where the actors don't know quite what to do with their voices, so the dialog's either stilted or exaggerated (more like on stage), this one came across pretty good. There wasn't all that exaggeration or over-the-top melodrama, and I credit the actor for that.

The story's not bad either, as two young college students try to navigate a society that's quite a bit different than when their parents were their age. (This movie is from 1931, so Mom and Dad were probably college age in the 1900's, so that says a lot.) Betty's an old-fashioned girl who thinks she should be more modern, while Michael wants to hold onto traditional values and ideals, despite pressure and temptation.

When a modern mistake is made, an old-fashioned correction seems in order, which may ruin the couple's chance for happiness.

There is also educational/life choice issues: is it okay to leave college and get a job, start your adult life a bit sooner than planned, even if it means postponing or giving a degree and career goals, if you have what you believe is a valid reason for doing so?

This movie has a bittersweet ending, and I could have done without the bitter, as a character of questionable ethics shows himself to be a better person and deserved a better fate.

Worth watching.

A morality play about premarital sex, where it posits that its better to take things into stride before marriage. Also, the title about ages too.

When a college jock wants out of college for some work in California and get hitched, he is stopped by the school's administrator and his girlfriend. With his plans down the dump, he went for a meal and meet a freewheeling underaged waitress deeply in love with him. They crashed at her house and did the deed. Forced to reckon with his actions, they are forced to get married until his true feelings just cannot be hidden anymore.

Ehhh. Far too melodramatic and drab for its own good.

The only thing that makes it above Hayes code or other moral films of the time is that the guy actually had his happy ending and the immoral girl does not die (but will be shamed forever).

Did not like the ending and far too slow for my taste. One of the few instances that I just could not look away with what the guy did. I wish they gave him the punishment.

Not Recommended.

Gregory LaCava directed this 1932 film, The Age of Consent, starring Richard Cromwell, Dorothy Wilson, Aileen Pringle, John Halliday, and Arline Judge.

It's a precode story of kids in college, with lots of talk encouraging young women to loosen their morals, all kinds of sexual innuendo.

Michael (Cromwell) is a young man of high ideals who doesn't appreciate his buddy Duke's (Eric Linden) outrageous flirting and sexy talk, especially when it comes to Michael's girlfriend Betty (Wilson).

He confides to one of the professors (Halliday) that he's thinking of giving up college for marriage. This is evidently because of raging hormones.

When he's caught with an underage waitress, Dora (Judge), after a night of drinking, Dora's father demands they marry at once. This is one of those so subtle blink and you miss it. We are given the impression that they maybe kissed while drunk. I don't think so. She asks, are you sorry - I think they had sex. Other reviewers weren't sure.

The premise seems to be, leave college and get married rather than just shack up. In a way it's odd, since other precodes have people living together before marriage.

Anyway I have a soft spot for Richard Cromwell due to Emma and the fact that he was briefly married to Angela Lansbury. He did not stay in show business. He was a very talented artist and died at 50.

Even for pre-Hayes code cinema, this one is particularly smutty. Not to say there's nudity or whatever, but the sexuality positively drips off the screen, and very little is said which doesn't have to do with intercourse of one sort or another. They probably had fun making this one. Highly recommended if you can find it. Thanks to the American Film Institute for their preserving this film.

'What do I care about my Daughter's happiness…I'm only concerned about what's right and what's wrong."

This Movie is Another Side of the Pre-Code Expression that is Rarely Mentioned or Discussed because it isn't Lurid, Steamy, or Filled with Lingerie Shots. It is the Freedom (without restrictions from the thought policing of Hays, Breen and the League of Decency) for Films to be Informative, Thought Provoking, Educational, Stimulating, and Socially Redeeming.

It is a Snappy Movie Filled with Great Verbal Flourishes about "Free Love" (the Hippies didn't invent the term), Right and Wrong, Moral or Immoral, and Simply a Coming of Age Paradox of Hormones and Society's Restrictions and Legislation of Private and Personal Behavior. It Tries to Answer, or at Least Discuss, if Anyone has any Say on What Goes on in a Person's Bedroom.

It is Not the Movie that You Think it is Going In. It is a Thoughtful Exploration about a Controversial Subject and is Intelligent and Engaging. Well Acted by Mostly Young Unknowns but Without Much Style, the Film Figures its Straightforward Narrative and Filming Techniques were Better Suited for the Academic Like "Lectures" about a Universal and Timeless Truth.

Certainly Worth a Watch for Film Historians as Well as Culture War Combatants that will Discover Something to Think About. The Ending May be a bit Hokey and Dated but the Film's Basic Subject Matter is Definitely Not.

All the dialogue in the diner scenes is amazing, much better than dialogue we see in most teen movies today.

The rest of the film is okay, very philosophical but because if that also slow at times. Recommend for the historical artifact and a pretty entertaining movie.