mmallon4 Dance, Fools, Dance begins with a party onboard on yacht in which the younglings jump off the boat for a late night swim in their underwear while the older men are ignorant of a possible fall in stocks and the idea of forthcoming great depression; the last days of the carefree, roaring twenties seen through the lens of 1931.Bonnie Jordan (Joan Crawford) and her brother Rodney (William Bakewell) are young, glamorous people who never worked a day in their life and show no resentment for it ether, from a father who doesn't want his children to have the hard time he had. They don't exactly mourn over the death of their father but the loss of their fortune following the stock market crash is the tragedy which gets a reaction out of them. Regardless Bonnie deals with the loss of their fortune surprisingly well and accepts the fault of being left nothing from their father because she and her brother didn't finish school. This is the crux of the character and what makes her interesting. She doesn't doesn't choose the easy way out of getting married to a wealthy man even though the opportunity comes to her but rather desires the thrill to make it on her own as she herself later puts it. I don't believe many people are aware of just how endearing Crawford was in her younger, pre-shoulder pad days. In Dance, Fools, Dance she exemplifies a working class heroine with an aura of refreshingly simple, straightforward bravery which really makes you route for her character; plus there is the joy of watching her flex her dancing talents.Clark Gable is a mere 5th on the cast list, even William Holden (no, not that one) is higher than him but his introductory scene is hard to forget. The downbeat piano music as one of his servants puts a blazer on him as he then blows smoke in a woman's face; tells you everything you need to know without a spoken word. Likewise Bonnie's bother Rodney is a memorable character himself as someone who is shocked by the criminal underworld where his alcohol came from before the depression after taking his supply of booze for granted for so long. Likewise the other great cast member is Cliff Edwards as Bert Scranton who makes for an endearing comic sidekick and mentor to Bonnie.Dance, Fools Dance isn't quite a great film, its concept could be fleshed out and explored to a greater degree and would have been ripe for a remake (and maybe a title that wouldn't sound like something a James Bond villain would say). Although even at that despite the film being imperfect it would still be hard to top with that endearingly creaky, early 30's, pre-code charm.

rickrudge Dance, Fools, Dance (1932)Here's another Joan Crawford movie to add to your list. Here, she plays a spoiled rich girl, Bonnie Jordan. Her and her brother, Rodney (William Bakewell) are partying like it's 1999. Bonnie is seeing Bob (Lester Vail) more out of habit. Everything is free and easy.Then the stock market crashes and old man Stanley Jordan, played by William Holden (not the same Bill Holden that you're thinking) collapses on the trading room floor of a heart attack. All of their money is gone, they have to sell the mansion out from under them and (gulp) get a job. They become a pariah by their former rich friends. Even Bob uneasily proposes to Bonnie, out of pity, which Bonnie turned down.Bonnie gets a job on a newspaper from her dad's old friends, but Roddy is kind of dangling a bit. He falls in with some bootleggers run by Jake Luva (Clark Gable). It doesn't take long before Roddy realizes that he's way over his head with these guys, who massacres a rival gang.Bonnie goes undercover as a dancer in Luva's speak-easy to try to get the goods on him. Jake is taken by her nice legs and is putting the moves on her to her disgust. Maybe Bonnie's is in way over her head too.

tavm Joan Crawford is Bonnie Jordan, an ex-society girl working as a reporter investigating the murder of a fellow worker named Bert Scranton played by future Jiminy Cricket, Cliff Edwards. She goes undercover as a dance hall girl at gangster Jake Luva's joint. Luva is played by Clark Gable, at the time just a working actor but possibly due to his brief kiss with Ms. Crawford, about to become a superstar. In fact, the king of the box office for much of the 30s. The way the camera is stationed as well as the lack of music score reveals the picture's early talkie roots but the expressions of the actors are enough to carry it to still-interesting heights. In summary, Dance, Fools, Dance is still well worth a look for the historical first teaming of Crawford and Gable.

ccthemovieman-1 In one respect, this film was ahead of its time and in another respect a typical story from the classic film era.It was about 35 years ahead of its time in some of the immoral characters and general sleazy atmosphere - early sleaze, if you will, and it's not bad. It's not great, either, by any stretch of the imagination. A lot of pictures were similar back in the early '30s, right before the Code was instituted. It features many unlikeable characters, low morals and two stars that were, at least to me, unappealing: a young Joan Crawford and a young Clark Gable. Both, for some reason, thought they were big sex symbols back then. Well, Gable made it to that status eight years later as one but Crawford, who always thought she was no matter what age, was never one. Before he became a star at the end of the decade with "Gone With The Wind," Gable played a lot of sleazy roles himself early in the '30s. This is another, where he's a gangster ("Jake Luva"). He's modeled in here after "Jake Lingle," a real-life gangster from the period who was involved in the famous "St. Valentine's Day Massacre."Anyway, he and his sister "Bonnie," played by Crawford, go from prosperous to penniless when the stock market crashes in 1929 and their dad is ruined. (He had been financing them.)Jake then goes the crooked way, and Bonnie goes straight as a reporter. This is was very cliché-ridden and the story was used in similar situations throughout films of the 30s and '40s, often with childhood pals going in opposite directions.If you are a classic-era film buff, this movie will interest you. Younger audiences will find this film way too dated to be enjoyed. I found myself somewhere in the middle, intrigued at watching these stars when they were young but not enamored with the story.