STAGE DOOR (1937)

Directed by Gregory La Cava

RKO, 92 minutes, Pre-ratings system

★★★★

 

Stage Door is often tagged as a tragicomedy. Although something quite sad happens to one of the characters, this Gregory La Cava-directed movie is heavier on the second half of that portmanteau. The movie followed the script of a play written Edna Ferber and George S. Kaufman that closed the year before the movie appeared. It made money and garnered Oscar nominations, but it was one of increasingly rare incidences in which the play earned more money.

 

If you allow for the fact that this is a Great Depression-era film, your viewing pleasure will increase. It follows the constant flow of aspirant and briefly successful actresses in and out of a boarding house controlled by a booking agency. The cast is large and impressive, though the fame of many of the headliners would come later. This older movie definitely passes the Bechdel Test, as it is a film about women talking to women. Most of the men in the Stage Door are cads. If you know anything about (if not, consult Wikipedia) Ferber or Kaufman, you can count on a lot of barbed, acerbic, and funny badinage between boarding house residents. It’s the kind of movie that could be labeled “catty,” but these women are more predator tigers than domesticated tabbies.

 

The principals include Judy Canfield (Lucile Ball), a good-times gal; Kay Hamilton (Andrea Leeds), who was a star for a season who hasn’t had a part in ages and needs money; Jean Maitland (Ginger Rogers), a sharp-tongued vixen prone to mean acts such as pilfering the silk stockings from Linda Shaw (Gail Patrick) and ruining what was likely an expensive gift from Linda’s beau, Anthony (Adolph Menjou). That was quite a nasty thing to do at a time in which good stockings sold for today’s equivalent of over $36.

 

There are several odd-fitting residents, including newbie Terry Randall (Katharine Hepburn), who Maitland and her hangers-on ridicule for using big words, her fancy wardrobe, and her polished demeanor. They assume she comes from money, but that’s only partially true. Her father is loaded, but cuts off her allowance when she insists on pursuing a stage career. They don’t know who her father is, so they assume she has a “sugar daddy.” The implication of that term is that Terry is a “kept” woman who exchanges sex for fancy duds. The irony of this is that just about every woman in the boarding house, except Terry, yearns to have a boyfriend who will treat them. I will again remind you that this is a 1936 movie. In the film the women are “man-hungry” and the men know it. Boyfriends are generally older than their dates, are well-heeled, are clearly trying to bed them, and play musical conquests from among the boarding house population. It’s a mutual exploitation society of sorts. Many of the men are somehow connected to the theatre (directors, producers, underwriters, etc.) and the women are literally hungry as well as looking for a husband. Only Hattie (Phyllis Kennedy) has the chutzpah to date a butcher!

 

The other oddballs are Southern belle Mary Lou (Margaret Early), who finds out the New York isn’t Louisiana.  Ann Miller also has role as “Annie,” a fan-girl companion to Jean who dreams of being a dancer. (Miller succeeded in that quest, though she lied about her age and was just 14 when she scored a part in Stage Door.)

 

As you can see, Stage Door had what might be called an A-level cast: Ball, Hepburn, Miller…. At the time, though, Eve Arden and Constance Collier–two of the residents– and Patrick were better known, and film critics tabbed Early for an Oscar nomination. In a way, a lot of 1930s’ movies were akin to the 1933 version of 42^nd Street in which understudy Ruby Keeler dances to fame. Hepburn-as-Terry gets a similar chance to show off her talent, courtesy of a lot of help from Eve (Eve Arden) and aging resident Ann Lutheir (Collier), though Terry has something more serious in mind.

 

It’s hard to do justice to films with a big cast. There are more serious things in the film–a tragedy, veiled critiques of backstage immorality, and sexism–but the writing is razor-sharp. Give it a try.

 

Rob Weir

Yesteryear and Social Media Hucksters

 

 

YESTERYEAR (2026)

By Caro Claire Burke

Alfred A. Knopf, 391 pages.

★★★

 

In some circles, Yesteryear has been hailed as this generation’s Handmaiden’s Tale (1985). That would be an atmospheric achievement for a debut author such as Caro Claire Burke. Hers is an entertaining novel, but Margaret Atwood was an accomplished poet and had published five well-reviewed novels before she released Handmaiden’s Tale. I do understand, though, how younger reviewers and readers could make a connection, but it misrepresents both authors. Atwood wrote a cautionary tale during the Ronald Reagan years when Second Wave feminism was under attack; Burke’s book is a satire on the shallowness of American culture and the vulture-like extremes of capitalism.

 

Our anti-heroine is Natalie Heller Mills is what is sometimes derisively called a “trad-wife;” that is, an old-fashioned young woman who wants to live a Biblical life. Natalie is college-educated, but much about undergraduate life offended her. If you know the Bible, though, it’s easier to imagine a Biblical life than to practice one. In practical terms it means she and her cowboy hunk-husband Caleb try to simplify and live as much off-the-grid as possible. The latter is very hard to do these days. Rather like the Amish who show up at farmers’ markets, her preserves and eggs attract buyers, word-of-mouth praise, and media attention. On the surface, Natlie is the poster mom for the religious right, as she pops out a new baby even year–six in total. Still, there are lots of things she can’t get the hang of; for instance, her bread comes out of the oven more suitable for building material than human consumption.

 

Before you can say “Trinity Broadcasting System,” Christian TV, bloggers, radio shows, and magazines all want a piece of Natalie, Caleb, and the kiddos. Their household becomes filled with cameras and the Mills family are reality TV show stars. Money starts to pour in from Natalie’s many side projects, but who can actually produce everything from nutritious meals to handmade rugs, books of aphorisms, a clothing line, etc. Who wants to haul water or learn on the fly how to cook venison stew? The viewers know nothing of her hidden industrial stoves, freezers, and refrigerators, or her team of childminders, cooks, product producers, and social media experts.

 

Readers are invited to speculate whether Natalie is a good-girl gone wrong, or if she was always a con artist. Are all those kids really hers? Some of the juiciest parts of the novel juxtapose Natalie’s inner thoughts and unsaid word bubbles with what she actually does and says– with a smile plastered on her face. But is she a fraud? Every time she has a vile thought or is less than kind, she tosses off quick prayesr or apologies to God.

 

Can you imagine being part of today’s gotcha media hounds? Back in the 1970s, a show called An American Family followed the Loud clan. Bill and Pat Loud only had five (gulp!) children, but they also drew 10 million viewers per week, though they didn’t even try to live a pioneer lifestyle. Things didn’t go well for the Louds, who eventually divorced when the cameras that made them famous exposed their warts. Numerous observers blamed their family collapse on the maddening pressure of being under the microscope. Burke avoids that debate, but she does ask us to consider a very different scenario.

 

What if you woke up and had been transported to the past? Natalie finds herself in 1855, without assistants, scripts, or Instagram. Just her, a very different Caleb, a hearth fire, a day filed with chores, and a big kettle filled with lye soap to boil and scrub ragged clothing and send them through a hand ringer. Natalie wants to flee, but how can she leave her kids when Caleb is fornicating with another woman? Is this the work of Satan? Is God testing her as if she were a female Job? Has she gone insane? There is a resolution, but one open to interpretation. Some readers will find this bold; others will feel cheated.

 

What we can say is that Caro Claire Burke has incisively butchered a few sacred cows. Hers is an indictment of materialism, an evisceration of of social influencers, a takedown of hypocrisy, an exposé of fake “reality” shows, and a backdoor condemnation of religious hucksterism. Ultimately, Yesteryear is closer to The Rainmaker than The Handmaiden’s Tale. Does the Devil smile like Burt Lancaster?

 

Rob Weir