Femmes de luxe

LADIES OF LEISURE, adapted to the screen from a play, is another in a long line of Frank Capra-directed films that pits the lower orders against the upper through the device of a romantic entanglement. In this case it's "lady of leisure" (read: prostitute or good time gal) Barbara Stanwyck against the slightly bohemian scion of a wealthy banking family (Ralph Graves). The theme of the movie is set right away as we see a bustling Manhattan street at night. Suddenly bottles fall from the sky and explode on the sidewalk, narrowly missing pedestrians. They are coming from a group of drunken young women who are tossing them over a penthouse terrace balcony for kicks. These party girls have been hired by dissolute swell Lowell Sherman, a friend of Graves, who, offended by the crudity of the party scene, hops into his roadster for a drive into the country. He stops by a lake where he sees a young woman (Stanwyck) dressed in an evening gown rowing herself ashore in a canoe. It turns out she too is a party girl and is also escaping a wild party, this time on a yacht. He finds her attractive and offers her a ride back to the city. As is her habit, she picks his pocket while he's driving. Thus the plot line is set. We know what will happen by the end. Along the way we are treated to a beautifully etched characterization by Stanwyck who covers a wide range of acting territory from crude and lowdown to transcendentally idealistic. The equally inventive Marie Prevost provides generous support as her overweight roommate. Lowell Sherman, playing the same type of hard-drinking, pleasure-loving sophisticate as he often did in other movies (Bachelor Apartment, What Price Hollywood), is also excellent.

For whatever reason, Ralph Graves cannot perform like a flesh and blood human being. His movements are stiff and unmotivated, his emotions seem forced and sudden. Even the expression on his face looks pasted on from some other character in some other movie. All wrong. One is not surprised to see that within a few years he was playing uncredited bit parts in third-rate movies. His silent film credits are numerous and go back to the teens so one can only wonder what his appeal was. He is not bad looking, so one must assume that his substantial silent film career owed a lot to his appearance.

Although this is not the type of film I'd usually watch, I was blown away by its intensity and depth of emotion. It's a fabulously made picture about hope: finding hope when it seems impossible, finding hope when it's not being looked for, finding hope when it's felt that it's not deserved.

Unlike a lot of films from around 1930, time is taken for proper character development which is essential to a picture of this nature. Each person is allowed to evolve into someone real, three-dimensional and believable. The care in creating such authenticity isn't just confined to the leads, the supporting characters, even their two friends, who aren't quite comedy relief but do lighten the mood are proper rounded characters. Unlike your typical Warner Brothers quickie in which a hundred things happen at quickfire machine gun speed, there's hardly any action in this at all. Scenes are used to tell the story and build the tension. It's a relatively long film but it most certainly does not drag.

What is also incredible is that this was made in 1930 - have you seen most of the absolute rubbish that was made in 1930? Why is this so good? Is it because of Frank Capra's direction or because of Barbara Stanwyck? The technical professionalism, the acting and the overall feel of this is light years ahead of most of the output from that year. If you didn't know any better you'd probably guess that this was made in the 1940s. The question is, if a film from 1930 could be made this good, why were most films from that year so dreadful! Frank Capra doesn't use any particularly obvious gimmicks, fancy techniques or wacky camera angles, just perfect filmmaking, perfect photography, perfect acting and above all, perfect storytelling. He distils the story with razor-sharp focus directly on the emotions and mental anguish of Stanwyck's character, 'Kay.' The world outside of her relationship with 'Jerry' is made to seem fuzzy and unfocused in comparison with the intensity of what she is experiencing. It takes skill to make a story so entertaining in which there's so little action, one where the characters themselves rather than what they're doing, is what we're watching but Capra manages it.

It's equally refreshing that a film which garners its drama from the inequality of society that it manages to criticize the system without condemning it, the rich aren't the typical lazily written pantomime moustache-twirling villains exploiting the poor often seen in films about the haves and the have-nots but are treated with some sympathy. Had this been made a year later when The Great Depression had properly started however, this might have been handled differently?

Capra enforces the feel is isolation experienced by Kay as she becomes part of that alien high-society world with some beautiful imagery. There are the long shots to the exclusive penthouse suites showing how far away from the real world they are. When Kay stays over in Jerry's apartment for the first time she's not sure she's meant to be there, she knows she doesn't really belong and the way the camera films this from an outside window surreptitiously makes us the viewer also a little uneasy as well, are we supposed to be watching this? We're outsiders as well, we're not meant to be there either. The us and them motif is even used in the edge of the seat climax: when Kay's friend has to find Jerry she has to struggle up the stairs to the top of the skyscraper where he lives because she's not allowed the easy ride up in the elevator.

It's not a fantastic film but it is a proper film and I can't help again just being amazed how this could possibly have been made when most films in 1930 were sheer dross. I am also amazed that this was only Barbara Stanwyck's third talkie because she's impossibly good. There's probably a Star Trek episode where a movie made in the 1940s slipped back to 1930 through some time vortex, can't think of any better explanation.

One reviewer here complimented the whole cast of "Ladies of Leisure." Well, I must respectfully disagree. I found Ralph Graves' performance to be rather wooden. Graves had been in films since he was teenager just after Word Ware I had ended, but clearly he found it difficult to deliver a natural performance in the sound medium.

I do recommend the film for historical purposes if nothing else. It was released in the Spring of 1930 and may have been filmed in late 1929. That would definitely qualify "Ladies of Leisure" as a member of that first generation of sound films dating from 1928 to 1930.

One thing I wondered about is whether a boom mic was used. I think someone else opined that hidden mics, placed here and there around the set were still used in this production. I do know from my reading that sound film technology was making progress just about on a week by week basis in those early days.

Considering that movies only began to talk in 1928, this early sound film starring BARBARA STANWYCK as a girl of ill repute (she calls herself a party girl), and RALPH GRAVES as an artist who wants to use her as a model, is not bad at all. It's certainly one of the better jobs in sound recording for a film made in the early '30s. As usual with films of this period, there is almost no music on the soundtrack except for the moment when "The End" is flashed on the screen. In the TCM print I watched, the screen then fades to black while some "exit" music is played against a dark screen.

Stanwyck is the prostitute with a heart of gold who finds a good man and doesn't want to let him go, even when his family objects to their union when he proposes marriage. She is convinced by the mother to give him up--but circumstances change after she makes a rash decision.

Stanwyck is excellent at conveying the brassy qualities of the character, but then reveals the softer nature of the girl as she falls in love with the man who only wants to paint her portrait. The tenderness of the romance that develops is full of nuances that one wouldn't expect from a Frank Capra film. The sentimental ending is more in keeping with his usual style.

RALPH GRAVES gives a quiet, assured performance as the man who finds that he does really love Stanwyck. LOWELL SHERMAN does his usual schtick as an inebriated friend who flounces around making wisecracks. MARIE PREVOST has some good moments as Stanwyck's roommate and NANCE O'NEIL does a good job as Grave's well-meaning mother.

Stanwyck fans will appreciate her well modulated performance.

I'm contributing this mainly to comment on what most of the other reviews say that I disagree with: Ralph Graves was perfect in this role. Yes, he's wooden, but that's what works so perfectly with Barbara Stanwyck. Where it really matters is in their romantic scenes: first on his balcony, then at breakfast and particularly after his father leaves and they really get together for the first time. I'm not saying he's a good actor in general, but they had great chemistry in this film, and that's worth a lot. He's a realistic type of man, very focused and businesslike; some people think an artist couldn't be like that, but that's not true. It's frustrating to see everyone remarking on the clever performances of Marie Prevost and Lowell Sherman and denigrating Graves. The picture hangs together very well precisely because all the roles are ideally cast. Doubtless Stanwyck and Capra supply the magic. It's a film that's new to me, and I keep going back to it.