Your typical romances from Hollywood's inception until today start off one of two ways. Either the two hit it off right away or they disdain each other then begin to love each other. "Bed of Roses" is of the latter variety.
The girl in this case was Lorry Evans (Constance Bennett). She had just been released from prison and was already doing things that could land her right back in prison. She lived by her wits which usually involved separating men from their money.
The boy was Dan Walters (Joel McCrea). He was a cotton barge captain in Louisiana and didn't have much money to his name. But what he lacked in dough he made up for in character.
The two met when Lorry jumped off of a steamship to evade the law. Dan rescued her and they were adversarial right away. Lorry even stole his wad of cash that he foolishly left in his unattended jacket. He probably had some queer idea about pretty women that they don't steal and don't do anything wrong.
The money Lorry stole served as a lure to catch a bigger fish named Stephen Paige (John Halliday). Stephen was a publisher and had money. Lorry got him nice and drunk in order for her to trick him into believing they'd done something improper. It's a trick that was used in a more nefarious way in the movie "Party Girl" (1930). It's such a silly ploy that it was funny in "Bed of Roses" because they made it more comedic, but it was plain absurd in "Party Girl" where they tried to make it a serious matter.
Lorry was able to get a nice apartment, servants, money, clothes, and jewelry out of her scheme. It was the setup she desired, but she was falling in love with Dan the cotton carrier.
This is when the movie began to break down and become passe. It turned into your very typical would-he-love-her-if-he-knew romance. This plot had been done too many times already even by 1933. Usually it's the woman's history that's in question (I guess because men were expected to have a history and women were not). She wants to keep her history hidden because she's afraid the man will leave her only to find out that the man loved her so much that her history didn't matter.
I liked the first half of "Bed of Roses" because it was something flavorful and something different. By the second half it became bland and flavorless. I'm seeing that a lot lately. Writers and directors have awesome beginnings only to settle into the cliche and by-the-numbers finish.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
The girl in this case was Lorry Evans (Constance Bennett). She had just been released from prison and was already doing things that could land her right back in prison. She lived by her wits which usually involved separating men from their money.
The boy was Dan Walters (Joel McCrea). He was a cotton barge captain in Louisiana and didn't have much money to his name. But what he lacked in dough he made up for in character.
The two met when Lorry jumped off of a steamship to evade the law. Dan rescued her and they were adversarial right away. Lorry even stole his wad of cash that he foolishly left in his unattended jacket. He probably had some queer idea about pretty women that they don't steal and don't do anything wrong.
The money Lorry stole served as a lure to catch a bigger fish named Stephen Paige (John Halliday). Stephen was a publisher and had money. Lorry got him nice and drunk in order for her to trick him into believing they'd done something improper. It's a trick that was used in a more nefarious way in the movie "Party Girl" (1930). It's such a silly ploy that it was funny in "Bed of Roses" because they made it more comedic, but it was plain absurd in "Party Girl" where they tried to make it a serious matter.
Lorry was able to get a nice apartment, servants, money, clothes, and jewelry out of her scheme. It was the setup she desired, but she was falling in love with Dan the cotton carrier.
This is when the movie began to break down and become passe. It turned into your very typical would-he-love-her-if-he-knew romance. This plot had been done too many times already even by 1933. Usually it's the woman's history that's in question (I guess because men were expected to have a history and women were not). She wants to keep her history hidden because she's afraid the man will leave her only to find out that the man loved her so much that her history didn't matter.
I liked the first half of "Bed of Roses" because it was something flavorful and something different. By the second half it became bland and flavorless. I'm seeing that a lot lately. Writers and directors have awesome beginnings only to settle into the cliche and by-the-numbers finish.
Free on Odnoklassniki.