Manhattan Tower

This is yet another story from 1932 about the lives of various people within a building. In this film, which borrows heavily from "Skyscraper Souls" (1932), the young lovers are played by Mary Brian (Mary) and James Hall (Jimmy) and they do a better job than their counterparts in "Skyscraper". Indeed both Mary and James don't have to learn to respond to a different name. It's been made easy for them by calling their characters Mary and Jimmy. I wonder if this was to help James and his drinking. It's sad to notice that he looks a fatter version of himself in "Hell Angels" two years previously. My wife and I both recognized his face but thought it must be a fatter actor that looks the same. Nope. Again, it is sad to learn of his drinking problem and fate and to then find out that this was also his final film. We both feel sorry for him and really like him now.

As for the story, stick with it. The dialogue is funny in parts, the acting is fine and the director uses some interesting techniques. It's always interesting to see the period's fashions and there is even a zeppelin on show hovering above the tower. Noel Francis (Marge) makes good use of her role as the tarty secretary - check out her party dress - and secretary Nydia Westman (Miss Wood) has a funny scene when someone steals part of her lunch. The villain of the piece is played by Clay Clement. And his name in the film is Mr Burns. Just think of Mr Burns from "The Simpsons" and you've got a similarly heartless man at the top.

However, it's a poverty row film and there are no real surprises to the tale. In the overall 'building' genre of films from 1932, this one sits in the middle. The best is "Skyscraper Souls" and the worst is "Grand Hotel".

I don't know what to make of the rave reviews of this movie on IMDB. They *all* praise the story, which is really awful.

I wanted to watch this movie because of curiosity about the director, Frank Strayer. He directed the early movies in the Blondie series and he was surprisingly adventurous for a b-movie director (one entry was even a musical). I was surprised that someone with so much artistic ambition was so forgotten.

Manhattan Tower may be a good explanation of why.

The movie starts very well, establishing the hustle and bustle of a skyscraper, with workers and business people toiling away and with birds-eye looks at the hectic streets below. There are quirky and original shots, most notably the way traveling through the elevator shaft is used to indicate height in the building.

Unfortunately, the movie is painfully dull, involving a bickering couple and a sleazy executive. The story is as thin as gruel, both unpersuasive and completely predictable (hence my confusion at the IMDB reviews). The acting is abysmal. The financial stuff is a bit unclear. The comic relief of the drunk guy and the pill-popping receptionist fails to work.

This, perhaps, is the difference between someone like Lewis Milestone and someone like Frank Strayer. They both liked to play with the camera, but the former understood that trick shots are nothing if you don't have a solid story behind them.

Surprisingly entertaining B-movie about intertwined lives during a typical day in a downtown office tower. The cast is attractive, and there's a suitably despicable villain who gets what he deserves. Starts out looking like it's going to be a Grand Hotel knock-off but only one story is covered. Later a hint of the bank run of American Madness is thrown in sketchily. Like other such contemporary lower case pictures with similar styles & themes (such as Hotel Continental from the same year, which really IS a Grand Hotel knock-off), it has no street exteriors --saving money -- and moves satisfyingly fast with second-tier actors showing their stuff. But this one is distinguished by a really unusual scene-changing device making use of the skyscraper's vertical architecture really well. Made by a no-name company with a Gower Gulch list of techs and creative talent behind the camera.

I had no idea this type of production could be so good.

Manhattan Tower is a 102 story building that is essentially a city unto itself. Which means that it has all the problems that a small city has. Today's problem is a greedy womanizing manager of National Products Corporation named Kenneth Burns (Clay Clement). He is flat broke because he gambled his money away on bad stocks. His wife, Ann (Irene Rich), wants a divorce from him so that she can start a new life with David Whitman (Hale Hamilton), but there's no way Kenneth is going to let his meal ticket go.

Coinciding with Mr. Burns is Mary Harper (Mary Brian). She's Mr. Burns secretary and he can't keep his hands off her, much to the dislike of her fiance, Jimmy Duncan (James Hall). Fighting off Mr. Burns--or rather downplaying Mr. Burns' grabbiness because she wants to keep her job--became the least of her problems after she drained her bank account and gave it to Mr. Burns to invest. She didn't know he was loose with money and she was clearly too naive to give it much thought. The money she lost wasn't just her own, it was hers and Jimmy's to start a new life together.

Now Jimmy had two reasons to hate Mr. Burns.

Going on concurrently with the aforementioned was an attempt of the tower bank to stave off its biggest clients from withdrawing their money. If they withdrew then the bank would collapse. Dave Witman was going to try to quietly convince the bank's biggest clients to stay, but the genie got out of the bottle.

It was quite a madhouse in the Manhattan Tower, but you got the impression that everyday was a madhouse. I thought the romantic excursions of Mr. And Mrs. Burns were superfluous considering so many movies in the 30's had that element. It's almost like it was a requisite part of any script. Romantic trysts aside this was a good movie with plenty of entertainment and even a little suspense.

Free on YouTube.

Entertaining period piece, but little more. It's 1932 and neither banks nor the stock market are trusted, thanks to the financial crash of '29. On the other hand, the shots of Manhattan Tower resemble a soaring temple to the movie-makers confidence in both business and the future, despite the recent calamity. The tower shows level after rising level of bustling business people, also providing a good chance to catch ladies fashions of the day as they hustle in and out of offices. Too bad there's no glimpse of the impoverished masses that truly epitomize the age.

The plot concerns the free-wheeling industrial executive Burns who's not above using other people's hard earned cash to float his own misbegotten investments. These shenanigans eventually culminate in a run on a cash strapped Tower bank and hardship for the workers. At the same time, Burns chases anything in skirts, his beleaguered wife be darned. So how will things straighten out.

It's a low-budget, indie production with a largely lesser-known cast except for Bryan and Hall, and a few glimpses of an early Walter Brennan. The acting's okay, though, as others point out, the fistfight is amateurish, along with a cheaply done featureless sky in scenes from atop the tower. Also, the comedic scenes with the pill-popping secretary and the silly wandering drunk tell the audience that despite serious intent, it's only a movie after all. Besides, the occasionally clever innuendo provides all the chuckles needed.

Overall, as a product of its time, the cheap flick succeeds importantly in giving us a one-sided glimpse of that stressed out time in a largely entertaining way.

(In Passing-- in the year following this movie's release, namely 1933, Congress passed the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance legislation that insured bank deposits up to an elevated amount. The practical effect was to prevent 'bank runs' such as occur in the movie. Now depositors could rest easier if a bank got in trouble.)