I love 1930's movies, and I like many of the actors in this cast, but this film just isn't worth the time it takes to watch it, in my opinion. I'm a little annoyed with myself that I didn't just turn it off. Other reviewers described most of the objections I had to the storyline, such as the poor treatment of secretaries and fiancées; they really interfered with my enjoyment. The film seems to be trying to justify the typical exploitation of workers practiced by many big movie studios (I'm not sure about Warner Bros' record with that, but it seems like the type of thing MGM would endorse). The idea of "The Office" is glorified in a way that's ridiculous. And since the film was made in the Depression, I couldn't help but wonder about the studio's purpose behind all this "if you don't work all night you're a parasite" stuff. (Possible spoiler ahead) And the characters all turn on one person in the last scene, when she's really the one who was wronged.
The film does have a few good moments, and some nice outfits and Art Deco sets, but it mostly seems to be a waste of good performers, like Claire Dodd. (I thought David Manners' performance was weak, however--just smooth talk and popping eyes.) It was nice that some respect was given to the idea of a serious woman editor, but the actual scenes showing Kay Francis working didn't convince me that she was actually that good at her job. She keeps people waiting while playing around with her husband in the office, approves some perfectly mediocre sketches, demands endless overtime of her workers, and is unable to write out her own letters if a secretary has to leave.
There just isn't enough plot to get the thing going, so the character played by David Manners has to treat someone badly just to provide some juice, and the audience is supposed to approve of this pointless behavior. Kay Francis manages to inject some believable emotion into her scenes, but her motivations are confused--(possible spoiler) it's hard to believe she could be very serious about the David Manners character, when so much of the film is given over to her relationship with her husband.
If you want to see a much snappier film about a 1930's office, I recommend "Counsellor at Law," with John Barrymore (1933). It has some of the same plot themes as this one, but does them all much better.
The film does have a few good moments, and some nice outfits and Art Deco sets, but it mostly seems to be a waste of good performers, like Claire Dodd. (I thought David Manners' performance was weak, however--just smooth talk and popping eyes.) It was nice that some respect was given to the idea of a serious woman editor, but the actual scenes showing Kay Francis working didn't convince me that she was actually that good at her job. She keeps people waiting while playing around with her husband in the office, approves some perfectly mediocre sketches, demands endless overtime of her workers, and is unable to write out her own letters if a secretary has to leave.
There just isn't enough plot to get the thing going, so the character played by David Manners has to treat someone badly just to provide some juice, and the audience is supposed to approve of this pointless behavior. Kay Francis manages to inject some believable emotion into her scenes, but her motivations are confused--(possible spoiler) it's hard to believe she could be very serious about the David Manners character, when so much of the film is given over to her relationship with her husband.
If you want to see a much snappier film about a 1930's office, I recommend "Counsellor at Law," with John Barrymore (1933). It has some of the same plot themes as this one, but does them all much better.