No specific spoilers.
So many viewers, in my opinion, have unfairly maligned Lloyd's transition to talkies, including several reviewers here. I think that from a retrospective, critical point of view, Lloyd was reasonably successful in this switchover (in fact, he has much of the manic quality and all of the voice of Woody Allen in his most successful talkie, _Movie Crazy_). Although it is a flawed film, _The Cat's-Paw_ is, on the whole, another such success.
While the film's controversial ending may be a tad facile, and while the reviewer Patricia Parker very capably articulates the full, disturbing political implications of this ending, it is precisely the outrageous, provocative nature of the plot's culmination that makes this film more engrossing to watch today.
Some other reviewers have commented on the film's racism, asking us to excuse it as typical of the time. However, again I feel that these viewers are slightly skewing the issue. Yes, the movie is an interesting document of the utter prevalence of casually racist attitudes in the United States of the 1930s. However, I would say that 95% of the time, _the film itself_ is not racist (there are a few moments of racial condescension, such as Lloyd's too-precious quip about white women looking alike, and there is a stock-stereotype black character introduced at the end); rather it is numerous _negative characters_ who express racist attitudes. References to brutality and misogyny aside, for the most part Chinese culture is accorded a fair degree of respect in this film, and is indeed used as a foil for the corrupt and ignorant world of Stockport, USA. Note, for instance, Lloyd's response whenever another character uses the slur 'ch*nk': he winces every time (or at least pauses with displeasure), and then answers in a manner that tries to maintain dignity for the Asian culture and individuals being referenced. While this is not to say this is a bold, crusading film, nonetheless, some credit should be given for this attitude in the early 1930s; it is, in its own clumsy sort of way, a gently anti-racist film.
And credit should also be given for the engrossingly cynical view of society put forward here, as well as the comically dark resolution of the plot, even if that resolution is ultimately fairly problematic in its political implications.
So many viewers, in my opinion, have unfairly maligned Lloyd's transition to talkies, including several reviewers here. I think that from a retrospective, critical point of view, Lloyd was reasonably successful in this switchover (in fact, he has much of the manic quality and all of the voice of Woody Allen in his most successful talkie, _Movie Crazy_). Although it is a flawed film, _The Cat's-Paw_ is, on the whole, another such success.
While the film's controversial ending may be a tad facile, and while the reviewer Patricia Parker very capably articulates the full, disturbing political implications of this ending, it is precisely the outrageous, provocative nature of the plot's culmination that makes this film more engrossing to watch today.
Some other reviewers have commented on the film's racism, asking us to excuse it as typical of the time. However, again I feel that these viewers are slightly skewing the issue. Yes, the movie is an interesting document of the utter prevalence of casually racist attitudes in the United States of the 1930s. However, I would say that 95% of the time, _the film itself_ is not racist (there are a few moments of racial condescension, such as Lloyd's too-precious quip about white women looking alike, and there is a stock-stereotype black character introduced at the end); rather it is numerous _negative characters_ who express racist attitudes. References to brutality and misogyny aside, for the most part Chinese culture is accorded a fair degree of respect in this film, and is indeed used as a foil for the corrupt and ignorant world of Stockport, USA. Note, for instance, Lloyd's response whenever another character uses the slur 'ch*nk': he winces every time (or at least pauses with displeasure), and then answers in a manner that tries to maintain dignity for the Asian culture and individuals being referenced. While this is not to say this is a bold, crusading film, nonetheless, some credit should be given for this attitude in the early 1930s; it is, in its own clumsy sort of way, a gently anti-racist film.
And credit should also be given for the engrossingly cynical view of society put forward here, as well as the comically dark resolution of the plot, even if that resolution is ultimately fairly problematic in its political implications.