Manhattan Parade

More historical curiosity that entertainment, "Manhattan Parade" is an early sound effort that has dated badly. Perhaps hysterically funny in 1932, the film's static shooting technique only emphasizes the flatness of the jokes. A recurring pair of theatrical producers, played by the comedy team of Smith and Dale, overstays their welcome with a series of tiresome exchanges. Abbott and Costello they are not. The story, which originally had songs, revolves around a theatrical costume company, whose successful president is played by Winnie Lightner. However, Lightner surrenders her feminist credentials early on when she meekly submits to her husband's demands that he run the company and she stay home where she belongs and care for their young son. Needless to say, the philandering husband is no better at business than he is at marriage, and the company falls into debt.

Were it not for Bobby Watson, who plays a designer named Paisley, "Manhattan Parade" would rarely be unwound from its reels. However, Watson's limp wristed character is yet another prime example of gay stereotyping in early Hollywood. His threats to slap his foes or quit and stay home to decorate his apartment are evidently accepted by the other characters as quite normal for a sissy. Whining about fabric that should be maroon rather than cerise, Watson underscores filmdom's concept that gays are silly, shallow freaks with no values of consequence in their lives. While not as offensive as some gay characterizations, Paisley, nevertheless, will irritate viewers who are sensitive to negative stereotypes. Interestingly, the film also features two other male characters, a shy, daffy researcher and an effete, snobbish actor, whose sexuality could also be questioned. The concept of the theatrical world as a haven for gays had already taken root.

Unfortunately, there is little to recommend in "Manhattan Parade" other than its status as a footnote in gay film history. The performances are competent, although Dickie Moore is a scene-stealer as Lightner's son, and Lloyd Bacon's direction is perfunctory given the restraints of the period. This short comedy will seem to drag on humorlessly for hours to viewers who are not dedicated film historians.

My vote of 10 out of 10 does not mean this is a 'great' movie in any traditional sense. In fact, from the point of view of standard film reviewing, it's lacking in almost all the qualities of a well-made, polished Hollywood film.

The film feels haphazardly made, but there are so many bizarre, surreal moments that proponents of non-traditional criticism will love. Take this one: for no stated reason, a elephant's head and trunk are being painted with a large question mark; minutes later, a woman in a nude suit walks by with a large question mark covering her body. Both the elephant and the woman are part of a theatrical production, but these two scenes have no motivation.

But even for those who don't particularly care for what I've said above, pre-code fans will be delighted by the film's several risqué moments.

This film has only 9 votes at the time of my writing this, but seeing as TCM aired it last night in its 8pm prime-time slot, perhaps the gave many (like myself) an opportunity to watch this film which is available neither on VHS or DVD.

I saw this film on TCM as part of their month-long "Screened Out" series. It's not a great film, but it wasn't bad either. It has to do with a company founded by a married couple that designs and supplies costumes for Broadway shows. The husband issues an ultimatum to the wife (Lightner) that her place is at home taking care of their son, not at the office. He makes this ultimatum not out of concern for his son, but so that he can make his wife's secretary his own since she is already his mistress. When Winnie's character agrees to resign and stay home, her husband proceeds to run the business into the ground and then takes off to parts unknown with the company's remaining funds and his secretary/mistress. Now it's up to Lightner's character to repair the damage to the company and repay the creditors before the business has to be dissolved.

The husband does reappear at one point, and the odd thing is, Winnie has him behind a legal eight ball not because he is a man in his thirties carrying on with an under aged (17 year old) girl (the secretary), but because he has promised to marry the girl and has gone back on that promise - or as they once called it - breach of promise. Oh how conventions have changed in eighty years.

I've heard much about Winnie Lightner over the years, primarily about her role in the lost film "Gold Diggers of Broadway", and I was surprised as how she actually came across on screen. Lightner actually seemed more matronly than a flapper in this one. Charles Butterworth, who I usually find unbearably unfunny, actually did a good job in this one as company researcher - he makes sure that historical costumes are accurate for the times. Then there is the reason this film was in the festival in the first place - Bobby Watson as Paisley, the apparently gay costume designer in a delightful over-the-top performance. Watson certainly had a wide acting range. In 1929 he is a whiny vaudevillian in one of the first talkies, "Syncopation". Then he went on to playing gay men during the precode era, but you probably best remember him as the diction instructor in "Singing in the Rain".

This film will probably never be on DVD, but it's fun viewing and a good example of a pre-code era film.

I'm sure that some who see this movie will be very unimpressed and a bit put off by its style, but I had a great time watching the film even though it could never be mixed up for Shakespeare due to its decidedly low-brow approach. While the film is essentially a drama about a company that provides costumes for Broadway productions, there is a lot of far from subtle comedy that made me laugh in spite of its very modest pretensions. Many of the laughs came from the legendary Vaudeville team "Smith and Dale"--who were reportedly the inspiration for Neil Simon's THE SUNSHINE BOYS. There jokes are corny and pure "Borscht Belt" (i.e., very stereotypically Jewish) but I liked their act--though I am sure many might find them annoying or very old fashioned. I think the reason I like them so much is that although they had a very long career together, they did almost no films. This and the great short WHAT PRICE PANTS? are two wonderful examples of their comedy--and I am a huge fan of early comedy (silent and sound). However, if you aren't a fan, I could see that you might just find the act bizarre.

The other funny act in the film was Bobby Watson in the role of "Paisley". His was perhaps the most stereotypically gay performance in films during the Pre-Code era--so named because a loose and unformalized Production Code often meant that taboo topics such as adultery and homosexuality were included in films. His gay designer "schtick" was great and very funny, though I am sure some might find his mincing manner offensive. Considering the time and context, to me it didn't seem offensive--just a time capsule of the era and its attitudes. Incidentally, because of Watson's performance, this film was spotlighted by Turner Classic Movies for their salute to homosexual images in film.

As far as the plot goes, it wasn't all that subtle or believable, but it was fun--though a tad over the top and silly. Once again, it was not great art but due to a lot of energy by everyone concerned the film is likable and nearly earns a 7--especially if you (like me) are a huge fan of Pre-Code Hollywood. The Watson performance plus a plot involving adultery make this a film you could not have seen post-1934 due to the restrictiveness of the code. An excellent historical curio.

A great example of the liberated woman is found in Manhattan Parade with Winnie Lightner who is the real brains behind the John Roberts Costume Company. Husband Walter Miller just takes advantages of the perks of the business, one of them being to run away for a little romp with a chorus girl while Lightner is both mother and breadwinner for their kid Dickie Moore. In the end Miller with his dalliances should have been more discreet, he had it made and didn't appreciate it.

But the real strength of Manhattan Parade is in the outrageous and zany overacting of Luis Alberni as an eccentric Russian producer and the great vaudeville team of Smith and Dale as a pair cheese manufacturers who want to become theatrical angels. What a merry chase Alberni leads Smith and Dale on.

Also in the cast are Charles Butterworth who works for Lightner in his droll kind of slapstick and Bobby Watson who later played Adolph Hitler in a dozen or so films. He plays an outrageous gay stereotype also working for Lightner.

I'm torn as far as Watson's character is concerned. It's offensive yes, but under the Code gays became practically invisible. You can see why Stonewall was needed watching him.

Manhattan Parade is a nice pre-Code comedy, very outrageous in many spots.