Ann Vickers

It seems ridiculous to us now that this was so controversial at the time and put the censors into a wild uncontrollable rage. Perhaps that's because it doesn't quite feel like an early thirties movie. The acting, the production and certainly the story seem much more modern.

Taken out of the context of its age, it's a fairly ordinary plot. There's no doubt it is extremely well made and but at the end of the day, it's just a story about an ordinary social worker. It's not something that you can get too excited about or want to watch again. Plenty of early thirties pictures are still entertaining as stand alone movies today - this however is one of those which is only interesting as a presentation of the morality, the attitudes, prejudices and constraints of the time.

Unlike some other "social injustice movies" of the time, this doesn't use an emotional sledgehammer to get its point across. Whilst that makes this feel more modern, if you love that old sensationalist approach such as used in NIGHT COURT or SAFE IN HELL you might find this a little bland and disappointing.

ANN VICKERS is a bizarre tear-jerker from the early days of sound movies featuring IRENE DUNNE as a woman who is well-intentioned but makes all the wrong choices in life, including the men she thinks she loves.

BRUCE CABOT is her first mistake, a man proclaiming great love for her but abandoning her not long after she bears his child. In a weak supporting role, she treats CONRAD NAGEL as a man she cannot love but values as a friend. He's not too happy about that arrangement.

Then comes married man WALTER HUSTON, unhappily married who finds Dunne a refreshing bit of love interest. She has a career that keeps her busy and stands by him when he is accused of mismanaging funds. He's soon imprisoned but she finds a way to get his case some political attention and eventually he is free to marry her.

That's about it, all handled in dreary fashion with hardly a note of music on the soundtrack to lift it out of the doldrums when it gets too soggy to bear. As social commentary on conditions in the 1930s and women's issues, it's a failure. Miss Dunne plays a social worker who rises to play an important role in the penal system for females.

IRENE DUNNE suffers nobly, but it's a weak vehicle for a strong actress and she can do nothing to give the film a sense of real life struggles. Chalk this one up as a failure, even if it was based on a novel penned by no less than Sinclair Lewis. Evidently, not too much has been retained from his novel.

Summing up: Not worth your time. Any film that wastes the talents of EDNA MAY OLIVER as a Duchess has got to make you wonder what they were thinking. It's her dullest role ever.

Lackluster romantic drama with feminist elements. Basically it's Irene Dunne spouting off about wanting to have her own career and being involved in relationships with douchebags. All of the success she has career wise is ultimately attributed to a man and the film's message seems to be that a woman's happiness only comes from the love of a man, so I really don't see where feminists are supposed to find much to love about this film. The brief middle part of the film dealing with the brutal goings-on at a women's prison are most interesting. They should've made an entire film of that. The rest is forgettable. The cast is fine. No standouts. Edna May Oliver is wasted, which is just criminal.

"Ann Vickers" is an adaptation of Sinclair Lewis' book about an unwed social worker who becomes pregnant during World War I and is subsequently abandoned by her lover. It is a valuable social commentary on the mores and folkways of the time (1933) and explores the double standard then existent that condemned a woman for `loose living' while exonerating a man. The most interesting aspect of the film to me was the fact that it was almost a mirror's image of the sea change that took place in morals during 1920's in the aftermath of World War I.

RKO couldn't have picked a better actress to play the part of Ann Vickers. Irene Dunne was young, sensitive, brave, intelligent – everything the `modern woman' of the day was supposed to be. Her early professional career was marked by a series of skillfully done tearjerkers of which "Ann Vickers" is one of the better ones.

I highly recommend this movie. Walter Huston did a fine job as Ann's second love, and the man who restored her faith in a loving relationship. It's well directed and filmed and is a wonderful insight into life in the U.S. from just after World War I up until the middle of the Great Depression.

This is what a woman's film ought to be in this era, not just 70 years ago. The Ann Vickers character is a strong woman devoted to her career and to those who depend on her at the women's prison. She is not without her flaws as any hero or protagonist, but she overcomes so many obstacles and definitely has control over her life. What has happened to strong and complex female roles in modern motion pictures? This movie is well acted, well-written and has a tremendous message. I recommend it to anyone who can get their hands on it, as I believe it is still not available on video. It ranks up there with Norma Shearer's character Jerry in "The Divorcee" as far as a well-developed complex strong female characters. We need more movies depicting our gender this way not just as sex objects but as sexual subjects, with career goals and sex drives. Watch this movie!