Young Man of Manhattan

The "Young Man of Manhattan" of the film is a young sports writer, Toby McLean (Norman Foster). He falls in love instantly with Ann Vaughn (Claudette Colbert), a newspaperwoman and they get married. Unfortunately, numerous circumstances, such as a "16 year-old who thinks she's Greta Garbo" (Ginger Rogers), and jealousy threatens to kill their perfect marriage.

Having read and liked the book (A thoroughly forgotten fluffy bestseller of the 20's) of the same title, I was interested in how it would be made into a musical. It's not really a musical though, like the IMDb says; it's a drama with a few songs thrown in here and there. It wasn't a bad movie, actually a lot better than a lot of early talkies. Surprisingly, it's very faithful to the book. Claudette Colbert and the rest of the cast are solid; Ginger Rogers is fun and it was cool to see her so young and still red-headed. She performs an utterly charming song, "I Got It But It Don't Do Me No Good".Norman Foster is fine, but often comes across as whiny and a bit wooden. Still, Young Man of Manhattan is a great one for 1930, and worth seeking out for the stars.

I know I'm second-guessing the author, but this movie is about a couple rather than one young man. In any case, it's a romantic comedy about a couple of newspaper reporters who meet at a boxing match and decide to get married shortly thereafter. Maybe too shortly, because marital problems ensue due to alcohol and money - a bad combination. The principals are Norman Foster and Claudette Colbert who were real-life man and wife at the time. I thought there should be more chemistry between the two as a result, but it was just enough to make the movie work. They get superb help throughout from Charles Ruggles, who was very funny and displayed impeccable comic timing and saved many a scene. Also in the cast, in her first full-length feature film, is Ginger Rogers, with dark hair and an irritating Betty Boop-type voice. She was almost unrecognizable at first glance.

Foster's character is as a sportswriter, and there are some fascinating shots at Yankee Spring training camp in Florida with a look at Babe Ruth and a fleeting glimpse of Lou Gehrig. There is also some footage of the Dempsey-Tunney fight in 1927. On the whole, the film was good - I gave it a rating of six. I sometimes think that an old picture may have several worthy landmarks, mileposts and noteworthy appearances, but age alone does not make a good picture. Some relics are just old artifacts.

Ann (Claudette Colbert) and Toby (Norman Foster) are journalists who meet, fall in love and marry. Toby meets Puff (Ginger Rogers) after one of his assignments and decides that she will be the inspiration behind a money-making story. However, when Puff is introduced to Ann, Ann has the same idea about a story with Puff as the main character. Toby throws away his yet unstarted manuscript as Ann is a far more efficient and ambitious story-teller. While she spends her time forging ahead with her career, Toby is happy to just get by. He also meets up with Puff after Ann has told him not see her again. This leads to a separation. Will Ann take him back....?...

It's an early film so the sound quality is poor and it's curious to hear Ginger Rogers speaking in a cutesy, baby-voice. Still, the cast do well and Colbert is good in the lead role. I think that they could have come up with a better title than "Young Man Of Manhattan". The film is OK.

I found "Young Man of Manhattan" on YouTube and the copy leaves a LOT to be desired. The sound quality is rather poor and the print is a bit fuzzy. Clearly the film could use some restoration work.

The film stars Claudette Colbert and Ginger Rogers is on hand in a supporting role, though you might not recognize Rogers. This is because this is a pre-makeover movie...one she made when she was a brunette and before she had voice lessons.

Ann and Tobey (Claudette Colbert and Norman Foster) are fools. After knowing each other only a few hours, they marry! But the honeymoon period is brief and the marriage seems destined for divorce court...mostly because Tobey is a moody guy who drinks and isn't good husband material. Some of this might be because she's a reporter and he's a sports reporter and his ego might not like a wife who is every bit as successful...perhaps more so. Do they stand a chance?

This is a decent film BUT I don't recommend you see it unless you find a better copy...the sound is THAT bad. Plus, the acting is only okay....especially in the case of Rogers, who I said is in a pre-makeover film and her voice is less enjoyable in this early movie.

This shows just what a difference a skilful and committed director and an intelligent empathetic scriptwriter can make to a pretty lightweight story. You are instantly engaged in the lives of this newly married couple - they've been your friends for years haven't they?

For a 1930 picture, the acting is excellent. Everyone is thoroughly natural; the entire cast are completely believable people rather than actors simply playing parts. It's quite a rarity for a film of this age to have such an intimate, almost fly-on-the-wall feel. It makes you wonder why all films from 1930 weren't made this well.

If you didn't know beforehand that the annoying flirty schoolgirl was Ginger Rogers you would never have guessed. She's utterly unrecognisable especially with that Betty Boop voice. For a debut role, she's remarkably good as the jail-bait, fly in the ointment threatening the marriage of newly wed Ann and Toby. Although ostensibly just a silly character with a silly catchphrase, 'cigarette me, big boy,' it's actually quite a brave role for an aspiring actress to take on. She handles the nuances with sensitivity balancing the flighty and frivolous personality with the disturbing connotations of underage sex and possibly breaking up a marriage.

Besides the real life couple, Claudette Colbert and Norman Foster who play the newly weds, who are excellent, Charlie Ruggles gives a surprisingly great performance as well. Again this demonstrates the effect of good writing raising his character from that of a silly drunk to a well rounded sympathetic real person.

As well made as this is, it's actually a fairly insubstantial story but made and acted extremely well. It's hardly great, it's not clever or innovative and certainly not memorable but nevertheless it's hugely entertaining.