Saturday's Children

Anne Shirley was utterly captivating; I had never before seen her work. I had seen Claude Rains as a child but had forgotten him. It was quite enjoyable to see his portrayal of a goofy, yet devoted father.

I thought the movie was quite interesting. This is quite amazing as I do not usually enjoy movies from that era. I consider this a holdover from the 1930's; it has "depression and coming war" written all over it.

The questions the movie raised, however dated the movie, were familiar: how do young marrieds survive financially? Should men marry before they have achieved their financial goals? When, or if, should young married women drop out of the work force in order to raise a family? These are questions as difficult today as they must have been nearly 7 decades ago. The most interesting aspect was that these problems existed at all: we tend to think today that these are merely modern questions.

In spite of its "1930 style" I found it riveting; all the more so when one realizes that its stars are all gone, like the era it portrayed.

Knowing what we know about the period 1940 and the years that preceded and succeeded this film, a world war was underway and rationing and sacrifices were having to be made by all businesses and families. These two young lovers Bobby Halevy (Anne Shirley) and Rims Rosson (John Garfield) met on Bobby's first day of work at her new job. It becomes quite evident that Bobby plays coy but she knows what she wants and how to get it. As the 2010 Beyonce Knowles song Single Ladies (Pit A Ring On It) goes, the young and very attractive Bobby wants to get married to the gullible and loved starved Rims and she quickly develops a plan to catch her fish.

The film moves along at a quick pace with each conversation talking rapidly just like it most likely did when it was first delivered as a stage play. This is a simple picture about a young couple just starting their lives together when the war efforts directly impacts their ability to maintain a living and possibly to starting a family of their own.

It is a simple story filled with both family hardships and romance and keeping in mind that WWII was underway filmgoers were looking for some glimmer of hope which Anne Shirley and John Garfield deliver. Claude Rains plays Anne Shirley's father with the charm of a lucky leprechaun which is an added bonus.

I give this eighty (80) year old classic film a decent 8 out of 10 IMDB rating

As most IMDB folks already know, this film version of Saturday's Children (SC) is derived from a Maxwell Anderson play that first appeared on Broadway in 1927. After it opened on Jan. 26th of that year, the play ran for a respectable 310 performances before closing. While another IMDB reviewer has noted that the Rimes Rosson character (performed in the film by John Garfield) was played on the stage by Humphrey Bogart, it should be pointed out that Bogart did not originate the part. That honor was given to one Roger Pryor, who sometime after the opening came down with an undisclosed illness which necessitated his being replaced by Bogart. The female lead (Bobby) was portrayed on the stage by Ruth Gordon and in this film version by Anne Shirley. Interestingly, while Bobby's family name in both the play and film is the same ("Halevy"), in the play the male lead is known as Rimes O'Neil and not Rimes Rosson as in the film. There appears to be no known explanation for this change of names, nor is there one to clarify why Bobby's family name is pronounced in the film with the accent on its first syllable. The more common way to pronounce the name "Halevy" is with the accent on the second syllable. It is possible that the film's producers were attempting to downplay the ethnic origins of that family name. We just do not know.

In any event, Bogart left the play after a few months to then assume his next role on the Broadway stage in a farce entitled "Baby Mine.". It opened on June 9, 1927 and closed unsuccessfully after just 12 performances. The play starred Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, and was intended to be a comeback vehicle for Arbuckle from a well known scandal that ultimately doomed him as an actor in Hollywood.

Garfield's role in SC is not like the work he was doing at Warner Brothers at this stage of his career. He played it in a somewhat subdued and understated way that greatly enhanced both its realism and charm. Some reviewers have suggested that Garfield was miscast in this role. Others have opined that he took it on to show that he had a broader acting range than he was able to demonstrate in his previous WB films. The latter explanation seems to be the more plausible one, based upon the many examples of similar efforts made by other Hollywood actors presented with like situations. See e.g. Fred Astaire in On the Beach (1959), Gene Kelly in Inherit the Wind (1960), Lucille Ball in The Big Street (1942), Frank Sinatra in Suddenly (1954), Bob Hope in Beau James (1957) etc. Bogart's assuming an atypical (for him) romantic and comedic leading man role in Sabrina (1954) would appear to be yet another illustration of the same phenomenon. To this reviewer, Garfield was believable, likable and quite natural playing Rimes. It is possible that under the right set of circumstances, Garfield (like James Cagney and Edward G. Robinson before him) might have also developed into a reasonably successful comedic actor. Again-----unfortunately-----we will never know.

SC is a sensitive and touching film that was greatly aided by Garfield's likable and boyish performance. Special mention also must be made of Claude Rains's nuanced portrayal as Anne Shirley's warm and kindly father. The rest of the supporting cast was strong and greatly enhanced the story's Depression-era narrative.

To many filmgoers, SC is probably an unknown or forgotten movie. Because it is so endearing, SC deserves to be seen and appreciated anew by a contemporary audience.

This copy of this film, seen recently on TCM, had a faded look, which contributes to lose the viewer's interest in a film that doesn't seem too relevant today. The main attraction for watching it, was the interesting cast put together for it. Unfortunately, the most important part, is terribly miscast.

The story takes place in Manhattan at the end of the Great Depression. Based on a play by Maxwell Anderson, it probably worked better on the stage than in the adaptation that Julius Epstein, one of the best writers of the period, gave it. It doesn't help either, that director Vincent Sherman didn't appear to be too enthused with the material, as evident in the finished product.

John Garfield was totally wrong for Rims Rosson. He doesn't have that spark that was his trade mark. In the film he is just too bland. Ann Shirley plays the sweet Bobby Halevy. Claude Rains, though, is about the most likable character in the film because as the father of Bobby, he is an honest man who wants to do everything possible to guarantee his daughter's happiness.

The supporting cast is excellent. Lee Patrick, is seen as Florrie. Roscoe Karns and the always dependable George Tobias, make good contributions in minor roles.

Watch "Saturday's Children" as dated curiosity piece.

The picture is consistently out-of-joint as a result of the filmmakers' decision to deal with some rather substantial issues (marriage, poverty, ambition) as themes appropriate for a lighthearted, quasi-comic treatment. Smiling and accepting throughout, the characters suffer no more than mildly bruised feelings before turning their thoughts toward supposedly better days ahead. Seemingly, just about any setback can be overcome by optimism, however groundless, and an acceptance of whatever it is that life holds. That such naive characters would presume to counsel one another verges on the ludicrous. None is a success, all have been manipulated by others and by the vicissitudes of life itself - apparently without having learned a thing from their experiences. The wisest, most thoughtful of them all, played by Claude Rains, has good advice for his family, but has achieved no measure of success. Anne Shirley, sweet and innocent, lacks the wherewithal to come to grips with life. The foremost liability here is the egregious miscasting of John Garfield as a wide-eyed, vacuous sap who, for all intents and purposes, might have been born yesterday. What may have been meant to be a refreshing change from his familiar type of character results in a role which is not beyond him, but beneath him.