The Duke of West Point

Approximately 10-15 min into this movie, technical issues such as lighting & other (minor) aspects problematic to most films leading up to the late 30's, prompted an urge to search elsewhere, for yet another 'oldie but a goodie'...., succumbed to these little gold nuggets of compelling brilliance, followed by a well-structured & fascinating, human-interest story.

Personally, it was one of (if not) the, best directorial {and acting} presentations, for having communicated, the often misunderstood notion, of accurately defining what is, authentic character. Love finding hidden treasures like this film that are decades old, but still have a relevant connection almost 80 years later.

In a great tradition of films about the Army Military Academy like The Long Gray Line, Flirtation Walk and The West Point Story steps The Duke At West Point. It's about three roommates at West Point, Louis Hayward, Richard Carlson, and Tom Brown and their first two years at the Academy.

Brown has gone to a military school and is gung ho army. Carlson is the son of a war hero killed in the first World War and has a presidential appointment. Hayward is the son of the military attaché at the American Embassy in London and has gone to Cambridge where he starred in Rugby, arguably tougher than American football.

If this had been done at 20th Century Fox Hayward's part would have been a lock for Tyrone Power. Hayward's a cocky arrogant sort who rubs his upper classmates the wrong way. But he has a great deal more character than they realize. He's caught off grounds after hours and doesn't reveal his reason for doing so. I won't reveal it here because it's centerpiece of the whole plot.

In fact Louis Hayward did many roles as a free lance actor that would have been done by Power over at Fox and Errol Flynn at Warner Brothers. Certainly those two are better known to film fans today, but Hayward is someone waiting to be discovered.

Producer Edward Small not having a major studio backing never got to West Point it seems. But with a lot of establishing shots the film has the look and feel of the Military Academy.

This film holds up as well as those others in portraying the tradition of West Point.

Apparently all it takes to not fit in at West Point is to be an American who was reared among English aristocracy and to have an attitude problem that puts others off--a certain vanity, cockiness and arrogance that your West Point roommates just won't tolerate.

What stretches credibility is that any cadet would be foolish enough to do the sort of things LOUIS HAYWARD does without expecting to win the animosity of the entire academy. Then again, for the entire academy to turn its back on him for some petty infractions, seems stretching things a bit for the sake of a plot device.

His American friends are played by TOM BROWN and RICHARD CARLSON and there's a great deal of game-playing that is shown at an almost tiresome rate when Hayward isn't finding romance in the person of JOAN FONTAINE. Poor Joan gets lost amidst all the rugby playing and drills and plays most of her role on the sidelines looking on rather wistfully. When ingenue roles came her way in the early '30s, they had a habit of making small use of her talent.

This one is pretty much a loser. Surprisingly, it opened at New York's famed Radio City Music Hall at a time when only prestigious films played the world's largest theater. Nevertheless, it remains pretty much a forgotten item these days.

Following in the footsteps of 'Brown of Harvard' this supremely nondescript buddy movie detailing the activities of a group of young jocks on the football field at West Point has one sole reason to merit your attention in the form of young actress standing on the sidelines by the name of Joan Fontaine, relatively new to pictures and thus cast dramatically against what was soon to become type.

At the time treading water when she was loaned by RKO to United Artists to make this movie she gives a performance the likes of which she would never gave again as a graceful and patrician young lady dressed to the nines in a fashion recalling the young Myrna Loy.

In the 1920s to the mid-1930s, William Haines was one of the most popular leading men in Hollywood. MGM found a formula and they put Haines in the same sort of film again and again....and again. In each of them, Haines played a very talented guy who had a HUGE ego. He would alienate those around him and eventually he would crash and burn. But by the end of the film, he would do something selfless and regain everybody's trust and respect. However, despite these films being popular with audiences, MGM stopped making them in 1934. Why? Because Haines was openly gay, and the new, tougher Production Code called for Hollywood to 'clean up its act'...and that meant gay actors had to hide very deep in the closet. Haines refused...and his film career was over at that point.

I mention all this because although Haines was gone from the screen by 1938, this sort of movie still existed. While "The Duke of West Point" was not made by MGM and didn't have Haines, it was in every way another Haines movie. The plot here is exactly the same...the only big difference was that this one starred Louis Hayward.

Steven Early is an American raised in England...which would account for Hayward's accent. Following his graduation from Cambridge, he arrives at West Point to become a cadet...which is odd, since he already would have a bachelor's degree. Regardless, he makes a pain of himself with his brashness although in most cases he's able to back it up. His grades are good and he's a valuable member of the football team. However, he's so arrogant and flaunts the rules...and you know eventually he (like Haines in his films) would get his comeuppance. The only question is how bad will he fall and what does he do to gain everyone's respect?

It's interesting that Steven's love interest was played by Joan Fontaine. He played a Brit...but Fontaine was also British and she hides her accent quite well. Both are very good.

The film, because it is so formulaic and predictable, it's not a great movie....it's more an agreeable and familiar time-passer. Not a bad film...just nothing all that new despite the change in leading man.