kidboots 1933 was a good year for Nancy. The year before, Paramount had almost given up on her but with "Hot Saturday" and "Under-Cover Man" both critics and the public re-discovered her and Columbia was more determined to borrow her for a story perfectly suited to her talents, Preston Sturges' Broadway success "Child of Manhattan". Nancy's characterization was wonderful and made people recall the old Nancy of "The Dance of Life" and "The Devil's Holiday". When Paramount realised how successful "Child of Manhattan" was they decided to find better stories for her, unfortunately "The Woman Accused" was not the movie to give her lasting success and Nancy continued to be better served at other studios.Visiting "Loveland" a "not too elegant dime a dance hall", is Paul Vanderkill (John Boles) on a curiosity tour of his property. He meets Madeleine McGonegal (Carroll) one of many dance hostesses but whose freshness and charm set her apart from the other girls. There is an instant attraction, even though she has recently rejected Panama Kelly (Buck Jones) who is soon to seek his fortune in Mexico.Even though her cynical mother warns her, Madeleine continues to see Paul and is soon established in a beautiful penthouse. When she learns that she is soon to give birth Paul, reluctantly it seems to her, offers to marry her, insisting though on secrecy so as not to hurt his grown up daughter from a former marriage. When the child dies shortly after birth Madeleine, believing that Paul only married her for the sake of the child flees to Mexico for a quickie divorce. Unbeknownst to her, the Mexican agent (Luis Alberni) she employed, visits Paul and gets a huge settlement for her. Furious at the trick that has been played on Paul she arranges to marry Panama Kelly with whom she has just become reacquainted and who has never stopped loving her. The terms of the settlement stipulate that if she ever marries again the money will be cancelled. It is obvious who Nancy will end up with.As usual John Boles is stuffy and wooden but his sincerity pulls him through. Buck Jones was good as Panama Kelly who would have been far better suited to her as a husband than blue blood Paul. Jessie Ralph in her first movie was praised by the critics of the day, who commented that it wouldn't be her last. She played a motherly figure from Madeleine's dance hall days. Betty Grable had a strange part that belied her billing - she played Madeleine's sister who was seen vaguely in the background and also had a crying scene, but no words!! Another odd thing - in all the books and articles I have read about Nancy Carroll, one picture is always used, a picture of Nancy in a sparkling evening gown with balloons and a cup. The scene must have been deleted from the movie because the only time a cup is mentioned is when Paul and Madeleine are presented with a cup because Paul bought the most tickets. As Silver Screen said "Nancy Carroll as the little New York girl who says "jernt" and "apperntment" has the best role she has had in a long time".

tedg Here's an interesting old movie, one of the earliest examples of a formula that would later define a whole genre, more a whole industry. Man meets girl and immediately falls in love. There is an event followed by a misunderstanding that send them apart. They rejoin at the end. Later this ending would require a public avowal, something missing here.This is also an example of somethings that did not stick. Deep in the depression, many movies featured the ultra rich - people who just seemed to have money for no reason. Because this was before comical prudery changed films starting with the Code, we have the situation that guy knocks up the girl.But I found it interesting for yet another reason. Movies from this era were far more willing to question gender roles than now is the case. Oh, today we worry about professions and opportunity. I'm talking about what it means to be a woman or man. In this film, we have our girl, with appealing innocence. She is the child of Manhattan, with clear immigrant, lower class heritage. Both she and the rich guy are noble people, but she far more. The film is about her decisions.Sturges has taken the time to introduce four older women. They are shoehorned in and have nothing at all to do with the story; they are there only to show strong women, sometimes frustrated strength. There is the older woman at the dance hall where our girl works, who is much loved as she takes care of her girls. We have the aunt of our rich guy who is shown as a forceful nut job.Then we have the girl's mother. We learn a lot about her past and values. She turns her daughter out on the street when she gets pregnant by her then boyfriend. This woman slaps her adult kids, hard. We spend the final third of the movie with the girl's aunt, something of a world traveller, a poor person's playgirl. She drinks too much but always seems to be on top of things.Four strong women form the situation-of-womanhood in which we interpret our girl's life. Nothing like that today in mainstream films.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

dougdoepke Don't let the wedlock baby fool you. This is a version of the fairy-tale Cinderella story popular with Depression era audiences of the time. It comforts folks with the idea that rags- to-riches lightning may strike them if they just get noticed by a benevolent rich person, in this case John Boles with the rather double-edge name of "Vanderkill". What's suggested is that rescue from desperate economic conditions lies with joining established wealth instead of joining with other desperate folks to improve the common economic condition. I don't know how the screenplay compares with Sturges' stage play, but what's there on the screen looks processed in typical Hollywood fashion.I realize this kind of perspective is unwelcome to most viewers who simply want to be entertained in engaging fashion. Certainly Nancy Caroll does that with a winning performance as the down-trodden girl. Her sheer spunk in the early scenes carries the movie, at the same time I couldn't help thinking how much her big eyes, high cheek bones and flattened hair-do resemble the popular Betty Boop character of the time. Too bad the rest of the cast doesn't come up to her level, especially Buck Jones' Panama Kelly whose unbelievably gallant nature helps produce the fairy tale outcome. Note also, how actual Depression era conditions are not allowed to intrude on the enclosed world of the lovers. To be fair, that may simply have resulted from a tight budget. But if so, the constraints help produce what appears to be the desired overall effect.Whatever the movie's internal qualities, the relevance of the underlying message to that historical period needs to be pointed out. Because no matter how much we may wish otherwise, history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.

oneillrobyn I saw this movie this morning by accident. I love 30s movies for the clothes, the beauty of which hit me during the "first" mini era. I was a teenager and I had never seen such gorgeous clothes.The movie is predictable, but Nancy Carroll is adorable and I can see what her appeal was. With that pretty face and hair, she would have absolutely no chance of getting any job as an actress today, in this world of gaunt, giraffe-like women-men. Too bad we don't have any visual differences among the "leading actresses of today", all those interchangeable bland flat-haired blondes.Those clothes are wonderful. Too bad we'll never see their like again -- after all, how can anyone be attractive wearing anything other a mini or jeans?Hey, wasn't Buck Jones handsome! I won't contrast him with our "leading men" today. I leave that up to you.