Kept Husbands

Dorothy Mackaill, ex-Ziegfeld star-turned-actress, did some great early talkies in the 1930's, this being one of them. She's pouty and childish as 'Dot', the rich bride of blue-collar worker Joel McCrea--who hates being married to money! Very fresh, fast and funny showcase for 'Dot', a great actress who was perhaps before her time.

KEPT HUSBANDS (1931) tells the story of Dot Parker (Dorothy Mackaill), a wealthy young socialite who sets her sights on the hard working Dick Brunton (Joel McCrea), a supervisor at her father's steel plant. She bets with her father that she can get him to agree to marry her within four weeks. When she does, she uses her father's wealth to treat Dick to a life of luxury. Dick, however, begins to feel unfulfilled and trapped by luxury, longing for a simpler life, and tensions arise between the two. Directed by Lloyd Bacon.

This pre-Code film shows an assertive young woman who isn't content to wait for the man to propose to her; she takes the initiative in the relationship. While this may seem rather tame now, it was revelatory to audiences in the 1920s and 1930s. It sends a mixed message about this, though, since Dot's character is eventually shown as a spoiled girl who will resort to manipulative and dramatic behavior to get her way. The title refers to Dick and another character, who both come to feel useless and unfulfilled because they live off of the wealth of their wives and family rather than the sweat of their brow, and are helpless victims of controlling women. So what are we supposed to take away from this, exactly? It seems to extol assertive women as modern while villainizing them as controlling at the same time.

It also touches on the clash between the idle wealthy and the working class, with the rich portrayed as elegant yet superficial, and the working class as rustic yet wise and loving (via Dick's parents). The characters aren't really defined that well. The script gets really silly in the last act, settling for a pat, forced conclusion

Dorothy Mackaill and Joel McCrea both do fine work in their respective portrayals. Mackaill shows intelligence and humor in her portrayal, and McCrea is refreshingly low-key and naturalistic. The supporting players also do effective work here, although I found Dick's dad a little on the stiff side. The sets are appropriately well furnished and luxurious. The cinematography and editing are well executed, not really outstanding but quite professional. It's somewhat entertaining as a pre-Code look at gender roles, but it sends a mixed message and is rather simplistic. SCORE: 6/10

Last week I watched Joel McCrea turn in an absolutely stunning performance in Merian Cooper and Earnest Schoedsack's brilliant 1932 thriller, "THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME" and again he reminds me here of just what an underrated actor he was during the Golden Age of Hollywood. His natural blond good looks (he pioneered surfing during the sport's early days in Los Angeles) and extremely competent acting on the heels of his residency at the nearby Pasadena Playhouse stand out in stark contrast to other leading men in an era when Billy Haines, George Arliss and Ramon Navarro were still representing America's young marrieds getting into jams as they get on their feet in the early days of The Great Depression. Dorothy Mackaill has the tricky job of playing a spoiled brat who is also in many ways by 2004 standards a modern woman whose doting industrialist father isn't making her emancipation any easier--but she pulls it off, and we wind up liking her! Sounding a little at first like one of the most outlandish stars of the day, Paramount's Mae West knock-off Peggy Hopkins Joyce, Mackaill proceeds to give a spot-on performance that represents some of the most natural acting I have seen out of anyone from the early talkies era; her knows-what-she-wants character Dot is effected flawlessly. I forgot that I was watching an actress perform, so finely tuned is her sense of timing. An Ex-Follies girl who came to the US from England at the age of 18, she is at ease before the camera, apparently aware of the fine line she is walking in a part which few other performers from that shaky time in the industry would have been able to master with such seamless grace. I am surprised and disappointed that her film career was in its twilight and that soon thereafter she would be serving full-time as a caregiver to her disabled mother. The writing and direction are both deserving of praise here, as well. The intelligent dialogue (including the contemporary slang, which I find fascinating whenever I can find it) stands the test of time remarkably well: it is real, never banal or contrived despite the familiar conflicted Depression-era highbrow-working class storyline aspect. When Dot asks her father to pay her new husband $50,000 a year, the kindly industrialist explains that he cannot comply, reasoning quite correctly that "it would hurt the organization"--having served a hitch in B-school, I liked that wise old man and contemporary manager right off the bat! Motherhood receives a tender treatment and ever so effectively. The lighting has a definite early Warners'-First National look to it. Sound recording, almost always a liability in those days, is accomplished neatly, as is the makeup: lips appear to be real rather than painted on and during the proposal scene McCrea's wholesome tan face appears not only untouched but luminescent. Rarely have the actors of 1931 looked quite so good. Helpful Trivia: At the time of production, Miss Mackaill was 28; cowpuncher McCrea, 25.

This is being sold as a pre-code movie, but it has little of what you'd expect.

Its a simple redemption story of a spoiled rich girl who "buys" a lower class but swell guy as a husband. At the very end, and only in the last few seconds, does she come around. Its more leveraged around class than sex.

But there is a really interesting scene: our rich girl is miffed at her husband so goes off with an old friend, almost certainly a former sexual partner. He locks the door and they work through a few role games, him chasing her, and she being coy in order to increase the charm of being caught. All the while they are taking archetypal roles from movies. Now, remember that this is 1931, so the roles are relatively new and unsettled.

What's so amazing about this scene is that you do not know, you are never allowed to see what side she is on, whether she really is running away so as not have sex, or playing the role to enhance the game of seduction. It seems that the actress is carefully in a scintillating state, showing and denying. Its masterful, and very engaging. Its only two minutes or so, but fabulous. Sexy stuff in the story and of the story.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

This film begins with a rich guy announcing to his family that he's bringing home a worker from his factory. As his family is made up of spoiled rich folks, they assume this guy would be a bumpkin. However, Dick (Joel McCrea) turns out to be well-mannered, quite humble and an All-American football player! He doesn't tell them about the football--the boss' daughter, Dorothy (Dorothy Mackaill) recognizes him. And, although she sure seemed pretty snobby, now she suddenly is VERY interested in Dick (take that how you might) and later announces to her father that she is going to marry that working man. However, even if she does hook him, can it even work out? After all, they are as unlike as can be--he's a decent, hard-working man and she's just a seemingly vacuous rich girl.

Unfortunately, soon after the marriage, it becomes apparent that Dorothy feels that because she comes from money, she should make all the decisions in the marriage. And, for a while, Dick is emasculated (again, take that how you might). Eventually, however, he gets near the breaking point--he has a great opportunity and she wants him to give it up so he can stay home by her side. Soon, the marriage fizzles. Is there any hope for this couple?

All in all, the best way to describe Dorothy's behavior throughout the film is...well,...IMDb won't let me use language like this! She is too awful, as it makes you wonder how a guy like Dick could put up with her for ANY length of time. I wish her part have been a bit more subtle. Because of this, the film is severely impacted. Had she been likable and less one-dimensional, the film would have been significantly better. As for McCrea and his part, he was quite good and this sort of piffle didn't significantly mar his career. Overall, a decent idea for a film but it was in need of a significant re-write.

By the way, get a load of the Christmas tree (about 20 minutes into the film). It's pretty amazing. And, about three minutes later, watch the ridiculous acting of Dorothy's mother--it made me chuckle. Also, the current image on IMDb seems to imply that this is some sort of saucy Pre-Code film. Well, since it came out before mid-1934, of course it's Pre-Code--but it is NOT a sexy film nor one that would have violated the toughened Production Code. It looks like a case of false advertising.