Manhattan Tower

This is a highly entertaining artifact from my favorite year for movies: 1932! Taking plot twists and inevitability of peril over the top, it's a fascinating drama about the inhabitants of the fictional NYC skyscraper, all hurtling to an amazing climax. The details and coincidences here, not to mention strange comic relief, is the apotheosis of specifically Depression Era filmmaking.

Many stories overlap, and the movie uses a strange style of editing that appealed to me tremendously: scenes flow from one to the next with the device of the frame moving vertically, as the screen shifts from one floor to another, quite different to watch than the usual vintage device of a horizontal wipe. Literally we are moving from one in the 102-floor building like in a doorless elevator. The actual elevators in the building are monitored by men with castanet-type clickers, making an unusual noise throughout the movie as they monitor the capacity of elevators ready to move.

Central story is about a hard-working couple saving up to get married: Mary Brian a secretary for the film's heavy Mr. Burns, played with immense evil intent by Clay Bennett, and James Hall as Mary's boyfriend, a hot-headed manager working in the building's power department. Burns ends up embezzling Mary's nest egg (which is shared by Jimmy), while he's seducing her empty-headed, mean-spirited party girl fellow secretary played delightfully (in pre-Code dirty fashion) by Noel Francis; Hale Hamilton as Whitman, the bank executive who is in love with Mrs. Burns (Iris Rich in an emotional performance), and subject to horrible blackmail from Clay; plus other employees like Nydia Westman who is a real scene-stealer as Whitman's secretary.

Westman inadvertently starts a panic run on Whitman's bank that leads to a thrilling climax that captures the near-paranoia associated with the Stock Market crash just a few years before. It's a modest film but amazing in its own way.

Manhattan Tower is a 102 story building that is essentially a city unto itself. Which means that it has all the problems that a small city has. Today's problem is a greedy womanizing manager of National Products Corporation named Kenneth Burns (Clay Clement). He is flat broke because he gambled his money away on bad stocks. His wife, Ann (Irene Rich), wants a divorce from him so that she can start a new life with David Whitman (Hale Hamilton), but there's no way Kenneth is going to let his meal ticket go.

Coinciding with Mr. Burns is Mary Harper (Mary Brian). She's Mr. Burns secretary and he can't keep his hands off her, much to the dislike of her fiance, Jimmy Duncan (James Hall). Fighting off Mr. Burns--or rather downplaying Mr. Burns' grabbiness because she wants to keep her job--became the least of her problems after she drained her bank account and gave it to Mr. Burns to invest. She didn't know he was loose with money and she was clearly too naive to give it much thought. The money she lost wasn't just her own, it was hers and Jimmy's to start a new life together.

Now Jimmy had two reasons to hate Mr. Burns.

Going on concurrently with the aforementioned was an attempt of the tower bank to stave off its biggest clients from withdrawing their money. If they withdrew then the bank would collapse. Dave Witman was going to try to quietly convince the bank's biggest clients to stay, but the genie got out of the bottle.

It was quite a madhouse in the Manhattan Tower, but you got the impression that everyday was a madhouse. I thought the romantic excursions of Mr. And Mrs. Burns were superfluous considering so many movies in the 30's had that element. It's almost like it was a requisite part of any script. Romantic trysts aside this was a good movie with plenty of entertainment and even a little suspense.

Free on YouTube.

This is yet another story from 1932 about the lives of various people within a building. In this film, which borrows heavily from "Skyscraper Souls" (1932), the young lovers are played by Mary Brian (Mary) and James Hall (Jimmy) and they do a better job than their counterparts in "Skyscraper". Indeed both Mary and James don't have to learn to respond to a different name. It's been made easy for them by calling their characters Mary and Jimmy. I wonder if this was to help James and his drinking. It's sad to notice that he looks a fatter version of himself in "Hell Angels" two years previously. My wife and I both recognized his face but thought it must be a fatter actor that looks the same. Nope. Again, it is sad to learn of his drinking problem and fate and to then find out that this was also his final film. We both feel sorry for him and really like him now.

As for the story, stick with it. The dialogue is funny in parts, the acting is fine and the director uses some interesting techniques. It's always interesting to see the period's fashions and there is even a zeppelin on show hovering above the tower. Noel Francis (Marge) makes good use of her role as the tarty secretary - check out her party dress - and secretary Nydia Westman (Miss Wood) has a funny scene when someone steals part of her lunch. The villain of the piece is played by Clay Clement. And his name in the film is Mr Burns. Just think of Mr Burns from "The Simpsons" and you've got a similarly heartless man at the top.

However, it's a poverty row film and there are no real surprises to the tale. In the overall 'building' genre of films from 1932, this one sits in the middle. The best is "Skyscraper Souls" and the worst is "Grand Hotel".

Take some exterior and lobby shots of the Empire State Building. Add in some touches of Rockefeller Center. Blend plots from GRAND HOTEL and SKYSCRAPER SOULS, and sift out the more blatant Pre-Code elements and you've got MANHATTAN TOWER, a very pleasant little B movie.

It's a well-constructed movie, with a goodly number of second-ranked players which focus around Clay Clement, a womanizing executive, Irene Rich as his wife, tired of his cheating and anxious to get a divorce so she can marry Hale Hamilton, who is also concerned about buttressing a shaky bank. Director Frank Strayer does a fine job of mixing major and minor characters, and cinematographer Ira Morgan of some offers some fine camera-work. Editor Harry Reynolds does some fine work, even though some of his cuts don't quite work; his moving wipes achieved by taking the camera up through floors gives the unfortunate sense that the shutter has stuck midway between frames. Once you get used to the effect, you'll likely admire the technique, while understanding why it didn't catch on.

Nonetheless, it's a nicely concocted movie, with some good talent, including James Hall in his last movie, elegant Irene Rich (unfortunately slow in her line readings) and a stuttering Walter Brennan. It's by no means a great work, but it will pass an hour of your time very pleasantly.

In its defence, nobody involved with the production of this had ever seen a motion picture before and the verb, 'to act' was not one which any of the cast had ever come across. Alternatively, this might just be inexcusably awful.

This has to be one of the worst pictures I've ever seen. That something can be this atrocious defies logic. The world is fortunate that Remington Pictures was so short-lived if this example is anything to go by. Apart from those clicking elevator noises which fascinate me in early thirties movies, the only thing which made me watch this to its absurd denouement was to satisfy my morbid curiosity to see how it managed to get increasingly worse with each passing minute. Quite an achievement.

The only picture I can think of that's worse is MURDER AT MIDNIGHT and that's also directed by this guy, Frank Stayer...hmm. OK, he uses some interesting wipes between scenes but unfortunately these lead to the scenes if you can call them that. If you want to put someone off ever watching a 1930s film, show them this.

This was a cheap rip-off of the excellent SKYSCRAPER SOULS (1932) but made apparently by amateurs. It's so awful however that it's almost insulting to real films like SKYSCRAPER SOULS to mention this in the same breath or be on the same IMDb site. Imagine you showed the Mona Lisa to a six you'd child and said 'copy that.' The child might be able to create something which looks like the real Mona Lisa but you'd hardly exhibit it in The Louvre!