Another Language

Rose Franken, now forgotten, was an estimable playwright of the first half of the 20th century, one of the very few women to reliably write Broadway hits. This is one such hit, a 1932 drama faithfully filmed with much of the original cast, with dialog neatly refashioned by two of MGM's best screenwriters, Herman Mankiewicz and Donald Ogden Stewart. Franken wrote particularly well about family dynamics, and that's pretty much all this is, the story of young marrieds threatened by the groom's unquestioning domination by a catty, conservative family, most especially his horror of a mother, well played by Louise Closser Hale. He's not an especially likable hero, often petty, self-centered, and domineering toward his wife, and Montgomery isn't afraid to emphasize his less attractive traits. So Helen Hayes is left to suffer quietly, trying to maintain her composure as his relatives mercilessly nitpick at her, and crushed every time she attempts to fight back. Hayes is, as usual, sexless, but she effectively catches this woman's desperation, and she partners well with John Beal, quite touching as the nephew who falls in love with her. (What happens to him? After his final exit, I expected to hear an offstage gunshot.) It's economical, swift storytelling, with a bunch of good character actors in support, and their portrayals, thanks largely to the writing, are well-rounded-- nobody's totally awful, except Louise Closser Hale's grasping mama.

There's a good film hiding within "Another Language," but it's overshadowed by an overwrought plot and, most significantly, an unsympathetic central character.

The plot concerns Stella (Helen Hayes), a newlywed whose husband Victor (Robert Montgomery) is blind to his family's boorish behavior and their immediate dislike of his new bride. Worst in the bunch is his smothering mother (Louise Closser Hale), whose reaction in every scene is to pretend to be ill to gain her sons' sympathy. Why none of her stupid children see through her manipulative behavior boggles the mind. Victor (or as his family annoyingly calls him, Vicki) is the most frustrating character in the film. He takes his family's side whenever a conflict arises and treats his wife not only like a stranger, but with disdain. It's a mystery as to what Stella ever saw in him and for that matter, why she hasn't walked out on him. There's also a subplot involving Victor's nephew who falls in love with Stella that is never fully developed, nor is it resolved to a satisfying conclusion.

Another weakness, as someone else pointed out, is that the one family member who shows any compassion toward Stella is Victor's father (Henry Travers), yet he never stands up to his wife or any of the other relatives who are always attacking Stella.

Hayes is acceptable in her role, but it's easy to see why she never became a successful film star. Whatever magic she had on stage doesn't translate to the screen. Her acting is sometimes mannered and she doesn't have a face the camera would fall in love with. She isn't helped by Montgomery, who is just so unlikeable in this film. The two have zero chemistry.

Louise Closser Hale fares better as Mrs. Hallam, the mother-in-law from hell. The standout, though, is Margaret Hamilton in her film debut as one of Stella's sisters-in-law. Though bitchy most of the time, she does show some humanity in the final reels and is the only truly believable member of the family. The movie is only worth sitting for through the performance of this consummate character actor. It's like she's speaking another language compared to the rest of the cast.

A young couple who've eloped (Robert Montgomery and Helen Hayes) return to New York and begin spending time with his family - his parents, two brothers and their wives, and his nephew. It slowly turns into a nightmare for her, because the mother is manipulative of her son, the sisters-in-law mix in cutting remarks with their pleasantries, and one of the brothers-in-law is an immature bore (one of the things he does is surprise women by running his hand along their back and making a slide whistle sound).

Her marriage begins to deteriorate because her husband sides with his family in their assessment that she's "high hatting" them. While it's true that she's more worldly and refined, she doesn't look down her nose at them at all, and in reality suffers from their barbs at the weekly get togethers. Enter the nephew (John Beal), who is also a bit of an outcast in the family, because he's interested in things like architecture and travel. He soon develops feelings for his aunt that go beyond normal affection, but despite her own unhappiness, she reminds him of how inappropriate it is.

You might divine that this is a pre-Code film because it deals with the incestual love a nephew has for his aunt, which, even if it isn't by blood, is obviously a taboo subject, or maybe because of a scene with a female model in the background of a sculpting class draped with thin sheer fabric. Despite how salacious it sounds (or how production stills show the model from the side, close-up and almost entirely nude), it feels pre-Code mostly because of how honest it is. There is such a realistic portrayal of the family's passive aggressiveness here that it's very frustrating and claustrophobic, and the script has a tight, very modern feel to it, particularly in the ensemble scenes.

I love Margaret Hamilton in this as one of the sister-in-laws, and Helen Hayes is as radiant as ever. Louise Closser Hale is great as the mother too, even if the character is irritating, and it's notable that it was her last film, as she would die at 60 two days before the film was released. It zips along at 77 minutes, never lagging, and while I wish it had ended a little differently, it made for a satisfying watch.

Anyone interested in family relationships will surely enjoy this movie about a manipulative matriarch, Louise Closser Hale, who is not averse to fake fainting spells to get her way with her four sons and their wives. The acting is first-rate by a stellar cast, five of whom (John Beal, Hal K. Dawson, Irene Cattell, Maidel Turner and Margaret Hamilton) were in the original Broadway production which opened 25 April 1932, and who reprised their roles. This was also the film debut of Beal, Hamilton and Cattell (the only film she ever made). But kudos go to the magnificent Helen Hayes as the new addition to the family who stands up to Hale, John Beal, as her sensitive nephew who falls in love with her, and Robert Montgomery playing Hayes' husband, still under the control of his mother. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Stick with it until the end; the last 20 minutes are as riveting as any drama can be.

Trouble with the in laws? Try spending an hour and fifteen minutes with the Hallam clan. I guarantee that they'll make your spouse's folks look delightfully eccentric. In other words, this is a wonderful study in reverse snobbery (The Hallams think their son's wife is "high hat" while it is they who act superior), casual social cruelty (the constant digs, disguised as offhand remarks, at the daughter in law's dress and manner and way of life), and sheer annoyance, from the constant stream of banal gossip to the mother in law's strategic fainting to the brother in law's stupid jokes and even lamer pranks.

So, great social satire that, in the hands of two of 1930 and 40s Hollywood's best scribes, Herman Mankewiecz and Donald O Stewart, at times rivals Sinclair Lewis or Kaufman/Hart. And the performances aint bad, either. Especially good are Louise Closser Hale as the long suffering (and doesn't she let you know it!) matriarch of the Hallams, Henry Travers as her weak but much nicer husband, Margaret Hamilton as the wasp tongued, faintly sympathetic sister in law and Hal K Dawson as the brother in law you'd love to punch (surprised it didn't happen). As the married couple who must put up with the above Robert Montgomery and Helen Hayes are fine, especially Hayes in one of her more restrained acting turns. The only performance that strikes me as wooden or clunky is that of John Beal as the rebellious, artistic nephew, but then he is given the flattest of Mank and Stewart's otherwise sharp dialogue. Biggest weakness in the film, though, is neither the writing nor the acting but director Edward Griffith's inability to seem to have any idea that there is such a thing as visual comedy. (i.e. Film's fairly stiff/stagey). Give it a B.