|
Post by topbilled on Aug 6, 2023 20:11:55 GMT
"Spring Madness" is up next guys.
It's been awhile since I've seen SPRING MADNESS. I remember it having a strong cast.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 6, 2023 20:12:54 GMT
A novel you might enjoy is "The Group" by Mary McCarthy (there's also a movie out, but the book is much better) written in 1963, but it is set, at the opening, in the 1930s at college and it focuses on the sex lives of the college kids. From memory, it has similar themes to today's movie.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 7, 2023 4:15:29 GMT
I wrote the below comments a few years ago and just tweaked them a bit after yesterday's group viewing.
The Age of Consent from 1932 with Dorothy Wilson, Richard Cromwell and John Halliday
This is what pre-code movies are all about. Set in a generic college, The Age of Consent is no rah-rah college musical or happy sorority-house-party movie like Hollywood's assembly line would stamp out with regularity in the second half of the decade. Instead, it's an honest look at the taut sexual relations at colleges in the early 1930s.
Dorothy Wilson and Richard Cromwell are the young college lovers who fight out of frustration as they, simply put, want to have sex but believe, based on the conventions of the day, they shouldn't. So they continue to see other people and only end up making themselves jealous and unhappy.
They debate quitting school and getting married, but realize leaving college without a degree isn't a smart move either. One night, while they're kinda on the outs, Richard walks a female waitress friend home, they get drunk and have sex. She uses liquor to seduce him.
The girl's father walks in afterwards (thank God, not sooner) and has Richard arrested as his daughter is a minor (she's seventeen). The father wants Richard to "do the right thing" and marry his daughter or he wants him prosecuted and sent to jail.
Holy smokes - right? This is no "are we going to win the 'big game'" or "will he ask me to the spring dance" college movie. The conclusion (no spoilers coming), involving a car accident and hospital scene, forces everyone to reflect hard on his or her beliefs.
The waitress begins to buck her father; the father reexamines his religious views; Wilson and Cromwell consider anew the value of their love and a few of the older faculty members see relationships, life and conventions in a fresh light.
Sure, the style of the movie is old fashioned and some of the moral issues seem outdated to us today as we've settled most of these questions (with the help of movies like Age of Consent), but you can feel the intensity of the contradictions and stress these young men and women faced back then.
With the enforcement of the Motion Picture Production Code by 1935, issues like these would be stripped out of or highly palliated in movies for the next several decades. This only makes these pre-code movies, clunky as they can sometimes be, more valuable for their realistic look at the moral and social issues of the 1930s.
N.B. Look for the scene where the waitress, played by Arline Judge, at wits end, delivers a scathing speech in response to her father's religious bullying about right and wrong. Judge's speech is stunningly forward-thinking. Plus, kudos to Judge, as in that moment, she steals the movie away from everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Andrea Doria on Aug 7, 2023 13:37:24 GMT
I wonder what it was like for young 20-somethings watching the film during its first release in the summer of 1933. Did it resonate with contemporary viewers? Thanks for the great, review, Fading Fast!
I've been thinking about Topbilled's question ever since. (Sign of a good question and a good movie!)
I tried to find statistics for college enrolment at the time, but the closest I could find was a chart for 1940. It said 6% of men and 4% of women were graduating with bachelors degrees at that time.
These kids really were the elite set. What did the young people in the audience think of them?
My grandparents were high school teachers at that time, and they used to tell their students that going to school and not studying was like going to a restaurant, ordering a fine meal, and only eating when the waiters were watching. People back then appreciated their K-12 schools as privileges so much more than today and being rich enough to go to college was something rare and envied.
Even to me, today, they seemed a little bit spoiled. I found it hard to like Betty. Why was she going for rides with Duke when it upset the one she supposedly loved? Her constant flirting with everyone just wasn't likeable to me and I'm not sure the audience at that time would have admired it very much from the lead in a melodrama -- it would have been different in a comedy.
I cared much more about Dora, and I think a large part of the audience might have, too. We're sort of conditioned to root for the poor, lower class girl from movies like, "Waterloo Bridge, " and all those novels like "Tess of the D'Urbervilles," that young people in 1932 would have seen and read.
The ending for Michael and Betty was fine for me, but I really wanted some hint of happiness for Dora. If only her father had walked away with her saying maybe he would buy her that secretarial course after all or mentioned a better job offer. Instead she's left with a ruined reputation and returning to a job waiting on people her own age who all look down on her.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 7, 2023 14:11:43 GMT
I wonder what it was like for young 20-somethings watching the film during its first release in the summer of 1933. Did it resonate with contemporary viewers? Thanks for the great, review, Fading Fast!
I've been thinking about Topbilled's question ever since. (Sign of a good question and a good movie!)
I tried to find statistics for college enrolment at the time, but the closest I could find was a chart for 1940. It said 6% of men and 4% of women were graduating with bachelors degrees at that time.
These kids really were the elite set. What did the young people in the audience think of them?
My grandparents were high school teachers at that time, and they used to tell their students that going to school and not studying was like going to a restaurant, ordering a fine meal, and only eating when the waiters were watching. People back then appreciated their K-12 schools as privileges so much more than today and being rich enough to go to college was something rare and envied.
Even to me, today, they seemed a little bit spoiled. I found it hard to like Betty. Why was she going for rides with Duke when it upset the one she supposedly loved? Her constant flirting with everyone just wasn't likeable to me and I'm not sure the audience at that time would have admired it very much from the lead in a melodrama -- it would have been different in a comedy.
I cared much more about Dora, and I think a large part of the audience might have, too. We're sort of conditioned to root for the poor, lower class girl from movies like, "Waterloo Bridge, " and all those novels like "Tess of the D'Urbervilles," that young people in 1932 would have seen and read.
The ending for Michael and Betty was fine for me, but I really wanted some hint of happiness for Dora. If only her father had walked away with her saying maybe he would buy her that secretarial course after all or mentioned a better job offer. Instead she's left with a ruined reputation and returning to a job waiting on people her own age who all look down on her. Excellent thoughts. Yes, I also imagined what Dora's life may be like after letting Michael go back to Betty. I agree with you that Betty wasn't very likable, and one can't help but wonder if she'd eventually cheat on Michael after they were married. She has supposedly learned to value her relationship with Michael, but I think she's the kind that likes to be validated by all men. Dora just wanted to be validated by Michael.
We don't even get a scene with Michael and Dora at the end. Michael is too busy watching Duke die and too busy tending to Betty. Dora's only consolation is her father, which frankly, doesn't seem like much!
A thought I had reflecting on the film is that Dora's the only character whose parent is shown. We don't know anything about Betty's family or Duke's family (except that Duke's family is rich enough to buy him a fancy car). And all that is said about Michael's background is he had a grandfather or great-grandfather who had drafted some law, and was probably an attorney.
I suppose John Halliday's character is meant to function as a surrogate father for Duke and Michael; and Aileen Pringle's character is a surrogate mother for Betty. But it was a bit strange that when Duke lay dying in a hospital bed, none of his actual family was there. Where were his parents when he died?
Of course the emphasis of the film is mostly on youth and their struggle with right versus wrong. But we don't get a full picture of these people. We're not even told what type of job Michael's going to take in California. Also, the film seems to champion the notion that people don't need a college education, which is counter to what a lot of people think today.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 7, 2023 15:44:00 GMT
Great comments by both of you. I really enjoyed reading them.
I'm a tiny bit more hopeful, only a tiny bit, about Dora as I think she learned something from the experience as, let's be honest, she played Michael and, then, saw her father twist it in a way that was awful. Also, I think her dad was showing some growth at the end and might, just might, be more sympathetic to his daughter. So hopefully, she's a better person with a more understanding dad coming out of this experience. But Andrea, I think you are right, there weren't that many options open for her even with her dad on her side.
My parents, who were kids in the '30s, were not college grads (not sure my dad really made it out of high school, but he claimed he did) and were the children and grandchildren of immigrants. College educated people were, for the most part removed (I first typed "above") their world. My mom had a respectful view of them as did my dad, but being honest, his was mixed with some envy. My parents would have probably been a bit awed by Michael and Betty and definitely better able to relate to Dora.
No one in my parents "bloodline" family was a college grads, but a few of the distant cousins and one great aunt had married college men and, to be honest, they were treated with a bit more respect (maybe even a bit of awe) at family gatherings. It meant something to be a "college man" in those days.
As Andrea notes 6% of men and 4% of women went to college back then; whereas today, nearly 38% of the population graduates (which means even more attend some amount of college). Interestingly, today, 39% of women and 36.2% of men (as of '21) get degrees.
When I went to college (which I paid for with nights/weekends/summer jobs), my parents were happy, but there was a touch of resentment or envy or maybe fear that I'd think I was better than them as the support was mixed with a some negative vibes about "college kids." I did all the work to apply, etc., to the point that my parents didn't even know where I applied. It was so different back then than today where my friends micromanage their kids' applications, choices, etc.
In the movie, since the school is on the east coast, it's possible, in that era, depending on where Duke's family was from (if it was said, I missed it), they might not have been able to get to the hospital in, what appeared to be, the day or two it took for him to pass. That said, I agree with Topbilled that there wasn't enough family background to form complete opinions, but that is the downside of these short movies. They have to keep the plot moving along at all times.
I am not particularly optimistic about Michael and Betty's marriage lasting - and think it is really stupid that they left school as she implied he was working toward a meaningful degree - but sometimes real life matures people. I am pretty optimistic about Halliday and Pringle, though, as they had the maturity and life experience to understand what a second chance means.
One more thought, from what I've read over the years, dating was different in the '30s and '40s as it was common for men and women to date multiple partners openly at the same time. So Betty could be Michael's "best" girl, but both he and she could also go out on dates with others. Today and in my day, that really didn't happen. Yes, you could date multiple people at once, but once you got a bit serious with one, that meant you didn't date others.
Part of that, I believe, is because getting serious post 1960s, usually meant having sex, too, which was not the case as a rule in the '30s and '40s. Seeing other people when you're sleeping with someone is a way different thing from seeing other people when no one is sleeping together, which, my guess, is why the dating norms changed.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 17, 2023 4:34:50 GMT
I've been thinking about this film since we watched it. I really enjoyed this one.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 17, 2023 5:03:16 GMT
I've been thinking about this film since we watched it. I really enjoyed this one. I'm really glad. It's very precode and covers some hard-hitting stuff in a short runtime. It's pretty scaring to think he was all but forced into marrying the girl who, basically, seduced him. And the thing is, I felt badly for her - she was a victim of circumstances too. I also worry that, at the end, he and the other girl shouldn't have quit college as I think that will become a point of friction in their marriage later. Big picture, it's a good movie if it has you thinking a lot about it afterwards. I'm so happy you seemed to have felt that way too.
|
|