My Lady of Whims

clara's father hires a man to follow her to see that she stays out of trouble. clara catches on to her father's plans and toys with the man for the majority of the film. this is just a so so clara movie. it actually starts out pretty well, but the ending is not very satisfying. she has to make a decision between 2 men. neither one of them is at all appealing. reccomended only for true clara fans.

One of Clara Bow's early movies casts her as a rich woman who moves to Greenwich Village in search of an artistic life. Plenty of wacky things ensue. "My Lady of Whims" isn't anything particularly special, but the zaniness makes up for any shortcomings. Moreover, is there anything not to love about the sight of Clara Bow?

I recommend it.

While the sensibilities of one hundred years ago haven't always aged well, the silent era can boast some of the greatest films ever made, and some of the best comedies. There are also, of course, no shortage of pictures that are mildly enjoyable, but which aren't particularly striking, however they might have been received by contemporary audiences. Even with early screen icon Clara Bow starring, I think it's safe to say that decades later 'My lady of whims' falls into the category of lighter and less remarkable fare. It's not particularly something one needs to go out of their way to see, nor something that will change the minds of those who have a hard time engaging with older cinema - but even with flaws it's still a good time, certainly, and worth checking out for something frivolous on a quiet day.

Splendid situational humor, and witty dialogue or expository intertitles, aren't so robust here as to specifically elicit any full laughs, nor even the occasional sight gag or bit of physical comedy. For titles of this nature, though, a gentle smile can be enough to keep us softly invested, and this 1925 flick successfully encourages some happy little neurons to fire off. Dallas M. Fitzgerald's direction maintains the mirthful energy about it all while the cast give capable performances. Some instances come off better than others - it's not for nothing that the silent era was known for unnaturally exaggerated facial expressions and body language - but Bow is a minor joy all by herself, and more than not her co-stars are just as swell. Why, that same gaiety is reflected even in the art direction and costume design, and I don't refer exclusively to a special spotlighted outfit in which Bow is dressed.

The scene writing is largely fantastic, bearing the preponderance of the vitality that 'My lady of whims' can claim. Not everything is hunky-dory here, however, and this is where it gets thorny as modern norms and values butt up against those of a past era. The narrative follows a tried and true path, timeless and ever-present in fiction, of parents and loved ones expressing concern for the well-being and behavior of someone they judge to be "misguided," and going about safeguarding or overprotecting them; hijinks ensue. Even with that in mind, however, this story's designated voice of Fine Upstanding Morality, Bartley Greer, is written as such a stodgy, soulless stick in the mud that he comes off less as a concerned party (hired or otherwise) and more as a possessive, prudish, judgmental, condescending representative of patriarchal order. I'm sure he was seen as a good guy and a hero in 1925; in 2023, there's no reason for Prudence to give him the time of day once she discovers his ruse, and he consistently comes off as an ill-tempered brute beyond the parameters of the job he's been given. Even if we accept that sometimes "adults" really do know better than "the youth," the entire scenario feels less like earnest worry about the choices another person is making, and more like earnest worry about no longer having absolute control over that person's life. And even if all this consideration of the plot seems like heedless nitpicking of societal values that have changed over time: gosh golly, supporting character Dick Flynn could only be worse if actor Lee Moran were wearing blackface. If there were a single face to put on a poster urgently advocating gun control laws and reform, the mug of this reckless oaf would be the one. And as for the climax, and the ending - well, here's a perfect example of Movie Magic as contemporary mores enforce wild shifts in characters and resolve the plot in a contrived, inauthentic manner that otherwise make no sense. By the way in which characters are introduced, and the typical structure of such features, we know what will happen in the end; the method by which we arrive at that destination is simply confounding.

What it comes down to is that 'My lady of whims' is lightly entertaining for the shenanigans that we get from firm scene writing, and all involved broadly turn in commendable work in bringing this to life in a tale that has grand potential. 'My lady of whims,' as it exists, also gives us a plot, and character writing, that one century later looks emphatically different. Even acknowledging for the sake of argument that these matters are, surely, generally in line with the world of 1925, it still seems to me that they're taken to an extreme in this instance exceeding the bounds of what is acceptable and admirable. The phrase "a product of their time" discounts the fact that there are always in people in every era that know better and are more progressive than those attitudes that the phrase would seek to excuse. In any event, we could endlessly discuss the finer points of how this looks in a time far removed from its own, and the truth remains: this is a bit fun, warts and all, but no must-see by any measure. Even for devotees of the silent era it's best left for something to casually pass an hour as desired, with recognition of how it's a snapshot of another period. 'My lady of whims' is okay, but I'd be more interested in going back in time to see how moviegoers reacted in the middle of the Roaring Twenties.

For the first film venture of his Dallas M. Fitzgerald Productions, Mr Fitzgerald has made over a short story that seems ready made for the talents of Clara Bow. The role requires her to look sexy, titillating, carefree and Bohemian, with lots of pouting and come-hither, but little of actual delivery. You see, she's actually a nice girl at heart, even though she's led her indulgent but worried Dad to believe she's kicking up her heels and living life to the full in the madly arty-tarty surroundings of Greenwich Village.

So Dad hires a muscle man (Donald Keith playing a Chester Morris type and actually enacting it rather well) to track down his "wayward" daughter and bring her flying heels to heel.

That's the story in a nutshell, and even in this abbreviated form, it doesn't sound too interesting. True, the writer has fleshed it out with a caddish but ineffectual rival to romance our heroine. And, of course, he's given our hero a comic sidekick, and our heroine a bosom pal too (even though she has precious little to do).

As a director, Mr Fitzgerald seems to wear a Charles Lamont rather than a Frank Capra mantle; and as a producer, he is certainly no Cecil B. DeMille. But he seems competent enough to get by. In a better print, this picture may well have offered fair-to-average entertainment for rabid Clara Bow fans. But in this 5-reel, ex-Kodascope version—no way!

My Lady of Whims (1925)

** (out of 4)

This was the last of fifteen movies Clara Bow released in 1925 so one can understand why she and her screenwriters would be tired. Originally this ran seven reels but the only version available today is a Kodascope version running 42-minutes. In the film Bow plays Prudence Severn, a rich girl who runs off to Greenwich Village so that her writing can have more spirit to it. Her rich father fears that she's up to no good by partying too much so he hires a man (Donald Keith) to keep an eye on her and bring her home. He eventually falls in love not knowing that she knows who hired him. This so-called comedy is very short on laughs and it's not charming, sweet or very entertaining. At just 42-minutes there's really nothing overly awful about it but at the same time there's really nothing to recommend in it. As with most of these films I'm sure the main reason people are going to tune in is for Bow and she's pretty much what you'd expect. She's certainly lively enough and you can easily see why men would be drooling all over her but at the same time her performance really isn't anything to write home about. Yes, she's decent enough playing the party girl but I just never really felt anything else from her. I certainly never laughed at any of her actions. Keith is pretty bland here as he doesn't have a bit of energy in him and not once did I ever feel any chemistry between him and Bow. Lee Moran steals the film with the few scenes that he's in. The screenplay is pretty much by the numbers and there's not a single thing that happens that makes you like the characters or feel for them. Perhaps something was lost in this shortened version but apparently reviews of the original weren't that good either.