The Age of Consent

The title and synopsis suggest that this might be some silly pre-code fluffy nonsense but it's absolutely not! This is a mature and thought provoking drama with naturalistic acting, realistic dialogue giving a shocking insight into who we were in the 1930s.

Hopefully I'm not making it sound like some dry documentary - this is pure slap you in the face type melodrama but also a real education! It explains so much about the attitudes and ideas of the time. What makes it so compelling isn't just the themes it's the likeability and the surprising realism of the characters. Even Eric Linden who's often atrocious is great in this. Likewise, pretty Arline Judge who's pretty awful in other pictures in this, with a good director, is fantastic, channeling her 'inner-Barbara Stanwyck.'

University life in 1932...or really the late twenties when this was written, doesn't seem too different to how it was in my time in the 1980s. Although nobody's arguing about whether Pink Floyd or Yes are best or what to watch on the TV, they're still a) not discussing course work and b) obsessed with sex. It's all weirdly relatable.

The plot, which as I say, explains the attitudes of so many 1930s movies centres on a student who has sex with a waitress....they're caught by her dad who informs the student that she's under-age...so he has two choices according to the law: a) go to jail or b) marry his daughter. Before the eleventh century, if you had sex with someone you were legally married.... times hadn't changed too much had they but this is the 1930s not the Middle Ages! I was staggered that this was the pronouncement of a court.

'But we don't love each other.' they'd argue. 'What's love got to do with marriage?' they'd reply ad though answering the most absurd question ever, 'Marriage isn't about love, it's about doing the right thing.' I guess this explains why so many people in 1930s pictures get married so quickly without really getting to know each other. No sex before marriage wasn't just an idea, it was part of our make-up, one of our unbreakable, unquestionable Ten Commandments.

To a lesser degree, the other topic this pokes into is class. When I was in Oxford there was a distinct line between town and gown. It was either Dr Who or Star Trek where two separate communities existed on the same planet in the same space but were separated somehow so they never knew of each other's existence - Oxford was a bit like that in the eighties but in the late twenties of this film, that segregation was even wider. Only the super-rich could afford to go to university back then so what happened between this testosterone filled student and the randy teenage waitress is an exploration of what happens classes clash - could an entitled son of a millionaire live happily ever after with an 'uneducated' working class daughter of a labourer? Society says they must!

This belongs with those other early thirties pictures such as NIGHT COURT, BABY FACE, SHE HAD TO SAY YES, BAD GIRL etc. Which make you realise that you wouldn't really want to have lived back then.

Gregory LaCava directed this 1932 film, The Age of Consent, starring Richard Cromwell, Dorothy Wilson, Aileen Pringle, John Halliday, and Arline Judge.

It's a precode story of kids in college, with lots of talk encouraging young women to loosen their morals, all kinds of sexual innuendo.

Michael (Cromwell) is a young man of high ideals who doesn't appreciate his buddy Duke's (Eric Linden) outrageous flirting and sexy talk, especially when it comes to Michael's girlfriend Betty (Wilson).

He confides to one of the professors (Halliday) that he's thinking of giving up college for marriage. This is evidently because of raging hormones.

When he's caught with an underage waitress, Dora (Judge), after a night of drinking, Dora's father demands they marry at once. This is one of those so subtle blink and you miss it. We are given the impression that they maybe kissed while drunk. I don't think so. She asks, are you sorry - I think they had sex. Other reviewers weren't sure.

The premise seems to be, leave college and get married rather than just shack up. In a way it's odd, since other precodes have people living together before marriage.

Anyway I have a soft spot for Richard Cromwell due to Emma and the fact that he was briefly married to Angela Lansbury. He did not stay in show business. He was a very talented artist and died at 50.

Unlike a lot of early sound films, where the actors don't know quite what to do with their voices, so the dialog's either stilted or exaggerated (more like on stage), this one came across pretty good. There wasn't all that exaggeration or over-the-top melodrama, and I credit the actor for that.

The story's not bad either, as two young college students try to navigate a society that's quite a bit different than when their parents were their age. (This movie is from 1931, so Mom and Dad were probably college age in the 1900's, so that says a lot.) Betty's an old-fashioned girl who thinks she should be more modern, while Michael wants to hold onto traditional values and ideals, despite pressure and temptation.

When a modern mistake is made, an old-fashioned correction seems in order, which may ruin the couple's chance for happiness.

There is also educational/life choice issues: is it okay to leave college and get a job, start your adult life a bit sooner than planned, even if it means postponing or giving a degree and career goals, if you have what you believe is a valid reason for doing so?

This movie has a bittersweet ending, and I could have done without the bitter, as a character of questionable ethics shows himself to be a better person and deserved a better fate.

Worth watching.

This is a better cultural artifact than a movie . . . but it's a very watchable movie. Catch it on TCM.

The alert is for Richard Cromwell, who plays the young man in what I'll call "a situation" with a townie waitress. He's a pretty good actor I've not seen in any other pictures -- and a 24-carat ringer for Leonardo DiCaprio! Their resemblance is beyond close; it's frightening: looks, body language, the whole package. (I am not a good judge of voices, but I don't think they're too far apart.) . . . Since IMDb is insisting on 10 lines' worth of comment even tho' I'm done, I agree w/ the other posted comments about the snappy yet smarmy pre-Code tone of this movie. That's what makes it such an artifact. If I were Robert Osborne (and we're all SO lucky I'm not), this movie would be double-billed with "The Story of Temple Drake," a bleaker look at the same good-time era starring Miriam Hopkins.

Even for pre-Hayes code cinema, this one is particularly smutty. Not to say there's nudity or whatever, but the sexuality positively drips off the screen, and very little is said which doesn't have to do with intercourse of one sort or another. They probably had fun making this one. Highly recommended if you can find it. Thanks to the American Film Institute for their preserving this film.