Under Eighteen

Marian Marsh is delighted when sister Anita Page gets married to Norman Foster, and they go on a swell honeymoon to Atlantic City. She'd like the high life too. Boyfriend Regis Toomey tells her there's a cost to it, and she'd be a dope to pay it. But Miss Marsh gets a temporary job modeling clothes. She attracts the attention of well-known rake Warren William. She also witnesses the other models with the trappings of wealth. Then Miss Page decides on a divorce because Foster is a brute. The trouble is that the lawyer wants $200 by the next day. Toomey has it, but won't lend it for that purpose, and the girls Miss Marsh models with don't have cash; their rents are paid and they get gifts. So Miss Marsh goes to William, willing to trade herself for the money.

This pre-code movie directed by Archie Mayo makes some nice points without making anyone a villain. William's role is particularly well written, and he acquits himself ably, setting himself up for this sort of part until the Code began to be enforced. With Joyce Compton, J. Farrell MacDonald, Paul Porcasi, Maude Eburne, and Lilian Bond.

Under 18 (1931-22)

A light-hearted comedy drama with a few very serious moments. It's a sincere and touching story about two sisters trying to make it in the poor tenements of New York. They each have a man from the same neighborhood, one a loafer (and pool shark) and the other a sweet and goofy grocery delivery driver. Mom lives with one of the sisters who is the title character, a bit young to know what she wants.

But not too young for the rich ladykilling man who sees the girl modeling an expensive fur. Which leads, roundabout, to the highlight of the movie, and twenty minute frenzy on the roof of a tall building in Manhattan. This pool party is a real height of the Roaring Twenties as they were winding into the early Depression. It's pure wild decadence, and director Archie Mayo really knew how to ramp it up without getting totally obscene. Great stuff.

And a great contrast with the humble lives of the impoverished stars. None of the leading ladies or their men are names most of us recognize (the main star, Marian Marsh, has several great films to her name, namely "Svengali" and "Crime and Punishment"). It's Warren William, the rich fellow, who is the most famous of the bunch, and he's always a hoot to watch, slyly winning over women despite (or because of) his age.

But there is another serious side to all of this, and that is the trap women faced then (far less than now) in having to find a man to help survive economically. The Depression has clearly made jobs scarce, even in New York (which was still humming in some ways). When Marsh's sister realizes her new husband would rather play pool than work, things go bad—and get worse when she has a child. So Marsh sees the folly of marriage even though her own boyfriend is a decent chap with a job. This fairly realistic portrayal of life at the time is the largest part of the movie.

The party, however, is the most fun, and I would say you could, if impatient, skim ahead to that section, a little after halfway, and just see the craziness of the times. It reminded me of "Madame Satan" which uses the same kind of party—in a blimp—that is so wild and compelling it makes you wonder why these kinds of scenes disappeared by the time of the Hays Code.

There is a slightly awkward feel to the script throughout the film, unfortunately, and the acting of some of the lesser characters is fair but not great, bringing the whole thing down to earth. Still, the best of it…well, give it a shot. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

"Under 18" is a charming pre-Code film that includes the best of the genre: beautiful art deco sets, stunning period fashions, and scenes that were titillating for their time.

According to notes in the bio of Ms. Marsh, the film was not a critical success, but I do not understand why. The film's best asset is the performance of Marian Marsh herself, who is cute as a Kewpie doll. She plays Margie, a seamstress in the back room of Maison Ritz--a couture fashion house--where she is enthralled by the happenings in the front salon, where rich men bring their women to select expensive gowns and furs.

Margie's friends and relatives exist on the lower end of the financial spectrum, trying to get ahead. Her boyfriend, Jimmy, is an optimist. He always tells her that good times are just around the corner. But when times get worse, Margie is tempted to take a short cut.

In 1931, as skyscrapers captured the imagination of the public, it must have felt like there were two worlds--the life of penthouse luxury that existed in the sky and the life of the hoi polloi down on street level. This film captures that concept very well (similar to Fitzgerald's vision of a distant, unattainable East Egg in "The Great Gatsby").

There is nothing about this film that I would criticize. It offers a wonderful view of the life and times of the early thirties, including the changing mores that some saw as opportunity and others saw as the demise of traditional values.

"Under Eighteen" was undoubtedly a lurid title for motion pictures in the early 1930's, but the subject matter and depicted activities were appropriately lurid,too. A film enjoyable to watch today, the subject matter, in general, was apparently old hat to many movie-goers of the era, including Variety magazine, which in its review (Dec. 29, 1931 p.167) gave the film a fairly cool shake, saying the tour of depression-era love was just one more monotonous presentation "of this much viewed tale... both silent and in sound."

But for those of us looking at the movie as a time of historical interest 90 years removed, this film is a splendid document. The desperate drudgery of life in view for a lower rung family is presented with distressing clarity, and stands in contrast to life for folks of the snappy, devil-may-care upper echelon. Costuming, street scenes, and interior decor from 1931 are all on wondrous parade here. The story's culminating opulent and debauchery-filled 40th-floor penthouse party is breathtaking and truly not to be missed. In such parties did young women really dance the fox trot to society orchestras in dripping-wet bathing suits right after having bobbed in the swimming pool on giant rubber ducks? And with random male partners, to boot? The Variety review kind of casts doubt on that.

I enjoyed the performance of Marian Marsh in what was heralded as her first starring role. Her eyes are sumptuous and for me helped her portray many an emotion, although Variety said she failed to impress and would not benefit from being in this film. But I enjoyed her portrayal of youthful innocence and optimism changing to suspicion and dismay as she realized the quality of relationships in the adult world around her portend a cloudy future.

Variety also felt that Warren William wouldn't benefit from his time in this film, but I thought he came on with a highly convincing turn as a potentially sinister presence (although his selectivity for victimization as evidenced by his miserly pouring of seducing drinks for Marian was a step leading to a muddled and apparently rushed wrap-up ending). Regis Toomey as Marian's love interest did a good enough job, but his role had limitations in that what he stood for was inconsistently presented. And wow! That big kiss between Marian and Regis is really something! Kisses between men and women in the 1930s was often just one tightly closed mouth on the other, but 18 year old Marian was romantically liberal with her offering here!

Distinct and interesting characters with great faces abound in this film, even though the story admittedly has some limitations in logic. But for fans of early 1930's films this is a valuable entry in the array and should be given a chance by all fans of older film.

Under 18 (1931)

** (out of 4)

A rather bland Pre-Code from Warner doesn't live up to any of its hype especially when you see the cast, the story and the innuendo in the title. Margie Evans (Marian Marsh) lives in poverty and thinks that marriage is the one way out but when her older sister (Anita Page) gets married and still lives poor, she sees another chance of making good. At her factory she learns that rich men can give women what they want with a few "favors" and Margie meets a possible candidate in the womanizing Raymond Harding (Warren William). The story, the title, the suggestive language and throw in Marsh, Page and William and yet the end result is still rather bland and boring. I was really surprised to see how tame and uninteresting this Pre-code was and it really does seem like the studio was trying to do a Pre-code without all the naughty stuff. When I say naughty there's certainly not going to be anything X-rated but if you're a fan of this genre then you know Warner was the king and could deliver perfect entertainment. Several things struck me about this production and the majority of it goes back to the screenplay. The story is rather tame and for the life of me I couldn't understand some of the twists and turns in the story. I won't give away the ending but what happens to the William's character is just downright silly and it gets even double with yet another twist. The main female character is just as confusing because she sells herself so that her sister can get a divorce and you have to wonder what the point of this was since you could have had the sister being unhappy and going into the arms of William to get a divorce. At just under 80-minutes there's quite a bit of dialogue with some of it being funny but the majority of it just doesn't contain enough spice to make up for everything else going on. Marsh is pretty good here even though the screenplay doesn't offer her too much. Those who have seen the Edward G. Robinson film FIVE STAR FINAL will remember the charming Marsh. William is doing William like no one else could and Page is always entertaining even if she spends most of her screen time just fighting with the husband. The sexuality level is pretty low throughout even though it's hinted at at times. UNDER 18 has all the elements for a good Pre-code but sadly the screenplay gets lost one scene after another and in the end you can't help but see it as a disappointment.