User Reviews

This "Age of Innocence" from 1934, of course, cannot even approach the sumptuous beauty.amazing acting, and rich story-telling of the Martin Scorsese "Age of Innocence" from 1993 starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder, and Michelle Pfeiffer.

The 1934 movie stars Irene Dunne as Ellen, John Boles as Newland, and Julie Haydon as May.

The story is told in flashback by the elderly Newland. As a young attorney in the late 1800s, he was engaged to May when her cousin Ellen came to visit from Europe. She plans to divorce her husband and is a social outcast, as these things were never done. Newland and Ellen fall in love. Do they defy convention and marry? Or does Newland marry May as promised?

Irene Dunne is lovely as Ellen. She was an actress who could do comedy and drama. John Boles was a huge star and not a tremendous actor. That kind of look was considered attractive way back when; today it has gone out of style.

There are good performances, but there is no way to watch this film after seeing the Scorsese film. It is studio-made, looks dull, and is dull. This is a story with a great deal of depth that seems untouched here -- lots going on underneath all the gentility, the trap of conventions -- here told as an ordinary story.

Helen Westley is wonderful as the cousins' grandmother, as is Laura Hope Crews as Dunne's aunt and May's mother. Lionel Atwill is also on hand as a married man who is a friend of Dunne's, an unacceptable situation.

The novel was also adapted into a play, on Broadway starring Katherine Cornell as Ellen and Franchot Tone as Newland.

If you haven't seen the stunning Scorsese film, see it.

Technically speaking, this is a generally well made film. The acting (apart from some serious over-melodramatic acting from John Boles) was good and the entire production looked marvelous. So why, then, only a score of 5? Well, the story seems to try hard to make an excellent point--only to have it undone by plot holes that just don't make a lot of sense. Perhaps in the original Edith Wharton novel this is not the case, but here the film seems to be missing something.

The film begins with Boles ("Newland Archer") becoming engaged with his long time sweetheart, May. They seem like a happy couple and they are going into the upcoming marriage with not a care in the world other than wanting to marry sooner than later. At about the same time, May's cousin (Countess Ellen Olenska--played by Irene Dunne) is arriving from Europe and there is a great scandal because Mrs. Olenska is planning on divorcing her husband--something that polite society at the time would NEVER condone. It is interesting that we never see her husband nor do we really know much about their marriage other than the fact that she is unhappy and wants out--even though her family is strongly in favor of her remaining married. The family's wishes, oddly, are NOT because of a love for Olenska but because they were more concerned about how the scandal would ruin their good name! Many, in fact, were totally unconcerned about her soon to be ex-husband nor about adultery--just what others would think. This hypocrisy made for an excellent theme and I wish the film had really worked more on this angle.

Unfortunately, out of the blue, Archer suddenly announces to the Countess that he loves her!! Where this comes from makes no sense at all--especially since his bride to be is a sweet lady who has done no one wrong. Yet despite this profession, Archer still marries May and they go on their honeymoon. During this time, Archer is distant and quite frankly a major jerk--pining for the Countess and ignoring his poor wife. Frankly, any sympathy you had for the Countess and her divorce is quickly lost because she, too, is conspiring with Archer to run away together. So instead of an excellent story of hypocrisy, the story becomes a story of lust and selfishness--making the viewer really hate Boles and Dunne (especially Boles). All the great buildup of the last hour of the film is practically thrown away when this affair appears out of nowhere.

So what, at this point, is the point of the film? This ambiguity was a serious deficiency with the film. Had Archer never married May and then run off with the Countess, then you might have had a lot of sympathy for the couple. As is, they just seemed nasty and selfish. And the overall message seemed muddled. Were they trying to excuse away adultery or somehow trying to be pro-marriage? I really don't know. Had Archer acted rationally and consistently and less like a weasel, then this message would have been much more clear. As a result, it seriously deadens the impact of this film. It COULD have been much, much better.

Irene Dunne shines in this fine(one must remember it was the post-code 1930s)adaptation of the Edith Wharton novel, as Countess Ellen Olenska, an american born member of New York's high society, who was raised and married in Europe, far way from that city's strict society conventions, now an outsider in her own family. She returns to New York city because she wants to divorce her polish aristocrat husband, where she falls in love with young lawyer Newland Archer, her cousin's fiancé.

John Boles, as usual, is just so-so as Newland Archer, although I must say, that upon watching the movie I felt he was much more effective when impersonating him in his old age. This actor always reminds me of Robert Taylor, because although the latter achieved superstar stardom and had better looks, their acting abilities and inexpressiveness are roughly equivalent. As well, both served as "escorts" in many star vehicles of notable 1930s female stars: Irene Dunne, Barbara Stanwyck, etc.

Miss Dunne, an excellent comedienne and dramatic actress, had previously worked with Boles in the 1932 weepie "Back Street", and this film's plot is in the same category. She looks very beautiful indeed in period clothing. Julie Haydon is rightly "controlled" and restrained, as her cousin May.

Helen Westley gives the greatest performance among the supporting players, as Old Dowager Mrs. Manson Mingott, both Countess Olenska's and May's understanding and very warm grandmother. Laura Hope Crews is very good as Dunne's stuffy and very concerned aunt (and May's mother), and Lionel Atwill plays an unscrupulous "married man of bad reputation" who befriends Dunne, in spite of the scandal it may cause, in the opinion of her family.

Recommended viewing for '30s movie fans.

Young Kane Richmond is coming to his grandfather John Boles for advice about women. He's looking to marry a divorcee and the family is just buzzing. Except for Grandpa and Richmond suspects something.

His suspicions prove correct as John Boles proceeds to tell him about his romantic youth in the Gilded Age when he passed up Irene Dunne who is in fact his sister-in-law. Neither of the two were ready to defy very strict conventions of the time that still held firm in some respects when this film was released. Divorce was a big no-no

Both the leads did well though I really couldn't see Lionel Atwill as anyone's romantic rival. Helen Westley as the grandmother came off best in the supporting cast.

Taken from an Edith Wharton novel the play by Margaret Ayer Barnes ran 207 performances on Broadway and starred the legendary Katherine Cornell. Now that I would have liked to see.

like many of the movies of the time, this one is fairly predictable, but great to watch anyway. Irene Dunne and john boles make a nice pair, and you find yourself hoping for them to end up together. there were many scenes that were great to watch, like the one in the met, because,living in new york, its great to see the Hollywood version of 1870, and the disdain of west 23rd street, now Chelsea. this does not have the best of lines, and the greatest of performances, because it was probably just one of the those movies, (not a casablanca at all) but, all in all, a movie for movie buffs, and people who love a good romance

The acting in this film was of the old school: corny and stiff. Irene Dunne is luminous, and comes off the best even though she has some very unnatural lines to say. Still, her ability to convey emotion comes through.

Old movie buffs will find at least some redeeming qualities in this film through observation of cinematic technique of the 1930s. Otherwise, it is not really that worthwhile.

A lawyer attempting to obtain a divorce for a countess finds his growing love resisted by THE AGE OF INNOCENCE in which they lived.

Edith Wharton's celebrated novel, illustrating how personal happiness is often crushed by public propriety, is given a fine adaptation in this well-produced film from Radio Pictures. While the movie relentlessly features almost nothing but dialogue, it is always sophisticated and deals with matters still of some importance.

In a movie with so much talk the performances are paramount and they are all of a high order. Lovely Irene Dunne is radiant as the American countess restricted by society from following her heart. John Boles is very effective as the lawyer who must also either bow to convention or be crushed by it. Feisty Helen Westley steals nearly every scene she's in as Dunne's wealthy and outspoken Granny. Laura Hope Crews is perfectly cast as Westley's slightly flustered daughter, the mother of Boles' pretty fiancée, Julie Haydon. Herbert Yost is Crews' meek little husband, while splendid Lionel Atwill enjoys himself as a rich rascal operating on society's fringe.

Movie mavens will recognize Harry Beresford as a canny museum guard and Inez Palange as a stubborn Italian maid, both uncredited.

The jazzy montage which opens the film has virtually no relationship to anything that follows and serves only to wake the audience up.

I'm used to seeing Jean Arthur as a rom-com girl, playing girls in their 20s when she was close to 40 and pulling it off. Her evil husband was played by a guy who I've only seen play guys on the edge of evil in Frankenstein and Mad Love. The rest of the cast I didn't recognize. It was heading towards being a tragic love story until Jean Athur argued that they should just let another man die in place of her love interest, who may be guilty, so they can go on, At that point her irrevocably character sank in my esteem. They didn't show her love interest argue against it but thy didn't follow through with it. I won't spoil the rest. I didn't like visuals, especially the ham handed cuts to closeup reaction shots. It reminds me of video games for dumb people with big flashing arrows telling you to "shoot here". I'd skip it.

Edith Wharton chronicled the romantic tragedies of the 19th century 400, those anointed people who would fit in Lady Astor's Lavish New York Society ballroom. This 1934 film is the story of a young lawyer named Newland Archer who is pledged to a New York girl named May Welland. The marriage is in the offing for most of the film.

What stirs things up is the arrival of a mysterious woman, a Polish Countess named Ellen Olenska, who lives at an unfashionable Manhattan address, west 23rd street. Newland is charmed by the Countess and she, likewise. The Countess is in town to get a divorce. Society is as put off by Mrs. Olenska's frankness as they are with her address.

Teacups rattle at every social turn. Irene Dunne is younger in this film as Countess Olenska than in any other I've seen her in. She upstages every other actor in the film including John Boles who is inept as Newland. The movie seems a star vehicle for Dunne. At least the 1993 remake of Age of Innocence from Director Martin Scorcese gives some weight to the other characters, while failing finally to tell the story adequately. Julie Haydon, who would eventually play Laura in Tennessee Williams' play The Glass Menagerie, is suitably church-mousey as Newland's fiancee, May.

Newland's interest in and defense of the Countess eventually gets him in trouble with the upper-class set who are his peers. When push comes to shove, the question is, what will Archer do, dump the one he promised or run off with the Countess. What actually does happen is a fairly delicate bit of story-telling.

The 1934 Age of Innocence tells the story better than the 1993 version. But the older story isn't really that good either. Mrs. Wharton's novel was a sophisticated piece of work. It deserved a better telling on-screen. If you'd like a well-done thirties social drama, have a look at Dodsworth with Walter Huston, Ruth Chatterton and Mary (yes!) Astor. Age of Innocence is strictly for Irene Dunne aficianados.

THE AGE OF INNOCENCE (RKO 1934) (81 minutes)

There have been three film versions of Edith Wharton's most renowned novel, The Age of Innocence. The 1924 silent version is lost. We are left with Martin Scorcese's definitive 1993 version in wide screen and color, derived from the novel itself with its multitude of characters and subplots, and this charming early talkie, based on a play version of the book.

Although the plot and narrative have been pared down considerably, the meat of the matter is still here and it is given first class treatment. Irene Dunne is radiant (when was she not?) in the role of the expatriate family member, Ellen, married into European royalty, and returned to 1870s New York Society, and John Boles gives a solid reading of the tortured Newland, a young lawyer betrothed to marry May Mingott, an innocent ingenue, while falling in love with her cousin, the experienced Ellen. It is true melodrama, a touching and tragic love story, played out in lush Hollywood style.

The sets are excellent as is the detailed and creative costume design. Helen Westley, in but 9 scenes, steals the show as the wise and down to earth Granny Mingott, while Julie Haydon over emotes as the clueless May. Max Steiner's score relies heavily on Tchaikovsky, whose song, None But The Lonely Heart, serves as the main motif running throughout the film. Mason and Heerman, who had just won a Screenplay Oscar for Little Women, deliver a marvelous adaptation, as they would for many more novels, including Magnificent Obsession, Imitation of Life, Golden Boy, and Stella Dallas. There is a long and frantic montage at the film's beginning, establishing the mood of Jazz Age madness and scandalous headlines, against which the calm staidness of New York 19th century society will be played out.

Westley and Dunne would appear opposite each other two years later in SHOW BOAT, while Laura Hope Crewes (as Mrs. Welland) and costume designer, Walter Plunkett, would be paired for 1939's Gone With The Wind.

The available dvd print is impeccably crisp and clean. Although the categories had not yet been created in 1934, a supporting actress nod would be due Helen Westley and a costume design nomination is due Walter Plunkett, in my humble opinion.

If you love Wharton, you will enjoy both the Scorcese version and this lovely gem from Hollywood's golden decade.

I just watched The Age of Innocence and although it is a good movie, I wish it were made in color. The Ladies costumes were great and Irene Dunn looks amazing. I have one question, did men in the 1870s wear clothing that were styled much later? John Boles' fedora and suits stepped right out of the 1930s.

Of grand and velvety anachronism, The Age of Innocence is an orchestrated tale of romantic longing. A polished and elegant, if incomplete, period romance about the "innocent" wife of a wealthy New Yorker in love with another woman who, never going beyond flirtation, envelops him in layers of Victorian repression and traps him between the emotions of love- passion and bourgeois social ethics. This is a story set in the stifling atmosphere of upper-class turn of the 19th century New York. This is a rather interesting plot, though not as successful as a love story than as a social commentary. It was enjoyable to discover the vastly different generations that preceded us.