Avaliações de usuários

I never thought I would enjoy this production of "Waterloo Bridge" more than the 1940 remake with Robert Taylor and Vivien Leigh. For one thing, this version is a straight narrative which is more suspenseful than the flashback construction of the remake. Secondly, Kent Douglass has that boyish quality which makes his naiveté much more believable than Robert Taylor's. And finally, the pacing and casting of the supporting actors by James Whale couldn't be beat. Ethel Griffies, as the heartless landlady, Enid Bennett, as Douglass' sympathetic but forceful mother, and Doris Lloyd, Clarke's practical but unfeeling prostitute friend, were all standouts. I had never seen Mae Clarke in such a strong dramatic role, which she handles more beautifully than I ever thought she could, conveying her anguish at loving a man but being ashamed of having become a prostitute. And, of course, there is Bette Davis in a small inconsequential role very early in her career; she was still a pleasure to watch. By all means, see this film! You won't regret it.

This sensational 1931 pre-code classic is the first of three films based on the play by Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Robert E. Sherwood, who felt the film had improved on his play. Carl Laemmle, Jr. (charge of production since 1929), son of Carl Laemmle (founder of Universal Pictures), bought the rights to Waterloo Bridge in early 1931 and initially felt none of the director's under contract with Universal could pull off a film adaptation of the play. However, he had seen the little-known film based on a play (by playwright R.C. Sheriff) entitled, Journey's End (1930), which featured a volatile setting and theme of World War I. It was the first film directed by the then relatively unknown James Whale, who had directed the play in New York and London as well. He was hired by Laemmle to direct Waterloo Bridge, however, Whale found himself uncertain about the original screenplay, which he demanded for a new screenwriter. Benn W. Levy and Tom Reed wrote a new screenplay, bringing the story back to a drama film (instead of a war movie). With Universal having serious difficulties financially, Laemmle reportedly gave Whale an insignificant budget of $250,000 and only 26-day's to shoot the film.

Rose Hobart (a Universal contract player) had been originally given the part of Myra Deauville (a chorus girl), but when she discovered that the studio was not renewing her contract, she regrettably refused to do the film. Whale chose then Columbia contract player Mae Clarke to replace Hobart. (Laemmle agreed to cast Clarke from her recent popularity in The Public Enemy.) Her co-star would be Douglass Montgomery (appearing as Kent Douglass) as the roll of Roy Cronin (an American soldier under Royal Canadian Forces). Even though they were filming on a tight schedule, with Montgomery being heavily inexperienced, Whale would take three days out of production just to work with him. The film also features a 23-year old Bette Davis in a small roll as Cronin's sister Janet. It would be Davis' third and final film with Universal before signing a seven-year deal with Warner Bros.

Waterloo Bridge opens with a fantastic shot of a stage show and the individual shots of the chorines are brilliant, with each looking smutty and profane. Afterwards, Myra backstage (singers and dancers making lots of noise in their underwear) saids goodbye to her gig as a chorus girl. (Myra becomes stranded in England after her show closes at the beginning of World War I.) A couple of years past, Myra is on the streets selling her body to the soldiers who spill out from the Waterloo Station. During an air raid in London, Roy meets Myra, and falls in love with her, unaware she is a prostitute. Montgomery's Roy is a handsome blonde but in many ways is clueless. He's certainly a likable heartfelt young man who is much too dull to identify a prostitute when he sees one. Clarke plays Myra as a intelligent woman, but frightened, secretly unhappy, and susceptible to outbursts. Really, Clarke amazingly complies Myra's conflicted emotions and impulses in a courageous portrayal of a woman horribly suffering. She believes herself to be nothing but trash and she's wrong - just as Roy's mother Mrs. Mary Cronin Wetherby (Enid Bennett) believes herself to be a fine woman.

Whale's direction was truly incredible, as he added a delicate mixture of realism and impressionism, but what makes Waterloo Bridge is Clarke's astonishing performance and the very real chemistry between her and co-star Montgomery (Whale stages the dialogue with great sophistication and slyness). Clarke will always be remembered as the wife (Elizabeth) of Dr. Henry Frankenstein in the 1931 Frankenstein (also directed by Whale) and for the girl that received half a grapefruit in the face by James Cagney in The Public Enemy (1931). However, in Waterloo Bridge, she proves to be more than just that, as she gives a striking performance that even two-time Academy Award winner Vivien Leigh herself couldn't come close to matching in the restrained 1940 remake. Of course, she was never a staple name like Leigh, however, she is simply a pleasure to watch as the main character - without question the finest performance of her unfortunate career. James Whale's 1931 Waterloo Bridge is vastly superior to the 1940 remake, as well as, the 1956 remake Gaby.

Mae Clarke is a revelation as a prostitute in the original "Waterloo Bridge". The film was eclipsed by the 1940 remake starring Vivian Leigh and until recently this earlier version was unavailable. This pre-code version holds up beautifully and is better in many ways because of its frankness and because of Mae Clarke's ferocious performance. Kent Douglas plays the 19 year old soldier who falls in love with the prostitute, not realizing her true profession.The movie seems more realistic than the remake because, Douglas looks and acts like a callow 19 year old,and Clarke is very believable as the prostitute who tries to protect her soldier lover from the truth about herself. Neither Clarke nor Douglas became major stars and you can see that they lack the larger than life glamour of Vivian Leigh and Robert Taylor who starred in the remake.However, Clarke and Douglas add a touch of realism which was a hallmark of many of the pre-code movies and which wouldn't be found in American movies in abundance until the 1970's.

Having seen Mae Clarke being carried away by Frankenstein and getting a grapefruit in the face by James Cagney, I had a clear image of her but not of her talent.

I agree with the other reviewers that this is one knock-out performance. At a time when many actors in early talkies were still being very stagey (with stilted manners and playing to the back row), Mae Clarke built a performance that was modern and genuine.

The whole production is good (especially Arthur Edeson's cinematography and James Whale's direction), but Clarke's acting is what I'll always remember.

Really excellent pre-code film, set in wartime London where an ex-chorus girl/current street walker (played by Mae Clarke) heads over to Waterloo Bridge to try and find herself a soldier on leave, and she meets wealthy, baby-faced, nineteen-year-old raw/green Roy and invites him up to her flat. He immediately falls in love and thinks she's a "good girl", unaware of her real walk of life. She falls for him too, but keeps putting him off, racked with guilt over her secret "career". Meanwhile he keeps pressing on, sneaking in her window, tricking her into meeting his family for a weekend of tennis, tea, and cocktails, asking her to marry him, etc. - he's completely smitten!

Top-notch acting and a good deal of chemistry between the two leads helps make this a really interesting, absorbing film. Their conversations together come across as quite realistic, and the performance given here by Mae Clarke is amazing - extremely well-done and memorable. I also enjoyed seeing a very young Bette Davis who appears here in a very small role as Roy's sister. Only one thing that bothered me about this film is, why oh why, as I have often seen done in period films made during this time, do they have the actresses appearing in modern, early 30s dresses, rather than period costume? Oh well, still a really first-rate film, well worth seeing.

It's not often one sees a film of this era with as much straightforward, realistic acting and characterization. It's not perfect in that regard, of course, and there's still a bit of the silent era heavy makeup and staging, but the honest and unstylized delivery of actor after actor is astonishing.

Although Mae Clarke's performance as Myra is justifiably lauded, Kent Douglass's (his screen name here) clean, fluid, unexaggerated portray is a delight to watch (in spite of the aforementioned eye makeup). Both Frederick Kerr and Enid Bennett as Roy's step-father and mother are priceless. The scenes between Mary, Roy's mother, and Mae are especially satisfying for their unassuming honesty.

Waterloo Bridge (1931)

An amazing movie. Set in London during World War I, directed by the man who directed the original (and also amazing) Frankenstein, and with photography by the less known but first rate Arthur Edeson (Frankenstein, yes, but also Casablanca, no less). And throw in an astonishing actress, Mae Clarke, and you can see why it doesn't falter. She plays a struggling chorus girl and prostitute with snappy, lively believability. The lead male, Douglass Montgomery, playing a sweet hearted American soldier, is also a surprise face, totally charming, a perfect complement to Clarke. As characters, the young soldier's bright optimism brings out the best in the struggling but good hearted street girl.

The story is fast, and not completely predictable, and has a blow-out of an ending, really nice. Though set in the teens it feels modern (maybe too modern, historically). I never knew that London had a kind of Blitz experience in WWI, just as they would a decade after this film was released, and looking it up I found the Germans used zeppelins over London in the first war much the same was as they did (with planes) in WWII--to demoralize the civilian population. It adds tense excitement to the film throughout, and to the last scenes in particular, even if it isn't completely realistic (for some reason people don't scramble for cover even as the bombs are being dropped, maybe to portray that stiff upper lip thing).

Is this just a silly romance? No, no way, not when the two actors in it are so fresh and convincing, giving sparkling, nuanced performances miles away from the stiffness we associate with early sound films (or with many silent movies). This is a first rate and fast movie and honest, only 79 minutes long, with fully formed soundtrack and solid supporting cast (including a young Betty Davis, who is already confident and familiar as the sister of the leading man). The LeRoy remake of 1940 is a testimony to the strength of the story (and it is also really good). But if you want to see an early gem on its own terms, here it is. Highly recommended.

The version of 'Waterloo Bridge' from 1940, with Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor, has always been a favourite, so I welcomed the chance to finally see the earlier take with Mae Clarke and Kent Douglass.

Similar in some ways to the remake, the 1931 version is a lot grittier and more direct. It is clear what Myra's job is right from the start, and Clarke looks the part. You never could really imagine Vivien Leigh street-walking.

As Roy the Canadian soldier home on leave, Kent Douglass is a little stiff and reserved, but he puts across well the desperation of a man in love, no matter what. It's an old story, but done well here.

Despite a few histrionics and a relatively short running time, this film is entertaining (an old woman loses potatoes in an air raid and won't move off the bridge without them), and poignant (Myra feels at home at last with Roy's country folks, but we know it won't last).

It can be found on the DVD set 'Forbidden Hollywood, volume 1'.

There have been dozens of prostitute storylines in Hollywood films over the decades, but few, if any, can match the emotional powerhouse performance of Mae Clarke as a streetwalker who shields her naive lover, a WW1 soldier on leave. Kent Douglas is very believalbe as the young soldier as well. The storyline is deliciiously conceived and delivered by the actors, but the writer is the one who makes this film possible. And that would be Robert Sherwood, who wrote the original play on Broadway. In the class of Brief Encounter and a few other great war relationsip films.

The coming of sound to Hollywood was such a mighty upheaval as far as the mechanics of filmmaking went, that those years from 1928 to 1931 were in many ways a testing ground for new approaches, and a trial for directors. Of those that succeeded, there were old pros like Michael Curtiz, Raoul Walsh, Ernst Lubitsch and John Ford who were able to make incredibly smooth transitions simply by weaving sound in as another layer in their existing technique. And then there were the newcomers from theatre backgrounds, people like George Cukor, Rouben Mamoulian and of course James Whale who were accustomed to directing dialogue but completely unused to the world of movies. Cukor and Mamoulian got off to shaky starts, and their earliest films are rather poor. Whale however seems to have had taken instantly to the talkie medium, picking up film grammar with ease and yet with the unique approach of the outsider.

In Waterloo Bridge, Whale's second picture, we open with a sweeping tracking shot, reminiscent of those with which the afore-mentioned Mr Curtiz often opened his pictures both before and after the sound barrier. Whale isn't yet savvy enough to use this to key us into the setting and introduce ideas as Curtiz would, but his complex and vibrant arrangements show his understanding of the movement and unlimited scope of cinematic space, with a shot ironically inside a theatre! In dialogue scenes Whale has a distinct way of framing actors, often from the knees up with their heads very close to the top of the shot, which seems emphasise the height of the frame as being equal to the width. The camera is constantly moving round, often giving us 360-degree coverage of a location. It's as if Whale, freed from the limited proportions of the stage, is now striving to give us a sense of the "real world" spaces that motion pictures can take place in.

Another great thing about Whale is that he makes very abrupt and effective changes in focus. Take the moment when Mae Clarke and Kent Douglass both realise that the other is American. Up until that point the whole scene had been in long mid-shots, with a lot of movement in the frame, but then we suddenly cut in to these bold close-ups with no intermediary ground, and the moment is given great weight as the point at which the couple "clicked". There's an even better example in the scene when Clarke and Montgomery get to know each other in her apartment. Again this is mostly in mid-shot, with the occasional head and shoulders shot. However, once Douglas has left and Clarke slips into character for her "night job", there is again this very jarring cut to a close-up, this time of Clarke in her dressing-table mirror. It's a sudden and very deliberate stepping from the carefree world of the courting couple to the very private space of Clarke and it makes the shift in tone at this point all the more palpable.

The leading couple, Clarke and Douglass (later credited as Douglass Montgomery in pictures such as Little Women) were two of the many stars who were fairly noticeable in the early sound era, but would soon fade into obscurity for one reason or another. I have seen them both in a number of other roles, but never has either of them been as good. Clarke has a really natural feel for the dialogue, and shows great understatement with her near-deadpan facial expressions. Douglass too is very restrained, managing to give a believable portrait of Roy's naiveté, his one break into powerful emotions very credible. "Restraint" and "understatement" are not words that could be applied to the rest of the cast, who by and large are a delightful rogues gallery of hammy oddballs. We have some sharp-tongued cockneys like the potato woman and the landlady, played by Rita Carlisle and Ethel Griffies respectively, both of whom would roughly reprise their roles for the 1940 remake. Best of all however is Frederick Kerr in one of his unfortunately small number of film appearances, doing his typical blustering aristocrat act. Many of his curmudgeonly mutterings were no doubt written specifically for, if not by, Kerr himself. Players like these add spice to the production and give contrast to the subtlety and seriousness of the leads.

Waterloo Bridge is one of those pictures that have been revived today by the magic wand of the "pre-code era" label. This tends to be a bit of a double-edged sword, because while on the one hand it allows for DVD releases of pictures that would otherwise be nigh-on impossible to see, it means they also tend to get remembered and analysed for their sauce and sass more than for anything else. But aside from the somewhat frank handling of prostitution that marks it as a product of its time, Waterloo Bridge is a fine, stirring drama, which thanks to the efforts of its cast and director has a sense of realism, immediacy and intimacy rarely seen in pictures of that age.

This 1931 Pre-Code version is somewhat forgotten since MGM remade it in 1940 with bigger stars. The 1940 version with Robert Taylor and Vivien Leigh may be sanitized, but it is a tender and sweet story. But this one from Universal has its points.

The two leads, Mae Clarke as Myra, the prostitute prowling the streets of WWI era London, and Kent Douglass as Roy, the naive soldier who falls in love with her, are excellent. Their performances are natural and ring with authenticity.

Even if Myra did not have this "big secret" that she is keeping from Roy, you've got to wonder why he so badly wants to marry someone who is a master at passive aggressive behavior and abruptly turns from agreeable to abrasive. If you know her complete story her behavior makes sense, but otherwise you are likely to end up like Claude Rains' character in Kings Row - living in isolation out in the boonies trying to hide your mad wife.

Actually, though she denies being a chorus girl, Myra actually IS one. The opening scene shows her in the chorus. Her employment is probably too sporadic for her support. She seems very hard on herself. Doris Lloyd is also very good as Kitty, Myra's older friend and fellow streetwalker. Kitty has no delusions. For her, it's a job like any other job. She hopes to save enough money to eventually retire in relative comfort.

Waterloo Bridge steers clear of sermonizing. Clarke manages to show the thrill Myra gets from walking around London, looking for customers, of being your own boss. This is quite a statement to make about prostitution, and very much Pre-Code. The realization creeps in that Myra and Roy's relationship is a one way street. And Roy remains a bit of an enigma, including his sexuality. You're never sure what he sees in Myra. Is it an adventure from his affluent but stultifying background, like joining the Army? These questions make Waterloo Bridge all the more intriguing.

Director James Whale imbues the production with an elegance of spirit, while still maintaining a rudimentary realism. The sets, contrasting the vividness of London landmarks with Myra's drab and Spartan apartment, are major strengths.

Do note Bette Davis as Roy's sister. She isn't given anything to do here that would make her stand out. Universal also put her in "Seed" which I haven't seen, and "The Bad Sister" in which everything that can be done to make Bette look drab and plain is done. And with that Universal decided she wasn't worth keeping around, which would be Warner Brothers' good luck.

It's difficult to watch this without comparing it to the more famous. More syrupy 1940 version with Vivienne Leigh. This film does not play straight into your emotion centres like the remake but nevertheless is still a worthwhile watch. It's essentially the same story but is surprisingly more realistic. Mae Clarke gives such an outstanding performance full of nuance and authenticity you will wonder why she didn't become a bigger star. You can really believe in her, you can personally sense the conflicting emotions tearing her apart. That's a testament to Mae Clarke's acting and James Whale's direction.

A lot of weight is given to the fact that this is made by the notable director, James Whale; he does create a believable London with a gritty and authentic atmosphere and does get 110% out of Mae Clarke but his slow and careful approach does make the story sluggish at times. There can sometimes be just too many long, wistful looks into the distance!

His choice of lead, the completely inexperienced Douglas Montgomery was picked precisely because of his inexperience. Not having had any real acting experience was meant to give him a fresh and natural nativity but in reality it just makes him seem not a good actor. Not everything James Whale made was good (The appalling Invisible Man, for example) as this demonstrates. It's got class and is very engaging but not, unlike the remake, a classic.

This is the best of the filmed versions of this story. There isn't a lot of plot in this gritty, earthy early talkie but there is an astonishingly powerful tour de force performance by Mae Clarke. I had always admired her fragile beauty and strong second lead performances in many films over the years but I'd never seen this one in which she plays a prostitute or "party girl" as they used to call them in the early sound films, a girl who is forced into prostitution in London after her show closes and she cannot get decent work. There's a blitz going on and zeppelins are reigning bombs down onto London streets and people must take shelter underground. Life is extremely difficult but onto the scene comes American Douglass Montgomery whose family, wealthy as can be, live outside of London on a marvelous estate and his sister turns out to be none other than Bette Davis. Will the family accept her? Will she tell them she is a street walker? The drama unfolds and gradually grips you fully if you like pre-code movies. Montgomery and Clarke as the young lovers have a real chemistry between them. Clarke's performance totally inhabits her space as she handles objects, uses her entire body in her performance and shows a remarkable range of emotion that seems to ripple through her entire body. I had the feeling that the actress was almost possessed by the spirit of her character. At times quiet and introspective,she then her emotions rush to the forefront and in one near final scene she belts out her anguish with astonishing power and range that blew me away. I take this to be one of the great acting performances in the history of movies and it is absolutely THE most underappreciated Academy Award quality performance ever given. You may not agree but over the last 46 years I've been teaching film history at the university level and I'd stake my reputation that for its period of time there isn't anything quite like it. It is whole decades ahead of its time. You may marvel as I did at how modern her acting is and not stilted or theatrical as her contemporaries such as Bette Davis come across now. It is a performance that one would marvel at if given today. And yet her projection is also worthy of a great stage performance as well, for this is also after all basically a filmed play. James Whale is always a fascinating director. What he coaxed out of Mae Clarke in this film is something for the ages and any acting student can learn a lot about how to move about a room, use your hands, modulate your voice and use every part of your body to create a real character. It is all the more extraordinary that Whale did this in just a few weeks and with a shoestring budget. After the film I just sat for a while in rapt amazement, so grateful that this performance has been captured on film and I had the privilege to watch it. In a word, wow!.

Since the story is so well known by some of the very good reviewers here, I am merely adding my surprise at the discovery of the talent of Mae Clarke. I had no idea she had done this original version and according to the collected IMDb data, Ms. Clarke was just 20 years old when she worked on this excellent adaptation of the play. There is no need to compare her performance to Vivien Leigh's later remake, because that film had no real grit and Clarke's performance was one of the best I have ever seen from a performer despite her youth. The film was shot soon after talkies began and her screen presence and non theatrical emoting was astonishingly on target. The director, Whale, must have had a good rapport because her scenes with all of the players came off honest and not a bit dated. I can see that Davis would have liked to play the part as someone mentioned, but she could not have done a better job. I just discovered it on the Turner channel and became so engrossed in Clarke's performance, I called people to get a copy and watch this actress' work. Quite remarkable.

Let me say first that I did not like the ending of this film. It is a product of its time that, by today's standards, is unnecessary.

In World War I, during an air raid, a young couple meet by accident on Waterloo Bridge. Myra used to be a chorus girl, but now survives by the attentions of men. Her plight seems a reasonable representation of the unfortunate circumstances that befall some single women during wartime. Roy is an idealistic and naïve soldier who, without understanding her station in life, falls rather quickly for her.

Myra tries to protect Roy from his own feelings, believing she is not worthy of his love. He is persistent until it becomes impossible for Myra to avoid his intentions.

Myra is played by Mae Clarke in a consistently good acting job. Her performance feels more modern than the rest of the cast's. I felt her hairdo was also modern for its time, perhaps contributing to the overall effect.

Bette Davis plays a very minor role.

Mae Clarke does a remarkable job in the same year that James Cagney put a grapefruit in her face in "Public Enemy." Miss Clarke is quite effective as the heroine of "Waterloo Bridge."

As a prostitute working the streets of London during World War 1, Clarke gives a tour de force as a woman who can be loving one moment and difficult to handle in the next.

The story deals also with class warfare when during an air-raid, Clarke meets a wealthy Canadian serving in the British army. He falls for her and she loves him but she knows that their differences would prevent them from true happiness. Brought to his country estate, his kindly mother, played by a charming Enid Bennett, warns against such a liaison. Fred Kerr, as his step-father, provides comic relief as a deaf elderly British officer.

One weak link in this film is Kent Douglass, who portrays the young man. Naive and kind, the chemistry is really not there between himself and Miss Clarke. He is only effective briefly in a scene with veteran actress Ethel Griffies, who portrays a greedy, conniving landlady.

The film has worn well through the many years and is worth seeing due to Miss Clarke's excellent performance. Am sure that Vivien Leigh and Leslie Caron, who both starred in the remakes, learned a lot from Miss Clarke. Look for Bette Davis as Douglass's sister. This was her first film and it is interesting to see how she evolved into the great talent that she was.

In London, American chorus girl Mae Clarke (as Myra Deauville) enjoys a short career on stage. The Great War (aka World War I) arrives and times get tough for Ms. Clarke. Unemployed but attractive, she drifts into prostitution. After becoming a regular streetwalker, Clarke goes out to score a trick on "Waterloo Bridge" and meets naive 19-year-old Royal Canadian soldier Douglass Montgomery (as Roy Cronin). He and Clarke help and old woman pick up her scattered vegetables, during an air raid. Thinking Clarke is a proper young woman, Mr. Montgomery walks her home. Clarke and Montgomery are mutually attracted, but she worries about her sordid occupation...

"Waterloo Bridge" featured a very familiar theme, for the time. Again, the "fallen women" suffers through a doomed romance. This character type was played by most of the era's big-name actresses, and Mae Clarke does an excellent, herein...

Prostitutes, historical figures and alcoholics were the parts to play if you wanted to be an actress of note. Of course, the sexually active unmarried woman must be punished in the end. Unlike several of her street-walking contemporaries, Clarke did not reach super-stardom. Montgomery asserts himself well. As was common during the transition to sound, he is made to wear too much eye make-up. Of the other players, landlady Ethel Griffies gets the third best part. She and Rita Carlyle (the old woman with potatoes) were still around for the next "Waterloo Bridge" (1940). Although it wasn't so at the time, the biggest name in the cast is Bette Davis (as Janet), playing Montgomery's socialite sister.

******* Waterloo Bridge (9/4/31) James Whale ~ Mae Clarke, Douglass Montgomery, Ethel Griffies, Bette Davis

There’s nothing particularly Pre-Code about this essentially dated “woman’s picture” – apart from the fact that the heroine is a prostitute (ironically, given the narrative’s London setting, it did get censored on its U.K. release!). Unfortunately, the audio on Warners’ DVD (the second title I’ve watched from their FORBIDDEN Hollywood COLLECTION VOL. 1) is rather low – with dialogue that’s even harder to make out through the thick British accents!

Reportedly, Tom Reed’s original draft had rendered Robert E. Sherwood’s play virtually unrecognizable – before trusted Whale scribe Benn W. Levy was roped in for a rewrite and chose to stick close to the source material. His one major addition is the central couple’s visit to the young soldier’s family estate, which provided some of the film’s best moments; however, his original intention of utilizing the poster of the long-running musical “Chu Chin Chow” (eventually filmed in England in 1934 and recently issued in an intriguing “Special Edition” 3-Disc Set through VCI!) to delineate the progress in the heroine’s fall from grace wasn’t followed through. Given the film’s theatrical origins and primitive technical quality (such as the obvious use of back-projection for the London backgrounds), it generally lacks the trademark Whale stylistics – evident only in his inventive manipulation of studio sets and especially the tragic finale (filmed in an inspired overhead shot); actually, he was under pressure to bring in the picture quickly and cheaply, because Universal was virtually broke at the time.

Though it goes without saying that I disagree with Michael Elliott’s **** rating and his assertion that WATERLOO BRIDGE is superior to FRANKENSTEIN (1931), there’s still a lot to admire here – to begin with, a surprisingly excellent performance from leading lady Mae Clarke (a role for which Rose Hobart was originally slated). Clarke would be fairly stilted in Whale’s next film, FRANKENSTEIN – but, that same year, also saw her famously on the receiving end of James Cagney’s grapefruit in THE PUBLIC ENEMY (1931)! A very young but believable Douglass Montgomery (billed as Kent Douglass) is effective, both as the love-struck soldier and when he rages in front of Clarke’s tactless landlady for daring to insult her. However, his inexperience put further strain on Whale’s tight shooting schedule and the actor had to be extensively rehearsed.

The supporting cast is equally good: Doris Lloyd as Clarke’s lively companion, Ethel Griffies as the nagging landlady (a role she recreated for the 1940 MGM version!), Enid Bennett as Douglas’ surprisingly understanding mother (the actress had been Maid Marian to Douglas Fairbanks’ ROBIN HOOD [1922] in the Silent spectacular), Frederick Kerr as his endearingly doddering stepfather (he would virtually reprise his role wholesale for FRANKENSTEIN!) – plus a nice early role for Bette Davis as Douglass’ sister, who cheekily dotes on the slightly-deaf Kerr. The crew is practically identical to the one that would soon after work on FRANKENSTEIN – and which seems to me to have been shot on some of the very same sets!

I’ve watched the glossy remake several years back but don’t recall it enough to compare – except that I know it was considerably bowdlerized: if I’m not mistaken, in the later version, the heroine is a ballerina who only turns to prostitution when the soldier goes back to war and his family subsequently shun her! By the way, this is the sixth non-horror Whale film that I’ve watched – which brings me to a total of ten; therefore, I’m still half-way through his filmography...