There's that tricky word again -- "classic." A word much abused, much misunderstood, for while it denotes timelessness, it says nothing about how or why a film achieved this quality of timelessness. Some films are exceptional, while others are so supremely typical that they remain the standards of their age. Such a film is "It." The entire creaky affair rests on the sexy shoulders of Ms. Clara Bow, more a personality than an actress to judge by this film. Her attempts to project dramatic emotion in this film are blessedly brief. Her natural spontaneity (which must have won her the role) lifts the film ever so slightly out of its rut, making it at the very least superior to many of its imitators such as the "Dancing Daughters" series that MGM kept pumping out long after the "flapper" became passé. Whatever of truth or meaning is to be found in the formula can be found in this fairly stylish Paramount original.
The thing that really jumps out at you here of course is the Bow character's aggressive sexuality -- she sees the man she wants (why she wants this particular many remains a mystery) and she goes after him. It's not a message of "liberation" regardless of what some writers would like you to believe -- after all, our heroine doesn't seek independence or self-empowerment, she simply wants to choose the man she'll tie herself to. But socially speaking, it is a step forward because at least it represents female sexual desire in a way that's not inherently condemnatory like the "vamp" cycle.
But all of this is pretty obvious. What interests me, if anything, is the moment she decides to seek revenge on the man because "he didn't even give me the benefit of doubt." If she had immediately forgiven him when she realized the misunderstanding, this would indeed be a woman for whom one can have little sympathy.
All of this just goes to say that this is a film that today holds mostly sociological interest or at best historical interest, but very little attempt at artistry or even characterization. What the film-makers have done is to take the bare minimum of necessary drama and comedy, added just a touch of spice or naughtiness, and put the thing out there for consumption. They certainly weren't out to make a "classic", and it shows. The reason it's worth watching is that it captures a moment in time when an American woman was just barely and just finally being allowed to experience a little taste of freedom. It subverts our expectations, for the time period, but its weakness is that it relies on this novelty instead of using the new freedom to take its story or characters anywhere interesting.
My feelings on the film are summed up in its most ridiculous sequence, where an aged Victorian figure, the "controversial" writer Eleanor Glynn, sallies forth to expound on the meaning of "It." Hilariously, this antiquated figure is being called upon to endorse the new sexual freedom. It's a bit like Fred Allen gently rocking his head to the "new beat" in that awful artificial film "Sex Kittens Go to College," or Fred Astaire's awful rock and roll routine in "Daddy Longlegs." Never underestimate Hollywood's ability or desire to patronize youth movements while holding firmly to their parents' wallets. Eleanor Glynn, standing stiff as a ramrod with tight pursed lips and steel-combed hair lecturing about "spontaneity" is the dinosaur grandmother of them all, and typifies this movie as well.
The thing that really jumps out at you here of course is the Bow character's aggressive sexuality -- she sees the man she wants (why she wants this particular many remains a mystery) and she goes after him. It's not a message of "liberation" regardless of what some writers would like you to believe -- after all, our heroine doesn't seek independence or self-empowerment, she simply wants to choose the man she'll tie herself to. But socially speaking, it is a step forward because at least it represents female sexual desire in a way that's not inherently condemnatory like the "vamp" cycle.
But all of this is pretty obvious. What interests me, if anything, is the moment she decides to seek revenge on the man because "he didn't even give me the benefit of doubt." If she had immediately forgiven him when she realized the misunderstanding, this would indeed be a woman for whom one can have little sympathy.
All of this just goes to say that this is a film that today holds mostly sociological interest or at best historical interest, but very little attempt at artistry or even characterization. What the film-makers have done is to take the bare minimum of necessary drama and comedy, added just a touch of spice or naughtiness, and put the thing out there for consumption. They certainly weren't out to make a "classic", and it shows. The reason it's worth watching is that it captures a moment in time when an American woman was just barely and just finally being allowed to experience a little taste of freedom. It subverts our expectations, for the time period, but its weakness is that it relies on this novelty instead of using the new freedom to take its story or characters anywhere interesting.
My feelings on the film are summed up in its most ridiculous sequence, where an aged Victorian figure, the "controversial" writer Eleanor Glynn, sallies forth to expound on the meaning of "It." Hilariously, this antiquated figure is being called upon to endorse the new sexual freedom. It's a bit like Fred Allen gently rocking his head to the "new beat" in that awful artificial film "Sex Kittens Go to College," or Fred Astaire's awful rock and roll routine in "Daddy Longlegs." Never underestimate Hollywood's ability or desire to patronize youth movements while holding firmly to their parents' wallets. Eleanor Glynn, standing stiff as a ramrod with tight pursed lips and steel-combed hair lecturing about "spontaneity" is the dinosaur grandmother of them all, and typifies this movie as well.