Strange Interlude

On stage, "Strange Interlude" was a nine-act "triple play", with time to leave for supper (and a nap). It was a success, and won the 1928 "Pulitzer Prize" for drama. Writer Eugene O'Neill used a Greek gimmick to nice effect - the characters would speak their "true thoughts" in asides, while the rest of the cast froze...

For this movie version, Robert Z. Leonard has the performers reveal their "inner thoughts" in voice-overs. You will recognize the technique, which is not unusual (in smaller doses). In this film, the voice-overs are a distraction - for the most part, they reveal nothing the cast can't reveal through cinematic acting. Mr. Leonard should have considered aborting the spoken asides. Obviously, Norma Shearer (as Nina Leeds) and her stellar co-stars are capable of revealing their "inner thoughts" in close-up - so, the voice-overs are superfluous.

The film is about Shearer's love for four different men: the idealized "Gordon Shaw" (an unseen World War casualty), darkly passionate Clark Gable (as Ned Darrell), popular and successful Alexander Kirkland (as Sam Evans), and ever unrequited Ralph Morgan (as Charlie Marsden). The men have exquisitely trimmed moustaches. Shearer marries one of them - but, fearing heredity insanity will befall her child, she gets herself pregnant by another. The film does not explicitly reveal that "Nina" aborted her first pregnancy.

Photographer Lee Garmes, art director Cedric Gibbons, and the MGM crew make the production look first class all the way. Henry B. Walthall (as father Leeds), May Robson (as mother Evans), Tad Alexander (as young Gordon), Robert Young (as older Gordon), and Maureen O'Sullivan (as Madeline) offer outstanding support. Just try to edit out the "strange interludes" in your mind...

******* Strange Interlude (12/30/32) Robert Z. Leonard ~ Norma Shearer, Clark Gable, Alexander Kirkland

I don't know exactly why, but I really got caught up in this movie. At first hearing everyone's thoughts is kinda strange, but it really helps you understand the characters and their motivations. By the end of the movie, you feel sorry for just about everyone in it, that they all lied and deprived themselves of happiness so that Sam could be happy. The great thing about this movie, is that you keep waiting for the payoff at the end where everyone finds out the truth of the strange 4 way love triangle (I guess that would be a love square). But it never really fulfills itself and not all the characters learn the truth.

I guess the thing I like about this movie the most is that the suspense is like a pot of boiling water. You keep waiting for it to overflow and have a kind of epiphany when it does overflow. But the movie never gives that epiphany because Sam and Gorden never find out the truth and I think the movie is better for it.

This movie was panned back in 1932 when it came out, and I just don't get it. It's a very intelligent and emotionally moving film. I wish Hollywood of the modern era could make films like this instead of all the cardboard junk with a happy ending that they have these days.

I guess most people just don't get it. But those that do will be gratetful for films like this.

Great acting all around, especially for Norma Shearer, Clark Gable, and all the main characters. The kid Tad Alexander who played young Gordon was great. Ahh he's 77 years old now. MAN

I've never seen a Norma Shearer movie that I didn't adore. Ha, all those old Hollywood Queens are nothing compared to Norma.

Horrid. Truly, stultifyingly, wretchedly horrid. The "idea" (of having the inner thoughts of the characters spoken aloud for the audience) is a stilted one which doesn't work on stage either. But in a movie, where the voice-overs are added later, it forces the actors to create responses to feelings they are not having, and also prompts the actors into providing rather charmless and ugly facial "clues" to their inner thoughts. It makes for a bad cinematic experience. The story itself - adapted by Eugene O'Neill from a Greek play)is the purest "eternal triangle" tripe, and tripe which never really explores any true psychological impetus, but only deals with the thinnest of human motivations, so being "let in on" these great human secrets is no grand privilege. Norma is at her worst here; stagy and melodramatic, and most of the cast comes off equally badly. An experiment gone horribly wrong. I felt - at times - like slapping any or all of the characters, just to awaken them from their banal self-pity and deep delusions. And the only fun to be gotten from it is to replace the "inner speech" with phrases of your own. Otherwise, a very bad film.

It would be all too easy for the immature film goer to dismiss this fascinating film as soap opera, but Eugene O'Neill's mammoth 1928 play (revived on Broadway in 1963 and 85) - his third after BEYOND THE HORIZON (see THE LONG VOYAGE HOME for a film of his "sea plays") and ANNA Christie to win the Pulitzer Prize - sprang from a period when the great American author was experimenting with forms which would become standard in film. In this case it was the interior monologue that Hollywood would use as the voice-over.

For the discerning viewer, recognizing the importance of the play (that the Marx Brothers found it grist for their satirical mill in their contemporary Broadway and film musical ANIMAL CRACKERS is testimony to that importance) and the solid performances of the movie cast, O'Neill delivers. He is examining serious adult issues - not just the form he is experimenting with - as he dissects the obligations people have to those they love.

While O'Neill claimed his play was suggested by an ancient Greek play, this classic love triangle (quadrangle actually, even more when one factors in Nina's chillingly named son) rings remarkably true even with the demands of 1930's Hollywood censorship (Nina's psychologically important abortion is merely hinted at) and the heavy editing (that O'Neill somewhat disingenuously railed at) demanded to bring the film down to an acceptable playing length for the average movie theatre which played more than the theatrically standard 8 performance week.

If Norma Shearer's central Nina can occasionally be accused of overacting, the script demands it; hers is the central emotional roller-coaster. Second billed Clark Gable as Dr. Darrell, who does not arrive for nearly a quarter hour into the film, gives the most naturalistic performance (it was one of the ways he stood out in all his films - in style a generation ahead of his peers), but for the true film connoisseur, Alexander Kirkland's Evans and Ralph Morgan's Marsden are no less impressive, and Robert Young, seven films into a 40 year career is fine as Nina's college age son.

In the 1930's the causes of mental illness OTHER than "bad blood" (a plot driving device here, as in Katharine Hepburn's debut vehicle from the same year - also from Broadway - A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT) were far less understood than today, and the Catholic Church's ban on the rational use of contraception was far more pervasive - both of which may make the context of the film difficult for younger viewers to understand.

If they give the film their attention though, and recognize that the concerns of the characters go beyond these technicalities to the personal relationships that remain troublesome even today, the film - stylistic experiments and all - is ultimately not only important but deeply fulfilling.

Watching these excellent performers attempt to maneuver through such a melodramatic, ridiculous format, I couldn't help but cringe.

"Hearing" characters express their inner thoughts via voice-over narration throughout the ENTIRE film is simply a bad idea. The pacing of every scene is destroyed, and the facial expressions displayed by the actors, to accompany their "narration," borders on parody.

This movie was produced just five years into the "sound" era, and apparently a few of the actors had not yet abandoned the silent film style of exaggerated performance.

Never have I seen a film adopt this technique, and frankly, I will never sit through another that does. "Narration" (or voice-over) is fine when used appropriately - as in almost any film noir. But in this case, the experiment fails.

Gable fares the best, as his earthy style is less inclined to be derailed by the "inner dialogues." I simply CANNOT recommend this film.