La casa della 56ª strada

I interpret this not as a full length feature but as a one hour front end of double feature (which would be preceded by a cartoon and a newsreel). In other words, you could call it a B movie. Seen that way, it is almost perfect. It is short and uncomplicated but manages to engage you and deliver a twist at the end.

It starts out looking like it will be another Kay Francis light romantic comedy along with the usual accompanying fashion show. Certain, she parades quite a collection of hats in the opening 20 minutes or so. Then the melodrama and angst kicks in and it becomes clear that this is no comedy.

It is not profound and opens no new paths in movie making. It sets out to entertain and deliver on expectations but manages to give something extra. You come away satisfied that you have seen a good movie but not so tired and engaged that you can't watch the back half of the double feature.

Kay Francis delivers what you would expect from her. In 1933, people went to see her movies expecting certain things and they get them plus some additional and effectively portrayed moods and emotion as a bonus. However, I must say that she is not as stunning and glamorous as she was in many of her other movies but that could be appropriate and deliberate here. The rest of the cast is up to their tasks. There isn't enough material for any of them to actually shine. The movie moves quickly and covers more than one time period.

Overall, a very successful B movie.

The House On 56th Street is a Stella Dallas like melodramatic soap opera that Kay Francis did for Warner Brothers before Bette Davis made a specialty of them for that studio. This pre-Code film is laced with irony for Kay.

Kay's a Floradora girl from the Ragtime Era who has all the men chasing her in 1905. She's the kept woman of ragtime rake John Halliday, but young Gene Raymond sweeps her off her feet and they marry and have a daughter. He takes her back to the family digs on East 56th Street in New York City and fancy digs they are.

Halliday gets some bad news from his doctor that he's only got months to live and he wants to live them with Francis, whatever the scandal. Francis tries to prevent him from committing suicide, but when Halliday does in the struggle for the pistol, she goes up for manslaughter and gets 20 years.

Fast forward to the Roaring Twenties and Kay's now free and living anonymously and making a living as a gambling lady with Ricardo Cortez and William 'Stage' Boyd. She gets an opportunity however to impart one really big favor on grownup daughter Margaret Lindsay and it's a beaut.

Although Bette Davis would later do these kind of parts, I mention Stella Dallas because The House On 56th Street also involves a mother separating herself from her daughter for her own good. Francis's role which she does a fine job with seems to fit Barbara Stanwyck even better.

Favorite scene here is the gambling scene on board a ship where Francis takes Cortez to the cleaners even though he's cheating. It reminded me a lot of the climax in Rounders with Matt Damon and John Malkovich.

Though The House On 56th Street is dated, it's still an effective film. Note the sense of irony in Francis's final line in the film.

The premise may not have been an original one, but Kay Francis was always a very watchable and more actress and was often one of the better things about all her films (which varied quality-wise generally). She was my main reason for seeing 'The House on 56th Street', one of my quests in seeing all of the films of people that impressed me enough to see more of their work. Have also liked Ricardo Cortez, usually cast in the more villain-type roles, in other things, but Gene Raymond has always been a hit and miss for me.

Is 'The House on 56th Street' one of her best? In terms of films, it's nowhere near close, it's no 'Confession'. In terms of performances though, it is towards the top and it boasts one of her more complex characters too. Cortez is also served well. Raymond left me indifferent here though. Overall 'The House on 56th Street' to me was not a great film and for some it will be easy to criticise. There are a lot of things worthy of a lot of praise though.

A good starting point being Francis, who is extremely good here and is the main reason to see the film. She is very elegant, but also burns with intensity and poignancy. Cortez is suitably smarmy and does fare joint best of the supporting cast, the other standout being charming Magaret Lindsay. 'The House on 56th Street' is a good looking film as well, stylish without being overblown and looking like it was shot with a lot of care and time. The locations are also beautiful. The music fits nicely, not quite enhancing things but at least it fits.

Script has some nice wit and is intelligently done in places. The story starts off very well and has some nice turns in the plot. The film is nicely directed and the main character, a complex one, is fascinating.

Despite those good things, it was hard for me to ignore 'The House on 56th Street's' drawbacks. It does tend to be very sudsy and over-heated in the writing. The story does have its moments, but does get too over-dramatic and loses momentum in the latter stages. Suspension of disbelief is hardly unheard of in film, it is actually a relatively regular occurance to put it politely. That doesn't stop the latter stages especially from being rather ridiculous. The ending is particularly hard to swallow.

While Francis as well as Cortez and Lindsay fare very well, Raymond is practically a just there cipher and John Halliday likewise. Not even Frank McHugh makes much of an impression!

Concluding, worth a look but only a little above average. 6/10

Lightning-paced drama directed by Robert Florey stars Kay Francis (top female star at Warners) as a chorus girl in 1905 who is pursued by an older man (John Halliday) who has no interest in marriage and a younger man (Gene Raymond) who wants to marry her. She opts for Raymond and becomes a society hostess and eventually has a baby. Later, when she learns Halliday is ill, she visits. He tries to commit suicide but Francis is convicted and jailed for 20 years. The baby daughter grows up (Margaret Lindsay). Out of jail, Francis goes by the name of Mrs. Stone and meets up with a gambler (Ricardo Cortez). They work in a speakeasy and everything is OK until the daughter shows up one night. The ironic ending is perfect.

At 68 minutes, this film whizzes along but is filled with lots of period detail and plot elements. Very nicely done. Kay Francis gets to transform from the frilly 1905 fashions and hair to a sleek henna-rinsed beauty in 1927 and finally to a slightly graying babe dealing cards in 1933. She's terrific, and the ending will surprise you.

Co-stars include Nella Walker, Henry O'Neill, Frank McHugh, Hardie Albright, and William "Stage" Boyd.

This 1933 film's action begins in 1905. The first quarter or so, though the quality of acting and period costumes and sets is high, may strike today's viewer as the most cliched of Cinderella stories, more suitable for a Depression-era shopgirl seeking escape than a sophisticated 21st-century Internet user. Pretty proletarian chorus girl Peggy (Kay Francis) is romanced by not one but two fabulously wealthy playboys. As would any of us, she opts for the younger and handsomer of the two, who additionally wants to marry her over the objections of his stuffy mother, who of course eventually is won over by Peggy's natural charm and sweetness.

By this time, unless you're a fan of Harlequin romance novels, you may be sorely tempted to switch to another channel, DVD or website, as I probably would have had my spouse and I not been watching together, each reluctant to be the one to suggest pulling the plug.

However, there is one hitch in this opening chapter of bliss. Peggy's older, less handsome rich playboy was more than just a hopeful suitor. In fact she was his mistress in a richly furnished love nest. So there is hope that something a bit more dramatic will develop, and indeed it does and the film morphs into a typical hard-hitting fast-paced pre-code melodrama.

This is where my deep thought comes in. If a similar story was presented today as a movie, TV show, short story or novel, it would start with some later courtroom scene or act of violence to let you know what was in store, then flash back to the beginning without your having to wonder if anything interesting was going to happen.

Hey, I know, even in 1933 they knew about flashbacks. They also knew that 1930s moviegoers, with no TV or computer waiting at home, who had paid their nickel for four hours of escape from the Depression, were not going to walk out of the theater after fifteen minutes, so the film could start slow and work its way up.

So don't necessarily touch that dial, or remote, or keyboard and be prepared for, eventually, a pre-code action melodrama with, as so often, a morally ambiguous conclusion.