User reviews

Paulette Goddard (Anna) has left home and now leads a life of easy virtue in the bars of Brooklyn. Her father Oskar Homolka (Joe) seeks her out to come back and stay with the family. However, there is an ulterior motive at play, namely recent college graduate William Bishop (Rudolf) who has turned up with $4,000, and to whom Omolka has been entrusted to look after and help find a suitable wife for. Goddard fits the bill as a perfect suitor if his family can only keep her prostitution past from Bishop.

Well, there's not really very much going on in terms of story but it's a good cast. Broderick Crawford (Frank) and Mary Wickes (Stella) score highly for comedy factor as does Grayce Hampton (Queenie) as the old lush in the bar at the end of the film. Very funny. A mention must also go to Paulette Goddard who is good in the lead role.

There is not too much that happens and the film is obviously originally intended as a play, but everything about the story is predictable, so no surprises anywhere. It's clichéd in parts, so it's not a particularly well written play. Nevertheless, Goddard and her wish for snow keeps things going. Without her and Broderick Crawford, this would suffer.

ANNA LUCASTA, although it won't go down in film history as a classic, does have some redeemable assets; namely it's star PAULETTE GODDARD. Strutting about the Brooklyn docks in a tight black dress, as a free loving lady of the night, Goddard looks terrific. Her best scenes are played in that locale in a bar owned by Will Geer. Along with John Ireland as her merchant marine companion, she plays it to the hilt as only Paulette can. There was another version filmed later with Eartha Kitt playing the leading role, but this viewer liked Goddard better. A good supporting cast helped bring the corny dialogue to focus. With Broderick Crawford, Oscar Homolka, Gale Page, William Bishop and Mary Wickes [she's wonderful with her dry takes. And of course there's yet another scene which became a Goddard trademark; that of being in a bathtub of bubbles.

Paulette Goddard, once more, shows her ability to take a slow script and one note character and bring life and substance to the role. She's the star of this drama and brings her own unique quality of glamour to Anna. There is a fine supporting cast and it is always nice to see Mary Wickes given a real role to play other than the usual wise-cracking parts she gets. I liked Goddard's interpretation above Eartha Kitt's in a latter version of the same play. Goddard shows she still has the stuff stars are made of. Quite a gal!

While this story was remade by United Artists nine years later with Earth Kitt taking over the title role (and Eartha is quite good), I prefer this earlier version. Why? Probably because Paulette Goddard is an unsung goddess. Such calm, grace and glamour– she is very self-assured and gives the role of a prostitute something lesser talents would never give it: dignity.

Broderick Crawford is also very good, a year before ALL THE KING'S MEN. And Mary Wickes has a decent supporting part, a chance to really act minus the usual wisecracks. Plus John Ireland provides eye candy which never hurt anyone.

Anna Lucasta is a woman whose love can be bought...or at least rented. I say this because when I tried to write what her profession is, IMDB flagged it and said the term was not permissible. Suffice to say, men pay her money for....well, you know. It seems that she's become a 'good time girl' to pay her way in life because her father threw her out three years ago. However, out of the blue, her father arrives...begging her to come home. Why? Well, they want to marry her off to a guy who has a bit of money...because the family is hoping to get some of this money. If you think about it, it's a very sorry bunch and Anna is actually among the best of them because she puts on no pretense...she is who she is.

When Anna meets this man, they do hit it off and he seems really smitten with her. However, she's apprehensive to tell him about her past...but ultimately does. But, surprisingly, he still wants her. However, her father is an ugly, nasty man...and what he does, well, you'll have to see it for yourself.

This is the original film version, though oddly the family isn't Polish like they were in the original story...a play. However, the play also was later performed with an all-black cast...and it was super successful. Oddly, the film removes all the ethnic and racial aspects of the story...which does make it a bit blander. Fortunately, nine years later, the black film version of "Anna Lucasta" was made...and it was terrific, as I saw it a couple days ago.

What did I think of this particular version? Is it worth seeing? Yes. Although some of the seemier aspects of the remake were missing, the story is still quite strong and well worth seeing. I still prefer the original...mostly because the cast (apart from Sammy Davis Jr.) were all mostly unknown actors of the day...and it made this story of poor folks seem more realistic than one with the familiar Hollywood faces in this 1949 film. It also helped make the father deeper and more corrupt...but in this one he seems more like a nasty drunk and that alone. See them both if you can, as both are currently on YouTube.