Bad Sister

Bette's first picture is a by the numbers affair. She seems a bit stiff at times as if she's still getting use to the camera, an unease that would vanish quickly. It's not hard to see why she was referred to as the little brown wren when she debuted. Her hairstyle and wardrobe are dowdy, even more so when you consider she's playing the younger "good" sister. Universal never did understand her appeal so it's fortunate that she didn't remain there long.

A word or two about the title, Sidney Fox the bad sister of the title, is more foolish and naive then really bad in the fashion that Bette would one day make the word mean. Fox was getting the big push from Universal but she makes little impact in the lead. Humphrey Bogart also just starting out is slender and attractive and even though his character has a bit more depth it's still a stock one. A good supporting cast, including Charles Winninger and ZaSu Pitts, helps but this is worth seeing only as a document of Davis's first film and early Bogie.

In a length of scarcely over one hour, the first third gives us exposition of rather unremarkable domestic drama, the sort that recalls the description by some of older movies as "simpler entertainment for a simpler time." Even after Humphrey Bogart's character is introduced at right about the one-third mark, the scene writing, dialogue, and narrative development remain so tame and homely that if one weren't careful they might initially miss the genuine plot that starts to show itself. There is, in fact, a compelling story here - but notably, the tone the picture maintains is mostly so "picture perfect," bringing to mind more than anything else the soft touch of family-friendly TV programs in the 1950s, that it continues to feel as if little or nothing is happening at all. That's especially noteworthy since this precedes the heavy-handed Hays Code. Depending on one's perspective this is either a deep failure of the feature, unable to build a meaningful sense of drama, or a marvelously shrewd highlight as the core is underhandedly disguised within family drama. I'm not sure if it's the writers who are most responsible for this tack, adapting Booth Tarkington's novel, or director Hobart Henley - but for my part, I'm pleased to say that I think the approach is a slyly smart one. Given the tenor the film adopts I can appreciate that it won't appeal to all, and I readily admit that I had my doubts at first. In fact, it takes its time, for this declines to really show its hand until we're heading into the last third. Even for all that 'Bad sister' isn't a major must-see, but I'm quite happy with how good it is, and more than first meets the eye.

The predominant surface appearance of homestead turmoil, dynamics and goings-on between members of the Madison household and their friends and neighbors, is suitable material in and of itself for engaging storytelling, if perhaps not the most heavily absorbing variety. That this general melodrama somewhat cloaks the underlying thread of Corliss' dealings, and the ramifications thereof, is a fabulously slick twist of narrative fiction that may not even be possible outside the cinematic medium. Of course the notions are there on paper, but maybe it's director Henley after all who was able to shape the title in such a way as to hide the key element and let it slowly rise to the surface. With this said, I do think there's imbalance in 'Bad sister' as it presents, for in these sixty-odd minutes we get much more exploration of events and reactions in the Madison household than the dalliances of Corliss, or even the strict progression of Marianne's own journey - the character arc after which the movie is named. Moreover, even through to the end there are inclusions that seek to sustain the lighter flavors we got from the outset, and not all the parts fit together equally well. Nonetheless, a complete and cohesive tale is imparted, if with less than full force, and it's arguably maybe even a smidgen darker than some contemporary fare to have come out in the early 30s. I would further posit that the brief ending is a tad too neat and clean, not even taking into account the affirmation of values that ninety years later come across as old-fashioned; still, the plot is strong overall, and more than not this is splendidly enjoyable.

Given how the plot is structured and the sheer number of characters to follow, I don't know that everyone on hand has the same opportunity to shine that they might in other features - not new faces Sidney Fox or Bette Davis, and not even Humphrey Bogart who at this point in his career was merely an up-and-comer. Still, for what material and time they are given, I think all give admirable performances to bring their roles to life. The contributions of those behind the scenes likewise might get lost a bit in the mix, but I'm especially fond of Karl Freund's cinematography, and the sets, costume design, and hair and makeup are all swell. Henley's direction is quite fine too, for that matter. Broadly speaking 'Bad sister' is rather well made, in fact, and the chief question comes down to the strength of the storytelling. On that basis, I'm of the mind that it succeeds much more than not. It's not a picture without its issues, but I believe the saga stands firm on its own merits, and even more to the point, the cleverness of the particular way it's put together helps the whole to stand a little taller. It may not sit well with those who have a harder time abiding older titles, and I begrudge no one who engages honestly and regards it more poorly. All the same, I had mixed expectations and no few reservations even after a fair bit of the runtime had elapsed, and still when all is said and done I walk away satisfied with the excellence of what I've watched. Even if you're a huge fan of someone involved I don't think there's any need to go out of your way for it, but if you do have the chance to check out 'Bad sister' I think this is a swell slice of cinema for a quiet day.

1931's "The Bad Sister" is chiefly remembered as being the film debut of screen legend Bette Davis, who spent a few despondent months at Universal that year before finding greener pastures at Warner Bros. The title role, however, went to Sidney Fox, also making her movie debut, but in a quirk of fate, Universal's star push on her behalf instead of Davis resulted in Sidney's career ending in three years, while 'the good sister' was being hailed as a star. Not only did Universal miss the boat on these two actresses, they failed to see the potential in 4th billed Humphrey Bogart, who followed Davis to Warners playing essentially the same role he does here, a smooth-talking, big city con man who preys upon the citizens of Central City Ohio, with Miss Fox forging her father's signature to cinch the swindle. Top billing goes to doctor Conrad Nagel, naively in love with 'bad sister' Sidney, when it's 'good sister' Bette secretly in love with him. Bette herself despaired over this film, convinced she had no future in pictures; the virginal 23 year old is effectively deglamorized, dressed like a grape picker's daughter, hair tightly bound in a bun, yet those 'Bette Davis Eyes' remain intact, yearning desire behind them. I myself was curious to see more of the diminutive Sidney Fox, inexplicably top billed over Bela Lugosi in 1932's "Murders in the Rue Morgue" (reuniting her with Bert Roach), but remained entranced by Bette Davis instead; and to think Carl Laemmle Jr. famously said of her in this film, "she has about as much sex appeal as Slim Summerville!" (he too is in the picture).

The Bad Sister (1931)

** (out of 4)

This melodrama from Universal focuses on the Madison family. Father (Charles Winninger) doesn't know how to say no to his oldest daughter Marianne (Sidney Fox) and this continues when she brings home Valentine (Humphrey Bogart), a man promising to bring a factory to their small town but we all know something isn't right. Well, everyone but the Madison family.

THE BAD SISTER has pretty much been forgotten to time, which is a little strange since it features a few legends in the cast. If anyone discusses the movie today it's because it features the screen debut of future legend Bette Davis. Being able to see Davis and Bogart together, a few years before THE PETRIFIED FOREST, will be enough of a reason for film buffs to check this out but sadly the overall film isn't all that memorable.

Obviously this here was meant to be a morality tale but my problem with it is that it's just 100% melodrama without any bite. The film never even attempts to do anything really dramatic as we're basically treated to some bad characters who have nothing taught to them and in the end the screenplay lets them off the hook. I'm really not sure what the point of the movie was but the story isn't all that compelling and it certainly struggles to hold your attention through the 64-minute running time.

Winninger is good in the role of the father and I'd argue that Zasu Pitts adds some entertainment even though her role as the maid isn't all that great. Sidney Fox turns in good performance as the title sister but the screenplay doesn't do her character any favors. Davis is good in her role as well even though you can tell that there's a fire in her that isn't able to come out in a role like this. It's a bit strange to see Bogart in a role like this but it's still fun to watch him.

THE BAD SISTER was photographed by Karl Freund who of course is best remembered for directing THE MUMMY for Universal the following year. The film itself isn't all that memorable but there were several legends in training here and that alone makes it worth seeing.

Not bad at all ,but the main interest of the movie is to see Davis in her first ,and bogart in one of his firsts the story and the way it's developed is very old fashion and the characters are very simplified. the cinematic aspect is not new and the story demoded and to say the truth frankly boring