Lo zio in vacanza

I just saw this gem on TCM and was completely delighted. The story is clever and well-paced. All the supporting acting is excellent, all the way down to the tiny roles of the cook and maid. It was a treat to see Bette Davis so young and sparkling.

But the greatest pleasure for me was my first chance to closely observe George Arliss. I am glad I learned years ago to watch a really good movie at two levels: to accept the reconstructed or imagined reality of the film and simultaneously to see it as an artistic creation blending acting, set design, photography, music, etc., etc. This split focus allowed me to absolutely believe Arliss' character while at the same time marveling at the ease with which he played the part, particularly since the role involved a secret identity which he moved back and forth between. I can now understand Arliss' once nearly legendary reputation and I will look forward to every other Arliss movie I can find.

Almost as great a pleasure to me was to see a film that revolves around the business world without demonizing it. Our hero is truly "The Working Man", which title has two meanings, referring both to Arliss' character's pretended lowly identity and to his actual position as the hard-working head of a major enterprise. There is one sleazy businessman in the story, but it is clear that he is a rat and an exception and that successful businesses depend on hard-working, foresightful, intelligent, and dedicated men. (And women; I was surprised by a Bette Davis line about all the women doing great things running businesses. In 1933?). Compare this to films and TV of the last 10 or 20 years which are just as likely to show business giants as swindlers, thieves, murderers, etc., or at least as callous megalomaniacs. Arliss's character HAS character, and integrity, and intelligence, and I was glad to see a positive portrait of a great businessman, especially as depicted by a great actor.

So why didn't I give the movie a 10? I can enjoy the now antique music of that era, but I thought it was intrusive at several points. Also, I thought the cleverly interwoven plot threads resolved themselves too abruptly at the end, which strained my belief for the only time in the story. But 9 out of 10 makes it still a great little film, and I'd give George Arliss more than 10 if I could.

THE WORKING MAN appointed to watch over the inheritance of a couple of young wastrels, unbeknownst to them, is actually the old tycoon once in love with their late mother.

This is a very well produced little comedy from Vitaphone/Warner Bros., featuring another splendid performance from the old master of character acting, Mr. George Arliss. This was an actor who could fascinate an audience merely by sitting still, letting his face act for him. Here, playing a great shoe manufacturer, Arliss is tremendous fun, whether haranguing his salesmen, or, switching sides, working for his own biggest competitor with equal gusto. It is doubtful that Arliss ever gave anything less than an entertaining cinematic performance. It is a shame that this wonderful actor is nearly forgotten today.

Arliss is given good support by a trio of young actors: Hardie Albright as his stuffy, conceited nephew - ‘The Young Napoleon of Shoes;' as well as Theodore Newton and a very pert & pretty Bette Davis as the spendthrift offspring of his late rival. Miss Davis always credited Mr. Arliss for giving her an important hands-up at this early stage in her screen career.

J. Farrell MacDonald is very down-to-earth as Arliss' fishing buddy in Maine; Edward Van Sloan appears briefly, but effectively, as Arliss' company auditor.

I'd never seen this film before today, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Parenthetically, I never saw either of its predecessors, either, which may be why I was surprised at this delightful film. George Arliss and Bette Davis absolutely charm here. The "farce" approach of this picture adds a tingle of excitement with every near-discovery of the real identities of the characters and their relationships to one another. While many TCM patrons and film enthusiasts will enjoy this for the pleasurable experience that classic films bring, I'd suggest that it be shared with folks who are relatively new to this area as an introduction to how wonderful classic films can be. The only gripe I have w/the construction of the film is the way the ending is so quickly and neatly tied up. There was an abrupt resolution without a gradual denouement to allow the audience to enjoy the conclusion longer. Other than that detail, I enjoyed everything else immensely. I recommend this wholeheartedly to both old viewers and new ones.

I've always immensely enjoyed comedies involving deception of sorts, where the audience is in on who a person really is, while most of the cast in the movie are not (The Devil and Miss Jones (1941) comes to mind as an example). This film is one of the best of that type, with wealthy shoe manufacturer George Arliss overhearing his nephew (Hardie Albright) saying he should retire so he can run the business and do it better. A little angry, Arliss goes on a fishing vacation to Maine where his old buddy J. Farrell MacDonald lives, and quite by accident meets up with the heirs (Bette Davis and Theodore Newton) of his chief competitor, who had just died. Arliss uses an alias, and they think he is somewhat of a bum when they take him back to New York with them because of a minor injury to his hand. There Arliss sees the sorry state their finances are in and how their shoe plant is purposely being run down by Gordon Westcott, who wants to buy it at a cheap price. Arliss somehow convinces the trustees of the estate to make him Davis' and Newton's guardian, and the fireworks begin as he takes charge of his competitor's shoe plant. Only MacDonald knows who he really is, and he keeps Arliss informed about any mail sent by Albright, who thinks he still is on vacation in Maine. So Arliss plays both ends against the middle, so to speak, and in the process teaches Davis, Newton and Albright a thing or two about life and business.

The real joy in the film is the very clever screenplay, but George Arliss is also terrific in the lead, with Davis and Newton not far behind. Arliss knew the role well having done it in the 1924 silent called "$20 a Week." And Gordon Westcott makes a good heavy. This is a very underrated gem of a comedy.

You know as soon as you hear Leo Forbstein's opening music from 42nd Street that this is going to give you that warm, slightly edgy but comfy high you only get from a Warner Brothers pre-code movie. This one's witty, it's upbeat but maybe a bit too 'nice.' Some reviewers seem to love this more than life itself - I thought it was ok.

It's got a nice vibe about it and although it's not at all sentimental it does have one of those 'let's celebrate the human spirit' types of moral message. The grown-up story and script however are cleverly written so its Capra-like message is delivered in a non-preachy way without ramming any of it down your throat. Like one of Capra's late 30s films, this also leaves you quite uplifted and inexplicably pleased with yourself for being one of those nice humans! If you're feeling a bit down, you'll feel better about life when you've watched this.

The one thing which lets this down is the acting - we're talking extras in FLASH GORDON skill levels here! During the early thirties, director John Adolfi was synonymous with George Arliss - he directed Mr Arliss quite well but he seemed to have ignored the rest of his cast. Being a silent film director, he didn't seem to notice how dreadful and totally unnatural the rest of the actors are. There doesn't seem any consistency in the characterisations - some are blustering with gestures like a villain from a Chaplin film whereas others just seem bored. One person does stand out - Theodore Newton gives one of the worst acting performances ever: you feel embarrassed for him. Obviously Bette Davis is predictably and annoyingly perfect actor but as for the rest of them, including George Arliss, it all seems a bit under-rehearsed. Coming from Warner Brothers, that's probably true - the whole thing was shot in just over a fortnight so maybe if they'd devoted a little more time to this it could have been less amateurish. I'm thinking it was the timescale because Adolfi did CENTRAL PARK with Joan Blondell a year earlier and the acting in that was perfectly fine.

Overall it's surprisingly more entertaining than you think it's going to be. It's a happy film - and an intelligently written film too. I'm not sure I'd call it a comedy though.