Mulher do Outro

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!

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

I had never heard of this movie but the only reason i watched it was because of James Cagney. Cagney had a pretty small part but i didn't mind. This movie stars Grant Withers and Regis Toomey as best friends who work as railroad conductors and Toomey is married to Mary Astor. Withers is dating Joan Blondell but he falls in love with Mary Astor instead. Withers is staying at Toomey's house but he leaves because he doesn't want to hurt Toomey. Toomey finds out why he left and they get in a fight on the train and cause an accident. After the accident they find Toomey is blind and then this big storm comes. I don't wont to spoil the ending because you can find it out for yourself. Both Withers and Toomey are good and so is Mary Astor and Joan Blondell.

A fast-paced tale of love, action and sacrifice - the kind of Hollywood staple they don't make anymore. More than a little melodramatic and very much a period piece, the film is worth watching most of all for some stunning visual effects and an absolutely marvelous (supporting) performance by Joan Blondell in the kind of role that suited her perfectly: a wisecracking, hash-slinging dame - a floozy who thinks she's looking for love, but is only out for a good time. Mary Astor is convincing in the lead role, but Joan steals the show.

A curiously ambiguous ending might make you wonder what point the film was trying to make about morality. Be assured that after the Code was in effect, this picture would have ended differently.