Il faut que tu m'épouses

This movie is basically a trite variation on the "Ruritania" romances that were still popular at the time, and unfortunately so, because the wonderfully modern and very American Clara Bow was bound to seem out of place amidst aristocrats of the Old Country. "Get Your Man" is set there to provide the plot with its necessary mechanism: Arranged marriage between nobles, an outdated concept even then that provides the necessary conflict here, as Clara learns she must liberate her newfound French love from pre-arranged imminent nuptials. Neither he or his intended really want to go through with it, but they both feel obligated to follow their titled parents' wishes to unite the family trees.

Clara is pretty unlikely as a wealthy American socialite "touring the Continent," but then the equally all- American Charles "Buddy" Rogers is no more credible as a French baronet or whatever he's supposed to be. There's nothing wrong with making such leaps in a movie as frivolously escapist as this one. But the problem is that the "refined" setting means Clara has to be relatively restrained, getting few opportunities for the kind of ebullience that is her trademark. Late in the movie there's a bit quite obviously shoehorned in to provide at least one opportunity for her natural physicality, when she wildly throws things about her guest bedroom in order to fake some sort of amorous abandon that others will hear (thus creating a scandal that will free Rogers from his wedding). And indeed it's the highlight here.

Otherwise, this is a pleasant enough but forgettable vehicle cranked out on the Paramount assembly at a time when Bow was making one movie after another--six in this year alone. Significant chunks of it are presumed permanently lost, and those gaps are filled in by a combination of titles and production stills.

Unfortunately, that includes most of what was obviously intended as the standout novelty sequence, in which the two leads find they're been locked overnight in a creepy Madame Tussaud's-style wax museum. Seeing Clara assume the same comical "I'm scared!" expression in multiple, very posed-looking publicity stills does not, alas, give much sense of how the gags would have played out in the complete original sequence. But hey, we'll take what we can get with what survives of her movies.

According to IMDb, portions of this film are missing--heck, two of the six reels are supposedly missing! However, despite this, I decided to give the film a watch and was surprised that the story worked out pretty well despite the missing reels. As for the remaining ones, they're in reasonably good shape but with a little degradation here and there.

When the story begins, Duke Robert is betrothed to Simone. What's so odd about this? Well, Simone is an infant and Robert looks to be about 4!

Years pass and Robert (Buddy Rogers)goes into town (Paris) to have some pearls re-strung. Once there, he meets vivacious Nancy (Clara Bow) and they soon hit it off. The trouble is that he's engaged and so they part.

Here is where the missing reels occur.

Now apparently Nancy's been in some sort of accident and is staying in Robert's home and I assumed neither she nor he realized this. Later in one of the reels you learned she arranged this accident! Robert's father is the one who took her in and he is very taken by Nancy...as is Simone's father. Later, Nancy learns separately that neither Simone nor Robert want to marry each other but are doing so simply out of obligation. So, to help them (and herself) she hatches a scheme that might enable the engagement to be broken. This scheme includes getting engaged to one of the fathers! So how does it all work out in this light romance? See for yourself...it's posted on YouTube.

As I said above, despite missing a portion of the film, the overall film is STILL worth seeing--which is rather surprising. The story also works well because if Bow's character just schemed to split up an engagement, she would have been a jerk and the story wouldn't have worked. But instead of being just a schemer, she's quite likable and the story sweet and well done.

I would sure love to learn one day that they've found the missing reels. This HAS happened with quite a few films in recent years, so we can only hope!

Clara Bow was the "It" girl and the epitome of a Roaring 20's flapper. Bow lit up the screen; she was vivacious, exuded sex appeal, and, with the flash of an eye and the glimpse of a leg, let the audience know she liked men and sex. Whenever she was on screen, all eyes were fixated on her. Well, almost all eyes; in "Get Your Man," the boyishly handsome Charles "Buddy" Rogers has his own charisma, and viewers will be riveted when the pair share the same frame. Unfortunately, "Get Your Man," adapted by Hope Loring from a play by Louis Verneuil, is a lackluster vehicle for the dazzling co-stars, who, like Norma Desmond, definitely "had faces then." Set in a sound-stage French château, Rogers is Robert Albin, son of the Duke of Albin, and he has been betrothed to Simone de Valens, daughter of a Marquis, since he was in short pants and she in diapers. Seventeen years after the betrothal arranged by their respective fathers, Robert and Simone are to be wed. Enter Clara Bow as Nancy Worthington, an American from New York, who quickly sets her eye on Robert, betrothal or no betrothal. After Robert and Nancy meet in Paris and spend some quality time together in a wax museum, Nancy manages to wangle a stay at the Albin château, where ostensibly she is recuperating after a car crash at the gates to the estate. Continuity during the first half of the movie is choppy, because two reels of film have been lost; the action jumps from reel 1 to reel 4, although viewers can easily fill in the gaps. Unfortunately, even the surviving footage is in poor condition at times. Especially distressing are handwritten notes that the characters read; only a few frames of them exist, and they flash by. Viewers must freeze the image to read them.

Beyond the allure of the two stars, "Get Your Man" is a dated production that is generally static and stagey; although made in 1927, the film does not reach the heights of the great movies of the late 1920's, which was the apex of the silent era. The contrived situations are not convincing, such as Nancy's silly flirtation with Simone's father or the nonsensical reason for her staying at the château. Bow and Rogers re-teamed later that same year in the classic "Wings" to much better effect. However, the film does have historical import in that the director was Dorothy Arzner, Hollywood's only female director during the "Golden Age." With but 20 directorial efforts to her name, Arzner was nevertheless the first woman to become a member of the Directors' Guild, and any of her films merits attention.

Patient viewers able to tolerate a partially deteriorated silent film with two reels missing will be rewarded with the glow of two enduring stars, Clara Bow of the flashing eyes and Charles "Buddy" Rogers of the boy-next-door smile. While the theatrical shenanigans on screen belong to a world that vanished nearly a century ago, the film offers the opportunity to sit in the dark and bask in the glow of bygone glamour and discover the work of a pioneering female director.

There are two kinds of silent comedies: those starring recognized comedic actors (Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Charlie Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy, and so on), whatever their level of renown, and those starring actors who, whatever their level of renown, were not famous specifically for their comedy. The former are almost always guaranteed to be a blast; for the latter, results may vary significantly. Even before we consider the film itself, having a legend like Clara Bow attached to your picture is guaranteed to attract viewers, but not necessarily elicit laughs, and that's without even considering whether or not there will be expression herein of values that have not aged well over the past several decades. With all this very firmly in mind, how does Dorothy Arzner's 'Get your man' hold up? As if all this dry prattle weren't evidence enough, suffice to say that more than ninety years later, it's no premier gut-buster, and for both good and ill, it does dally with values that are alien to our modern world. It is still modestly fun, though, and sometimes that's all a flick needs to be to succeed.

It's fair to wonder exactly how this was received by audiences in 1927; in 2023, it takes fifteen minutes to earn its first laugh. In fairness, that paucity is no doubt informed by the tenor of the movie (bearing touches of romantic drama), and the changing of societal mores over the years. There's also the fact that, simply put, the feature as it exists is both damaged and incomplete. (Also in fairness, it takes only another ten to earn the second laugh, and yes, there are more.) None of this is to say that the title isn't enjoyable, because it certainly is, and it would be even if we weren't treated to specific highlights. I'll even say that it picks up as it goes along, building to a strong finish in the last minutes. Even as it presents in its extant form the story is rich with potential, and I'd rather like to see Louis Verneuil's play itself, or even a new period adaptation. The situational humor - peppered intermittently with splendid gags - really is a minor delight; the cast at large is wonderfully charming and capable, including Josephine Dunn and Harvey Clark, among others. And in all manners this is very well made, including Arzner's sharp direction, gorgeous sets and costume design, lovely hair and makeup, and even some unexpectedly smart cinematography.

One way or another this is no major must-see. It feels like some faults shine through even despite the status of the picture; one doesn't need to be familiar with Verneuil's stage play to get a sense that this screenplay had cut some corners. Even if you're a devotee of the silent era, or a huge fan of someone involved, I wouldn't say it's a priority; just as much to the point, there's nothing here to change the minds of those who have difficulty engaging with older cinema. I, who love silent films, also sat with mixed to high expectations based simply on the involvement of Bow at the peak of her career, and my reaction is relatively mild. Nonetheless it remains worthwhile on its own merits; owing to how language changes, there are even some bits that are even funnier now than they would have been upon release. Failing that, in the very least it is to be treasured as a (mostly) surviving silent feature. Nearly one century later there's nothing about 'Get your man' that comes across as a stroke of brilliance, not even some terrific shot composition, or the best of the comedy - yet while it may not demand viewership, it's still solidly if softly entertaining, and for those who are receptive to the style, I'm pleased to give it a fair recommendation.

Thanks to the magic of film we know Clara Bow will always be better than anyone else. I enjoyed this more than I thought I would with Ms Bow doing what she does best in this charming comedy. She has perfect timing and great comic ability. She is as anyone who knows of her the only person you are interested in for the whole film. That said I think Charles (Buddy) Rogers played his part so naturally that he was maybe the perfect co-star for Clara. I must make special mention of Harvey Clark who plays the Marquis De Valens. His character is such a nice surprise in the story and gets some comic turns of his own . Harvey is just as equally spot on in his role and a lot of fun to watch. I think three of the reels in this six reel film have been lost but here is still a good hour of the story to see. As has been pointed out in other reviews there is some nitrate damage in some of the frames. This is a bit distressing to see but then there are some scenes that look practically fresh in comparison with performances that are so good they may as well have been shot yesterday and the over all effect is quite "trippy". It is for me anyway. Add this film to your list and let Clara Bow distract you and put some joy in your heart.