Ann Vickers

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.

To call Ann Vickers a women's picture may technically be accurate--it was, indeed, adapted by Jane Murfin, also responsible for 1939's The Women--but it's much more than that. Quite simply, this is one of the best dramas ever produced in Hollywood. Written with delicacy and tenderness, yet planted firmly in the cruel realities of life, Ann Vickers includes a tour de force performance by Irene Dunne, ably supported by the wonderful Walter Huston as her lover, and Conrad Nagel and Bruce Cabot as would be paramours. There are some incredibly powerful moments here, especially during the prison scenes, and Dunne and Huston are magical whenever they're on screen together. Certainly daring by the standards of the time, Ann Vickers is a refreshingly honest and still topical masterpiece.

Is anyone in the mood for a cross between Back Street and Night Court? Following those 1931 and 1932 dramas, and combining the stars, comes Ann Vickers, a drama about a strong woman who falls in love with a married man, a judge who doesn't let the law rule his personal life. If you liked both of those precursors, I know what you're renting tonight.

This is an extremely racy movie, and it's a miracle it received a seal of approval from the not-yet mandatory Production Code. The beginning of the film follows Irene Dunne as she has a romance with a soldier, Bruce Cabot. She gets pregnant, and while it's not explicitly spelled out, it's made extremely clear that she goes to Havana to have and recover from an abortion. She's seen resting, wincing, and crying, and no further mention is made of her impending pregnancy. If you don't know how much of a big deal that was to include in a 1933 movie, you're probably not ready to watch it yet.

Her best friend, Edna May Oliver, is another strong female figure from the silver screen, so it's no wonder Irene gets back up on her feet and takes another stab at life. This time, the strong feminist takes a job at a women's prison. This is one of those great silver screen flicks that show how terrible prison conditions were, as well as the interactions between female prisoners and the process of becoming a hardened criminal. Irene tries her hand at drastic prison reform, but since she's a woman and she's trying to improve conditions for women, she's ignored, belittled, and dismissed. This is Irene Dunne, so don't think for a second she'll take that treatment lying down.

Where does Walter Huston come in? you might be asking. I'm sorry to tell you, you're going to have a very long wait ahead of you until he shows up. Keep in mind the movie is called "Ann Vickers" not "Judge Dolphin". He has such talent, it's too bad he doesn't take up more screen time, but since he is so talented, he adds a lot to the scenes he's in. Among the supporting cast, you'll see Conrad Nagel, Mitchell Lewis, Rafaela Ottiano, and J. Carrol Naish. Check this forgotten drama out if you like Irene Dunne, racy pre-Code movies, or early feminist pioneers. This movie is screaming for a remake, so don't be surprised if one of the top modern actresses takes on his powerful role in the future.

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.

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!