Although you might think you're watching a film from 1932, you're actually watching the "cleaned up" edited version from 1938. "Edited" in this context means chopping out complete scenes, vital parts of the story which explain what's happening and anything whatsoever with a hint of salaciousness - which since it might or might not be about a girl with loose morals, it now makes no sense.
The savage editing which is no better than someone removing every other chapter from a book results in a completely disjointed story - your imagination has to work overtime to fill in the gaps. You might therefore think that this isn't worth watching?
The reviews of this even when it was complete were pretty terrible. Apparently even when complete, the story was considered ridiculous, the direction amateurish, the script laughable and the acting (apart from Barbara Stanwyck) truly awful. You might therefore think that this isn't worth watching?
Well I watched it and yes, the acting is rubbish and the story is stupid.....but I loved this. And not in "it's so bad it's good" sense, no I honestly enjoyed this as a fascinating, engrossing, emotionally engaging piece of entertainment. Had I been in the cinema in 1932 or 1938, I'd be the one standing up and clapping at the end. It's just so gloriously over-the-top and so 1932! It's like someone at Columbia one morning said to his writers: "Let's condense every story, every trope, every plot twist and tragedy you can think of into one crazy romantic-tragedy-comedy-social commentary-thriller-Broadway-prison movie......oh, and you've got until lunchtime so write the script." Well the result is anything but boring - the term 'rollercoaster ride' doesn't do this justice and I thought it was great. OK, a lot must have been chopped out but within no more than about a minute and a half, she's released from jail, it's the depression so she needs a job so somehow becomes a massive Broadway star with a brand new personality. That I love this nonsense might just be something to do with me - after all, I think CITIZEN KANE is the dullest thing I've ever endured and PADDINGTON is the greatest film of the 21st century.
Despite the many shortcomings of this inexplicably enjoyable film, the one shining beam of talent is Barbara Stanwyck. Her presence in this is the only thing which makes this not just watchable but mesmerising. Her character evolves from fresh young bubbly innocence to sultry sophistication but throughout her transition her natural raw sex appeal constantly transfixes you to everything she says and does. She's exceptional.
She's exceptional in the sense that she's got exceptional talent and also in the sense that she's the one in this film with talent. In films made from the mid-thirties onwards, you only see Regis Toomey in minor supporting roles - if you want to know why, watch this. Of dear, he's dreadful - he's got just two expressions: serious face and angry face - even Kay Francis had three. He's got to be Barbara Stanwyck's worst leading man - you can't build up any empathy for him whatsoever and as for the film getting us all worked up hoping that Barbara Stanwyck will get back together with him, that certainly doesn't work. I think we'd all like to tell her: "you can do a lot better than him, love. "
Besides animatronic Toomey, the rest of the cast, including Aunt Em are just one dimensional caricatures serving one purpose; to be cruel and nasty to Barbara Stanwyck's 'Kitty'. They're all so ridiculously vindictive, uncaring and horrible that you can't take them seriously or accept that they are real people which is a big problem with any film! We know that life for young women in the 20s and 30s could be absolutely terrible, we've seen it explained in much better films than this. That all the evils of society, bad luck and a deluge of wickedness all happen to Kitty at the same time leads you to the obvious revelation: you're watching CINDERELLA and Aunt Em is the wicked stepmother.
