Big News

An early talkie, and boy, does it show, with the static camerawork and uncertain sound recording. But it's a lively newspaper comedy-drama, energetically directed by Gregory La Cava and conveying lots of big--city-news atmosphere. Robert Armstrong, not the suavest or handsomest leading man, is a "Front Page"-style newspaperman pursuing an opioid story and squabbling with not just his editors but his wife, Carol (not yet Carole) Lombard, who's only 20 or 21 here and not the incandescent presence she later became. Sam Hardy's a menacing thug, Gabby Hayes another newsman, and, most intriguingly, Cupid Ainsworth is the jacket-and-tie-wearing lady who dispenses advice to the lovelorn, along with wisecracks. There's much drunken behavior, of the type once considered hilarious, and it's fast-paced and lively. I kept wanting Armstrong to turn into Lee Tracy, and I wish it were more audible, but at 65 minutes, it doesn't wear out its welcome.

I would say that 1931 was the year movies got remarkably better. By then the sound and picture quality was better and it seems the acting and the scripts made the leap forward too. 1929 was so early in the talkie stages that I don't think studios, directors, actors, or even writers were prepared for it. Because of that there were a lot of movies between 1929 and 1930 with bad plots and terrible acting.

Take "Big News" for instance. This movie was OK, but I think it would've been loads better if done a few years later.

The notable actors were Robert Armstrong and Carole Lombard. They played a married couple and both were reporters but at different newspapers. Robert Armstrong played Steve Banks, a reporter working at his sixteenth paper. He'd been fired from the other fifteen rags because of his drinking problem. When he was sober he was a decent newspaperman.

He was on the trail of a dope pusher named Joe Reno (Sam Hardy), except he couldn't stay sober long enough to gather anything on Reno. His only chance to 1.) save his marriage, 2.) break a big story, and 3.) save his job, was to sober up and do what he knew how to do.

As for a plot, "Big News" wasn't bad. The execution, however, left a lot to be desired, but I think that was the most that could be expected back then.

Free on Tubi.

Robert Armstrong and Carole Lombard star in this early talky about the newspaper business. Armstrong plays an obnoxious drunk who, inexplicably, Lombard loves. He constantly shoots off his mouth and you wonder why the paper puts up with him. By the end of the film, however, he's redeemed himself and shows that he's a darn find newspaper man.

The film is odd in the way it portrays Armstrong as a relatively high-functioning and lovable alcoholic. In some ways, it seems to excuse his addiction and presents a very odd and convoluted message. It's also odd in that one of the characters seems to be that of a very manly lesbian. Both are things you never would have seen in a Hollywood film once the toughened Production Code was enacted in mid-1934--when alcoholism needed to be punished and lesbians needed to vanish.

So is the film any good? Well, in spots it's quite good and in others it lets the viewer down. A few of the performances are poor (such as when the murder is discovered near the end of the film) but the overall plot is engaging and worth seeing. But, for 1929, it's actually quite good--had it been made a year or two later, I would have given it a slightly lower score.

For folks like me who simply watch too many movies, it also was a thrill to see Tom Kennedy play a SMART policeman—as he almost always played very stupid ones!

Steve Banks is a hard-drinking newspaper reporter.

His wife Margaret, a reporter for a rival paper, threatens to divorce him if he doesn't quit the drinking that is compromising his career.

Steve pursues a story about drug dealers even when his editor fires him.

When the editor is murdered, Steve is accused of the killing.

But Steve has an ace up his sleeve that may save him from the electric chair.

Does this sound like a comedy? That's where IMDb puts it. It's a weird and dumb movie.

Robert Armstrong ("Steve") is a reporter at a busy newspaper where he spends much of his time drinking or nursing an hangover. His behaviour is testing the patience not just of his bosses, but of his wife Margaret (a feisty Carole Lombard) who works for another newspaper and for some reason is still keen on him. When he finds himself on the wrong end of a murder investigation, she must help him track down the true culprit. The thing about this film is the dialogue - it is relentless and after a while becomes quite irritating and largely humourless. Sure, it deals with alcoholism (and it's side effects) in a way that the code would soon discourage, but as he comes across as somewhat odious and the whole pace, though frenetic as you might expect in a 1920s newspaper office, goes nowhere fast for the vast majority of the film. Even the last fifteen minutes - in which everything of note occurs - doesn't really lift it. I just found myself a bit bored by it all and it seemed longer than it's 75 minutes.