|
Red-Headed Woman1932 US Dir John Francis Dillon Cast Jean Harlow, Chester Morris, Lewis Stone, Una Merkel, Charles Boyer, Leila Hyams, Henry Stephenson IMDb |
MGM originally intended this story of ruthless social climber Lil Andrews for Greta Garbo, who, despite playing her share of women on the fringes of respectability, is difficult to imagine in such a completely salacious role — at least the Garbo of the talkies. Jean Harlow, if half as gifted, is perfectly cast here, in a film that showcases the talents she did possess to full effect. Her playfulness gives the lurid tale the right comic counterpoint, and her unique brand of suggestiveness ensures no shade of meaning will go undetected.
Even so, Red-Headed Woman is unusual in presenting a wholly unsympathetic and irredeemable main character. Pre-Code cinema is full of wicked women who heartlessly sleep their way to the top, but generally their actions are tempered by a terrible past that drove them to it or an underlying goodness revealed in other areas of their lives. Lil seems to have suffered no more seriously than the average working girl, and no amount of care for her friends or innocent parties intermingles with her drive to snag a rich man, and once secured, a richer man. She stomps and spits her way through the film, throws tantrums, whines and coos in baby-talk — oh, it’s a hoot to watch Jean do it, but not for a moment is Lil less than vile. In Baby Face, which is probably the darker and more disturbing film, one always does root for and understand Lilly. Red-Headed Woman is all the more shocking precisely because Lil continually appalls you.
The film earns its pre-Code credentials and then some, rife not just with sex but thoroughgoing sadism (Jean’s delightful “Do it again, I like it!”), and it in no way ultimately reaffirms a moral standard or punishes Lil for her transgressions. Although seventeen cuts and edits were made to satisfy the Hays office, the film is hardly restrained or subtle, with even the most innocuous lines taking on deliciously dirty significance with the right delivery, as in second conquest Chaaaar-lie’s flustered remark that “Personally, I should like to meet her half-way.”
4 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URILeave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Excellent. You need to update more often now. As for the film–I find watching Harlow in anything painful. The only thing that frustrated me more than watching Harlow whine and seduce was watching men actually fall for her. That is one leap I cannot make. I find her to be one of the most repulsive women Old Hollywood ever put up on the their screens–Hollywood’s notion that every man chases a beautiful lady is already absurd enough, but when you make that women Jean Harlow the film becomes completely inane and worthless. The first guy she seduces has absolutely no reason to jump over from his current girl to Harlow–the moment he did I completely lost interest in the film. Blech. Contrasted with Barbara, Jean is a bratty toddler. How can anybody like watching that? Blech. Just thinking about the film, I now yearn for a bit of sophistication. I think I’ll go check out some Audrey photos.
I hope to see more updates soon.
Comment by Mango — 30 June 2008 @ 30 June 2008*wanders off*
I agree with you generally about Harlow. This is the first role I liked her in, although at the same time she and the character ARE repulsive. Maybe this is part of the reason why the casting is perfect. She is one of few who could make me find Lil so vile. In fact I wonder if in Stanwyck’s hands, say, I would have rooted for her as I did Lily Powers. Hmm, I really wonder.
It’s impossible to see Harlow’s allure now; it seems she was very much of-the-moment where other great ladies of the screen were more classic, sophisticated, simple in a way. The platinum blonde look doesn’t work today. The plucked-clean and redrawn eyebrows don’t work today. In fact she looked hideous, but I imagine natural-Jean would have been just fine. Her persona also grates on me; the whining, the seductive glances, the now-absurd casting as bombshell. But she’s probably more indicative of 30s tastes than any of the other women who reached her iconic status.
Comment by Lauren — 1 July 2008 @ 1 July 2008Is she indicative of 30s taste? Maybe. Well said. As for natural Jean, I’ve seen photos of her sans make-up and sans formality and she looks horrifying. No glamour, no sophistication, no real confidence (my impressions)–she looks like a frightened child in them. I suppose she led the type of tumultuous starlet life most of her peers did (but I wouldn’t know, I haven’t had the urge to research), and in that way I sincerely empathize with her. Hear real life would probably break my heart. But as it is, it is brutal trying to watch her onscreen.
Can I go comment on Waterloo Bridge, or am I still being marked as spam?
Comment by Mango — 1 July 2008 @ 1 July 2008I won’t go too far in casting myself as a Harlow apologist, as RHW is probably the first time I’ve found her at all interesting or effective. I tend to agree with your impressions (particularly lack of sophistication). I’m interested now to find out a bit more about her, though.
Comment by Lauren — 2 July 2008 @ 2 July 2008