La combine

This is probably as basic a boxing story as was ever filmed. A highly unembellished tale of a young pugilist, who is honey-trapped by a high stakes gambler on the eve of his most important title match. The film has a complete entourage of stock melodramatic characters proscribed for this genré. It is relentlessly ordinary. The dialogue is predictable, the acting is uninspired, save for some hammyness. No surprises here.

It's been my experience in vieweing the first year or so of Radio pictures output, that they all have a cheap, soft focus, a usually dark look to them, mostly quiet tracks with no background music, though all have a more or less constant, faint, odd humming sound like the whirr of a camera. Their story picks are almost all low action, predictable, happy ending little time spenders like this one. The casting is imperfect, Miss Pringle's overmodulated speech makes her sound like Margaret Dumont, and maybe she's a bit too old for her part; Dorothy Gulliver, just out of her Universal contract, though cute, doesn't have the voice or acting talent for talkies. The title and promotion for it reflect maybe a lack of confidence.

The title is meaningless. The adverts are downright misleading, with lines like "R-K-O Sensational Pagent of Life and Love. Roaring Boasts of Broadway And Her Whispered Secrets!" There's nothing at all about Broadway in this film. Nothing, maybe save a strange, nonspeaking, quick cameo by stage star Ann Penington. I guess the hottest films of 1929 were "Gold Diggers of Broadway", The Broadway Melody" and "Broadway", so they lied and said this had something to do with it too.

Known all over the boxing world as a "straight shooter," boyish middleweight champion Hugh Trevor (as Bobby Murray) has become involved with sophisticated Aileen Pringle (as Paula Vernoff), an older woman with a secret agenda. She's working with racketeer Robert Ellis (as John Zelli) in an effort to get Mr. Trevor to throw his upcoming big fight. His pretty childhood friend Dorothy Gulliver (as Doris O'Connell) is in love with Trevor, but he treats her like a "kid sister." With alcohol helping, it looks like Trevor is going to fall for quick sex and easy money. Hopefully, manager father Lloyd Ingraham (as Tom Murray) and Ms. Gulliver can save Trevor from temptation...

"Night Parade" was also seen in a "silent" version (with synchronized sound effects) starring Trevor, with all or most of the cast. That film's whereabouts is presently unknown, according to the "Silent Era" website. Too bad, because it very likely the superior version...

There are major "talking" performance concerns here, along with some questionable direction from Malcolm St. Clair. Still, Trevor is an appealing leading man and there are some good set-ups and sets. The final championship bout is inter-cut with an off stage fight and takes place outside, under a sudden rainstorm. Neither the inter-cutting nor the drenching could have been done in George Abbott's original Broadway play, "Ringside" (1928), which ended in a presumably less wet Madison Square Garden. It looks like producer William LeBaron and RKO had something good going with "Night Parade" which was lost in the "silent" to "talking" motion picture translation.

***** Night Parade (10/27/29) Malcolm St. Clair ~ Hugh Trevor, Aileen Pringle, Dorothy Gulliver, Lloyd Ingraham

Night Parade (1929)

** (out of 4)

A boxer (Hugh Trevor), too stupid for his own good, falls for a girl (Ailen Pringle) weeks before a big fight not knowing she's connected to a racketeer (Robert Ellis). The night before the big fight the racketeer convinces the boxer to throw the fight in order to get a big pay out but will he go through with it? This early talkie from RKO is just like a lot of early talkies and that means a lot of static film-making. The movie appears like it was shot in 1910 because the camera never moves. The camera sits in one place during each scene and only slightly moves for what reasons I'm really not sure because it's certainly not moving for a close up or anything like that. The performances are also very weird and at times some of the characters appear like they're speaking in slow motion so that the camera can pick up what they're saying. On a technical side this thing is pretty ugly but it remains mildly interesting due to its story, which is pretty good, although predictable. There's nothing too overly special about this film and I'm sure most will find it boring so it's only real interest is to those who like seeing these early sound films.

Please understand that my score of 7 is based on when it was made. Had this film appeared just a few years later, I would not have been as charitable. It's just that for an early silent is IS pretty good.

There were several reviews that complained about the sound, but actually compared to so many films from 1929, this was was excellent and the acting was actually pretty good. First, you could actually hear them talking without much straining--and this CAN'T be said of films like COQUETTE (also 1929). Second, while there isn't the incidental music, this is true of just about every film in 1929. Also, while a few of the actors were dreadful (particularly "the champ"), the film was far less static than most of the early sound era. The characters in some films made at that time stood almost wood-like and shouted up towards the microphones--this one never is that bad. Had you not known how bad most 1929 and even 1930 films were, then I could see you complaining about the sound. Believe me, though, the sound in this is excellent.

As for the film itself, many will find themselves laughing at the plot--after all, just about every boxing film cliché is present. However, please understand that most of the films featuring these clichés borrowed them from NIGHT PARADE. When it appeared in 1929, the clichés weren't yet clichés and this style of sports film was the rage. Today, though, it will seem pretty old fashioned and predictable.

If I would rate this film for historical purposes, it deserves an 8. If I write it for watchability today, then it probably deserves a 5. While predictable, there still was some charm and I liked the locker room fight scene with Pops. However, I will admit that as a true cinephile and lover of silents and early talkies, I am a bit biased and tend to overlook many of the problems with these transitional films. To see more technically competent films, you really won't see too many until 1931 or 1932. Heck, in Europe and Japan they were STILL making silents until the early to mid-30s.

I came in expecting to get some pleasure out of this picture; between the Mal St. Clair direction, the George Abbott script and some interesting talent in front of the camera, it looked pretty good on paper.

However, although the script still looks good -- the corruption of an honest boxer -- there are far too many issues to make it enjoyable.

Stagey Acting: a frequent problem of 1929 an issue of the relatively primitive sound equipment and non-naturalistic stage technique, this would be corrected in a couple of years. None of which excuses the fact that people at a party just stand around doing nothing.

Leaden Camera: It's about ten minutes into the film before the camera moves at all, and then it's moved very slightly to maintain composition, but in an incredibly clumsy fashion, like one man trying to move a sofa. Otherwise it's just cut and cut and cut, two shot, reaction shot, two shot, reaction shot. Compare the vast majority of these shots with the boxing sequence, which is shot MOS with very mobile camera and a lot of undercranking.

Mal St. Clair, after working with Chaplin, developed a reputation as a great director with a light touch -- certainly his Rin-Tin-Tin features are good. But he shows absolutely nothing here. Still it's an interesting story and that stops it from being unwatchable. It's just that you have a lot better things do with your time.