Donne di altri uomini

Other Men's Women (1931)

If you only watch the first twenty minutes of this you'll get a slightly corny movie about a couple of pals and a couple of gals and a slightly mixed set of affections that is pure innocence. The acting is a little forced, but there is good fluid camera-work, bright, complex scenes, and all kinds of really rare location shooting in railroad yards (and on top of railroad cars). It's fun in its own way, but the two main male characters are so happy and glib they seem weirdly dated.

But then the first twist comes into play--and the title gives an idea there (though it shouldn't be plural, I would think). Also, remember this is a pre-code film so it plays openly with things like adultery in a way that wouldn't happen starting in 1934, three years later.

Now don't get the idea that things get too steamed up here. It's still a depression era big studio romance and it isn't going to take actual chances morally. Or aesthetically. The leading woman is a very young Mary Astor and she's terrific, more naturalistic than the men (neither of whom is well known). The male actor of growing fame (or future fame, largely) is James Cagney, and his role is very very limited, but familiar. He has an edgy intensity that is startling--and he can dance, too. Briefly. Look for Joan Blondell, as well, and though she was in endless films (50 of them just in the 1930s) she's always perky and alive.

The movie never quite rises above its plain approach and this is appropriate because it makes it possible for the movie to talk about what might go wrong between very regular people in a case of one man hitting on the other's wife. It is always rather open and accessible in its own way, you might even say modern in the way it's filmed. Director William Wellman isn't always appreciated on the highest level, but he had an unaffected touch, less art and more humanity, than some other more famous directors, and it's in full force here, easy to like.

The movie also surprised me with its effects and its high drama toward the end. I won't say more, but the rain just won't stop. Great atmosphere, lots of night shooting in the rain, and a scary climax, visually (not so compelling dramatically, I'm afraid). Great fun!

So why isn't this better than it is? One is a script that is a bit awkward or forced at times, both in the dialog and in the forced melodrama. The other is some acting (by the two men--Grant Withers and Regis Toomey) that is just weak. And the situations are highly emotional and demanding. This is another of Wellman's traits, unfortunately--even in his acclaimed and astonishing "Wings" from 1927 there is a feeling of some kind of acting and writing stiffness that brings down an otherwise brilliant kind of production.

Should you see this? If you like early talkies, yes. If you want a tight story with intelligence and depth, I'm not so sure. Enter forewarned. I liked it, I did, but I partly just got, uh, swept away by the way it was shot. And the common DVD transfer from film is first rate, clean and clear!

Depression-era movies get to me.

If it's not the plot, the locales, the characters, the old acting style, the old manner of speaking, the manners of the era, the "clean" way of thinking, the gritty realism and authentic feel of location shooting inside or outside or sometimes even the costumes...something always captivates me about the talkies of 30's and late 20's.

There may not be prodigious film-making here but two scenes will remain engraved in my memory:

1- The blind man struggling alone in the rain in the railway yard. One particular close-up was intriguing. There was no intense melodrama here, just a man in turmoil. Wonderfully done.

2- Bill's encounter at the end with an old "friend". As Bill realizes that this old friend may offer him some hope he runs out and boards a moving train. He proceeds to get on the roof to release his romantic glee by running down the entire length of the train from caboose to the engine car. His boyish joy made me smile.

Ah, that bygone era of innocence. With all of the misery that happened then, these were some of the charming highlights that linger on.

We are the richer for the preservation of every film from that era. Each contributes another chapter in the art of film and of the heart of man's growth.

I woke up early, turned on the T.V. flipped to TMC just as this movie was showing opening credits. Happy Accident! I loved it! Yeah, the plot was hokey and melodramatic, but as a whole the movie was very charming. It was a "moment" filled movie. Lot's of scenes and dialogue that was original, and fun. Like a scene where Bill,Lily, and the Peg-Leg guy are planting seeds in the garden. Or Bill's Tag line "Have a chew on me". It was made in 1931, so they were able to get away with all sorts of lines that would not have been included had the movie been made a few years later, after the code was established. For instance Bill's waitress girlfriend commenting to a customer, "I'm APO, Ain't Puttin' Out". Hee! I always find those pre-code "Talking" films interesting. The films that existed before people got bent out of shape about the things you could and could not say, do, or insinuate in a movie. Definitely a fun and entertaining viewing. Even more fun when you realize a good portion of the things they were saying wouldn't be allowed in movies again until the 1960's.

The plot is pure hokum, so it's the extras that "make" the movie: The backdrop of trains and trainyards, Joan Blondell in an extraneous role as a saucy waitress, James Cagney in an early supporting part (he has a nice bit on top of a moving train, and also does some dancing), J. Farrell MacDonald helping plant peas by making holes in the dirt with his peg leg, cool bridge and train miniatures, etc. Approach with modest expectations

Grand film, has all the elements of a greek tragedy with a socko ending. And all ends honorably. A definite 10. Story plot, character development and even the scenery. From a dance-hall to the railroad yards to a bridge under siege by flood. And Jimmy Cagney dances! How could you go wrong. Dialogue a bit 'racy' in spots.