Street of Women
Movie | |
---|---|
Original title | Street of Women |
Country of production | United States |
original language | English |
Publishing year | 1932 |
length | 72 minutes |
Rod | |
Director | Archie Mayo |
script |
Mary C. McCall Jr. , Charles Kenyon |
production | Warner Brothers |
music | Franke Harling , Matty Malneck |
camera | Ernest Haller |
cut | James Gibbon |
occupation | |
|
Street of Women is a 1932 American film starring Kay Francis . It contains many elements that are typical of so-called pre-code movies, i.e. films that were distributed before the Production Code came into force .
action
Natalie Upton runs the successful Madame Natalie fashion salon and has been the influential lover of magnate Lawrence Baldwin for a good three years. She advises and influences Lawrence and is therefore also jointly responsible for the construction of the Baldwin Tower , the tallest office building in the world. Natalie uses the income from her salon to support her brother Clark, who is studying architecture in Paris. Lawrence finally wants a divorce from his wife, but their daughter Doris is appalled and threatens the father with consequence if he insists on his plan. However, Doris also has a secret, as she is secretly engaged to Clark, Natalie's brother. When Clark shows up from Paris and discovers that his sister is Lawrence's lover, he reproaches her and condemns her behavior as immoral and absolutely unforgivable. It's Linkhore Gibson, Natalie's best friend, who saved the day. He chartered a plane and wrote pessimistic rabbit in the sky to cheer Natalie. At the same time, he convinces Lawrence's wife to get a divorce and in the end there is a double wedding.
background
Kay Francis moved from Paramount to Warner Brothers in 1932 in the course of a talent raid that was highly regarded at the time, together with Ruth Chatterton and William Powell , with the promise of more salary and better roles. Street of Women was their second film under the current contract, and the studio invested a substantial sum in production values. The plot is of interest as, in the time before the strict censorship regulations of the Production Code, it was possible to present the mistress of a married man as a personable and intelligent woman who can give him intellectual support and advice and not just sexual variety.
criticism
Most of the critics took a liking to the story, which in their eyes was entertaining.
In the then influential journal Film Daily read:
“'Street of Women' is a first-class production [...] Kay Francis is convincing and has class [...] The production is characterized by many interesting aspects and unusually intelligent and funny dialogues [...] It is regrettable to make such a good film to give such cheap title. "
Another reviewer found:
“The studio gives [Miss Francis] good roles and obviously invests quite a bit of money in their films, measured against the exquisite sets and the good supporting actors. […] Miss Francis wears a stunning wardrobe and is very well photographed. Your portrayal is confident and charming. "
Theatrical release
The production costs were only 195,000 US dollars, which, however, corresponded to the usual editing for a Kay Francis film of the time. In the US, Street of Women grossed a modest $ 295,000, with an additional $ 89,000 from abroad. The total revenue was only $ 339,000.
Web links
- Street of Women in the Internet Movie Database (English)
- Original cinema trailer at Turner Classic Movies
- Background information - English
- Screenshots and analysis of the importance of fashion in film - English
Literature on the subject of pre-code films
- Mark A. Viera: Sin in Soft Focus: Pre-Code Hollywood, ISBN 978-0-8109-4475-6
- Mick LaSalle: Complicated Women: Sex and Power in Pre-Code Hollywood - ISBN 978-0-312-28431-2
- Thomas Doherty: Pre-Code Hollywood. ISBN 978-0-231-11095-2
- Lea Jacobs: The Wages of Sin: Censorship and the Fallen Woman Film, 1928–1942 - ISBN 978-0-520-20790-5
Footnotes
- ^ "Street of Women" is a superior production [...] Kay Francis delivers with dinstinction [...] The production is punctuated with many clever situations ans some unusually intelligent and witty dialogue [...] It seems a pity to put such a cheap title on such a such a worthy film.
- ↑ The Studio is giving [Miss Francis] good vehicles and evidently spending money on her production judging by the exquisite setting and the line up of talent in the supporting cast. […] Miss Francis wears stunning clothes and has been photographed advantageously. Her performance is warm, sincere and charming.