Strange Interlude (1932) User Reviews

Aside with Norma Shearer

[wes-connors · 7/10 · 25 January 2009]

On stage, "Strange Interlude" was a nine-act "triple play", with time to leave for supper (and a nap). It was a success, and won the 1928 "Pulitzer Prize" for drama. Writer Eugene O'Neill used a Greek gimmick to nice effect - the characters would speak their "true thoughts" in asides, while the rest of the cast froze...

For this movie version, Robert Z. Leonard has the performers reveal their "inner thoughts" in voice-overs. You will recognize the technique, which is not unusual (in smaller doses). In this film, the voice-overs are a distraction - for the most part, they reveal nothing the cast can't reveal through cinematic acting. Mr. Leonard should have considered aborting the spoken asides. Obviously, Norma Shearer (as Nina Leeds) and her stellar co-stars are capable of revealing their "inner thoughts" in close-up - so, the voice-overs are superfluous.

The film is about Shearer's love for four different men: the idealized "Gordon Shaw" (an unseen World War casualty), darkly passionate Clark Gable (as Ned Darrell), popular and successful Alexander Kirkland (as Sam Evans), and ever unrequited Ralph Morgan (as Charlie Marsden). The men have exquisitely trimmed moustaches. Shearer marries one of them - but, fearing heredity insanity will befall her child, she gets herself pregnant by another. The film does not explicitly reveal that "Nina" aborted her first pregnancy.

Photographer Lee Garmes, art director Cedric Gibbons, and the MGM crew make the production look first class all the way. Henry B. Walthall (as father Leeds), May Robson (as mother Evans), Tad Alexander (as young Gordon), Robert Young (as older Gordon), and Maureen O'Sullivan (as Madeline) offer outstanding support. Just try to edit out the "strange interludes" in your mind...

******* Strange Interlude (12/30/32) Robert Z. Leonard ~ Norma Shearer, Clark Gable, Alexander Kirkland

Hearing their thoughts is kinda cool

[AaronPK · 7/10 · 27 September 1999]

I don't know exactly why, but I really got caught up in this movie. At first hearing everyone's thoughts is kinda strange, but it really helps you understand the characters and their motivations. By the end of the movie, you feel sorry for just about everyone in it, that they all lied and deprived themselves of happiness so that Sam could be happy. The great thing about this movie, is that you keep waiting for the payoff at the end where everyone finds out the truth of the strange 4 way love triangle (I guess that would be a love square). But it never really fulfills itself and not all the characters learn the truth.

I guess the thing I like about this movie the most is that the suspense is like a pot of boiling water. You keep waiting for it to overflow and have a kind of epiphany when it does overflow. But the movie never gives that epiphany because Sam and Gorden never find out the truth and I think the movie is better for it.

This movie was panned back in 1932 when it came out, and I just don't get it. It's a very intelligent and emotionally moving film. I wish Hollywood of the modern era could make films like this instead of all the cardboard junk with a happy ending that they have these days.

I guess most people just don't get it. But those that do will be gratetful for films like this.

Great acting all around, especially for Norma Shearer, Clark Gable, and all the main characters. The kid Tad Alexander who played young Gordon was great. Ahh he's 77 years old now. MAN

I've never seen a Norma Shearer movie that I didn't adore. Ha, all those old Hollywood Queens are nothing compared to Norma.

A muddled soap opera

[sdave7596 · 5/10 · 15 August 2009]

Trying to bring any Eugene O'Neill story to the screen is probably challenging; such is the case with "Strange Interlude" released by MGM in 1932. The actors thoughts are voice-overs, forcing the actors to pause on screen, sometimes with odd looks on their faces. This was probably pretty daring stuff by 1932 standards, with sound films still relatively new. Anyway, Norma Shearer is the lead character, Nina, and she brings out all of her theatrical mannerisms to the role. The story is basically of three men who are in love with Nina. The most compelling is a doctor, played nicely by Clark Gable. The story is complicated, to say the least, with Shearer marrying a man she later realizes she is not in love with, has a baby by Gable, but never tells her husband it is not his baby, and on and on. Pure soap opera for sure. Still, although the story is tough to swallow, I must say in particular I liked Clark Gable in this role. This is easily one of his best early performances. Norma Shearer is always good, even if the story is lacking. It is easy to see why this film flopped in 1932; it was likely too different (or perhaps too sophisticated) for audiences of that era.

A can of condensed O'Neill

[brianina · 3/10 · 24 May 2001]

Eugene O'Neill's 4 and a half hour 1927 play brought to the screen in less than two hours. The play's combination of symbolic dialogue and gothic melodrama hasn't aged very well and the cast has some difficulty with it, especially Norma Shearer's Nina and Ralph Morgan's Marsden. Clark Gable as Ned Darrell comes off better but mostly because his is a gruff character not given to the philosophical musings of the others which better fits Gable's range. Once the plot settles down to the love quadrangle and the audience adjusts to the voiceover asides the film does become more enjoyable. The technique used here for the asides is another problem. On stage the action froze while the actors spoke their thoughts to the audience. Here they're done as voiceovers. You'd think that would work better but since the action no longer freezes the actors are forced to pause speaking and grimace at the camera to match the emotions in their thoughts. Plus it's difficult for any movie buff to watch this film and not think of Groucho Marx's hilarious parody version in "Animal Crackers." Added to these drawbacks are some cuts made for censorship reasons (Nina's promiscuity is soft-peddled and there is no mention of her getting the abortion that is more central in the play) and a wretched score (uncredited) that sounds like background music to a turn-of-the-century weepie. O'Neill called this film "a dreadful hash of attempted condensation and idiotic censorship," and although "Strange Interlude" is nowhere near as great as his later "The Iceman Cometh" and "Long Day's Journey Into Night," it certainly deserved better than this.

some get stoned, and some get strange

[rduchmann · 31 May 2000]

Norma Shearer, still carrying torch for handsome Gordon, who died in WW1, marries another guy on the rebound, only to find that insanity runs in his family and she can't have children with him (but how will she ever be the mother of a son as handsome as dear, dead Gordon?), and she can't leave him because the shock would certainly send him over the edge into terminal wacked-out nuttiness. What to do? Gimmick here is that, along with the spoken dialogue, we share the inner thoughts of the characters -- presented as V.O. while the actors stand around mute, making faces as if somebody just broke wind on the set. Did anyone watch this with a straight face in 1932? Film goes on long enough that the sanity of the audience is tested much more severely than that of Shearer's husband, but was reportedly 5 or 6 hours in theatrical production. (Any cries of "Author! Author!" at that premiere came, no doubt, from a lynch mob.) It's an MGM, so of course the cast is first-rate, but is it their fault the act is a louse?

An odd little experiment of a film

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 11 July 2015]

This film was an adaptation of a Eugene O'Neill play in which the characters express themselves through thought rather than dialogue. Boy genius Irving Thalberg usually carefully guided the career of his wife, Norma Shearer, but after a long string of talking picture victories he must have been just a little too sure of himself this time. This project had everything that makes a great MGM drama - good production values, great cast, and an interesting story. It also has the odd device of the players making odd silent-era type faces and gestures while their inner thoughts are expressed in voice-overs. This last little item makes it an unintentionally funny film. Didn't anyone involved in this project see Groucho Marx' "strange interlude" scene in Animal Crackers two years before and see how all of this might play out comically instead of dramatically as intended? I guess not.

Anyways, I do not agree with the low rating here. It really is an interesting story if you can just look/listen past the "strange audibles". I'd still recommend it.

Strange Is The Word All Right

[bkoganbing · 4/10 · 26 November 2007]

Eugene O'Neill is acclaimed by some as America's leading playwright, but for things like The Iceman Cometh, Long Day's Journey Into Night, The Emperor Jones. Strange Interlude was a piece of experimentation he concocted where the characters on stage, look aside to the audience and say what they really are thinking and then resume conversation. It was a nine hour production with a dinner break on Broadway, so you can safely assume a lot has been sacrificed here.

For the screen the voice over regarding the thoughts is used for all the characters. It probably is a technique better suited to the screen. Sir Laurence Olivier did very well with it in his version of Hamlet. But Bill Shakespeare gave Olivier a lot better story than O'Neill gave his players in this instance.

Players like Clark Gable, Norma Shearer, Ralph Morgan, May Robson, etc. are a lot more animated in most of their films than they are in Strange Interlude. The story takes place over a 20 year period. Norma Shearer is a young woman whose intended is killed in World War I. She starts playing around quite a bit, although that part is not shown in this version. She makes the acquaintance of Alexander Kirkland and his friend Clark Gable. She also has as a perennial suitor, Ralph Morgan, a friend of her father's Henry B. Walthall.

She marries Kirkland, but then is warned by his mother May Robson and shown that insanity gallops in that family to quote another literary work. Since Kirkland wants kids and Shearer and Robson think Kirkland's train will slip the track if he doesn't get one, Gable is recruited for breeding purposes. Of course you can see all the complications this can cause and O'Neill explores them all.

Gable is so terribly miscast in an O'Neill production, but he was an up and coming player at MGM and did what they told him. Shearer does what she can to lift a very dreary story, but she seems defeated at the start. Best in the film is possibly Robson who puts some real bite in her dialog.

Strange Interlude ran for 426 showings on Broadway in 1928-1929 and starred Glenn Anders and Lynn Fontanne in the Gable and Shearer parts. Perhaps no one could really have saved the film because two years earlier, Groucho Marx lampooned the stuffings out of it in Animal Crackers. After seeing what he did, I don't think the movie going public took it too seriously.

And since it's not the best of O'Neill, neither could I.

Absolutely bizarre and melodramatic, but I really enjoyed it.

[mountainkath · 7/10 · 22 August 2009]

I still can't believe I liked this movie as much as I did. It was odd, over the top and at times over acted, but I really enjoyed this movie.

Norma Shearer is the one guilty of over acting at times (especially in her last monologue) but that only added to the bizarre nature of this movie. I always enjoy watching Shearer and this movie was no exception. She was a great beauty and talent and it's a shame she's not more well known today.

Clark Gable gave a solid performance and that spark of greatness to come was definitely evident in this movie. His character's thoughts weren't spoken as often as the other characters, but I think that just enhanced the character of Dr. Darrell. He was a slightly mysterious man (are we to believe he just stayed in the shadow of Sam and Nina's marriage for all of those decades?) and Gable played him perfectly.

While melodramatic, the last scene of the movie really sold the whole film. As I watched Nina be embraced by Charlie it struck me how she was now alone, except for him. I immediately flashed back to the earlier scene where she was with Charlie, Sam and Ned (with Baby Gordon upstairs) and was thinking about how they were all her men. Now, all of them had left her except for Charlie. It was a lovely (yet melodramatic) end to this odd little movie.

strange but tedious

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 19 July 2005]

The movie gets a score of 3 because it dared to be so very different. It features a cast acting while you can hear their thoughts and desires! This is truly a weird film and an experience I won't forget. The only problem is that the experiment, though in some ways interesting, is generally quite dull and unengaging. In fact, it's amazing that a Norma Shearer and Clark Gable film could be THIS dull! The film is based on a Eugene O'Neill play and it really does seem quite stagy. In fact, it would have been best just to keep it as a stage production--it just didn't translate at all to the big screen.

So this movie is only recommended to die-hard cinemaniacs and those who love Gable films so much they just have to see all his films!

You can hear their thoughts!

[Pat-54 · 7/10 · 22 September 1998]

Failed attempt at bringing Eugene O'Neil's famous play to the screen. The actor's thoughts can be heard by over-dubbing. The only saving grace is the pairing of a great screen team, Norma Shearer and Clark Gable.

A failed experiment

[MissSimonetta · 4/10 · 20 March 2020]

I'll give the filmmakers some points for experimenting with the voice-over asides. However, I don't feel they add much to this trite, irritating melodrama. The characters are all quite annoying, that deadly combination of unlikable and uninteresting. Since this is based on an eight-hour play, I imagine much nuance and development was left on the cutting room floor, because as it is, I could not conjure much interest in the love quadrangle and big cover-up which made up the story. However, the acting is mostly good (Norma Shearer and Clark Gable especially), even with Ralph Morgan's silly "thinking" faces.

O'Neill's Third Pulitzer Prize Play: not easy, but fulfilling

[eschetic · 8/10 · 19 April 2005]

It would be all too easy for the immature film goer to dismiss this fascinating film as soap opera, but Eugene O'Neill's mammoth 1928 play (revived on Broadway in 1963 and 85) - his third after BEYOND THE HORIZON (see THE LONG VOYAGE HOME for a film of his "sea plays") and ANNA Christie to win the Pulitzer Prize - sprang from a period when the great American author was experimenting with forms which would become standard in film. In this case it was the interior monologue that Hollywood would use as the voice-over.

For the discerning viewer, recognizing the importance of the play (that the Marx Brothers found it grist for their satirical mill in their contemporary Broadway and film musical ANIMAL CRACKERS is testimony to that importance) and the solid performances of the movie cast, O'Neill delivers. He is examining serious adult issues - not just the form he is experimenting with - as he dissects the obligations people have to those they love.

While O'Neill claimed his play was suggested by an ancient Greek play, this classic love triangle (quadrangle actually, even more when one factors in Nina's chillingly named son) rings remarkably true even with the demands of 1930's Hollywood censorship (Nina's psychologically important abortion is merely hinted at) and the heavy editing (that O'Neill somewhat disingenuously railed at) demanded to bring the film down to an acceptable playing length for the average movie theatre which played more than the theatrically standard 8 performance week.

If Norma Shearer's central Nina can occasionally be accused of overacting, the script demands it; hers is the central emotional roller-coaster. Second billed Clark Gable as Dr. Darrell, who does not arrive for nearly a quarter hour into the film, gives the most naturalistic performance (it was one of the ways he stood out in all his films - in style a generation ahead of his peers), but for the true film connoisseur, Alexander Kirkland's Evans and Ralph Morgan's Marsden are no less impressive, and Robert Young, seven films into a 40 year career is fine as Nina's college age son.

In the 1930's the causes of mental illness OTHER than "bad blood" (a plot driving device here, as in Katharine Hepburn's debut vehicle from the same year - also from Broadway - A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT) were far less understood than today, and the Catholic Church's ban on the rational use of contraception was far more pervasive - both of which may make the context of the film difficult for younger viewers to understand.

If they give the film their attention though, and recognize that the concerns of the characters go beyond these technicalities to the personal relationships that remain troublesome even today, the film - stylistic experiments and all - is ultimately not only important but deeply fulfilling.

Good stylized gem

[HotToastyRag · 7/10 · 15 April 2019]

There's a written warning at the start of Strange Interlude that lets audiences know they're about to watch a very strange movie. Based off the 6-hour Eugene O'Neill play that was usually performed over the course of two consecutive evenings to spare tired audiences, Strange Interlude is a heavy melodrama that deals with insanity, infidelity, secrets, and unrequited love. As if that's not stylized enough, every character in the movie has a constant internal monologue that runs alongside their outward dialogue. For example, Norma Shearer might say, "How wonderful to see you!" and then the camera lingers on her for a few more seconds as her voice-over says, "Does he still love me?" This is a very odd style, and in all the thousands of movies I've seen, I've never seen one that takes this format.

Once you've gotten used to the very odd and melodramatic style, you can appreciate a very good movie. I usually hate Norma Shearer, and I usually don't like Clark Gable's one-dimensional style, but neither one of them bothered me during this movie. Ralph Morgan, Frank Morgan's lesser-known brother, is given a chance to shine on his own, and even May Robson's overacting works during her few scenes in the beginning. All in all, everyone feeds off each other's energy wonderfully and gives a great performance.

Norma starts the movie newly married to Alexander Kirkland, but she doesn't really love him. Ralph is her longtime friend, but he's always been too shy to tell her how deep his feelings run. When Alex's mother May tells Norma that he has hereditary insanity, Norma panics. Naturally, what's the best thing to do in that situation? Have an affair with your handsome doctor friend and pretend the love child is your husband's. Norma and Clark have great chemistry together, and they bring out the best in each other's acting. This is a pre-Oscar Clark, and it's a rare treat to see him actually acting.

Strange Interlude - Indeed

[howdymax · 2/10 · 9 October 2003]

I can only guess that this movie was an experiment that misfired. Years earlier, it would have been moving images accompanied by music. Later, it would have been sound added to silents. Eventually it would have been Technicolor, Cinemascope or Imax. This movie must have been a misguided attempt to introduce a new element to the talking picture. During all the emotional scenes, the character stops in mid dialogue and their inner thoughts are narrated while they gaze off into the distance or appeal to the camera. This interruption is painful at it's very least. Imagine these top tier actors trying to look busy while the narration drones on. Painful. I have no idea who came up with this gimmick, but it was the only time I ever saw it used - and for good reason. In every scene the actors were forced to roll their eyes, wring their hands, or overact to such a degree, I actually wondered if this was really a comedy.

The story is a hopeless soap opera that takes place over a couple of generations. Norma Shearer, disappointed in love, searches for a reason to live. She has a friend, played by Ralph Morgan, who worships her - but she takes him for granted. She is attracted to a doctor, played by Clark Gable, but he is self absorbed and isn't interested in her. She settles for a weakling that needs her desperately. She marries him only to find that there is insanity in his family and she can never have a child with him. Along comes the doctor who selfishly pops a bun in her oven, only to find out later that he loves her after all. The child builds confidence in her husband who becomes a success, but she realizes that it's really Clark she loves after all. Confused yet? Forget the rest, just watch a couple of episodes of "As the World Turns" and it'll all become clear.

If your are ever forced to watch this movie, hold out for the final scene. The gyrations of the actors put Harold LLoyd to shame. It is not to be missed.

occasionally effective

[mukava991 · 3 December 2012]

Eugene O'Neill's nine-act theatrical experiment created quite a stir in 1928, so it was inevitable that Hollywood would snap it up. The play's novelty was that the characters spoke their thoughts aloud in the manner of asides. On the stage, some of these speeches went on for quite some time while the other actors in the scene froze in place; on film they are reduced in length and pre-recorded so that while we hear the words we see the appropriate facial expressions on both the speaking and the listening actors. Nothing about these spoken thoughts expands our understanding of the thinkers in ways that good acting or deft direction couldn't have done just as well. The story, actually a saga, concerns a woman (Norma Shearer) unhinged by the death of her dashing aviator fiancé in the World War; she sets out to salvage her connection to this lost ideal man by marrying a lesser specimen, bearing his male child and naming it after the deceased. Along the way she learns from her mother-in-law (May Robson) that insanity runs in the husband's family. Convinced that this undesirable genetic trait will show up in her offspring, she aborts the child she is carrying and mates with a virile doctor friend (Clark Gable, who else?) to produce a healthy son which she then passes off as the husband's. Hard to believe? You bet. But it worked fascinatingly on the page, and perhaps even on the stage, but not on screen where it becomes just a series of mostly attractive talking heads. It is dramatically effective only in spots. Shearer is by turns compelling and strained. Clark Gable handles the material well until he encounters some overwrought plot contrivances near the end whereupon he is further hobbled by unconvincing old age makeup.

Oh my...

[cbryce59 · 5/10 · 29 June 2012]

Watching this movie today...it is very hard to understand why Norma Shearer was considered such a great actress. This movie contains some of the worst overacting ever, even for the era. NS is the worst offender. Good grief, woman. And the whole style of the film is beyond ridiculous, with everyone's thoughts being broadcast in melodramatic tones. Also having a hard time believing all of these men are in love with her.

I do like some of Norma's work, but she is in no way a natural actress. Maybe she should have retired when the "talkies" came...her style worked better for silents.

Mind Over Matters

[lugonian · 7/10 · 24 November 2023]

STRANGE INTERLUDE (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1932) directed by Robert Z. Leonard, stars Norma Shearer in one of her most challenging yet strangest roles to date. Though credited as "from the play by Eugene O'Neill," it might have served as "based on the play" considering that the notable 1928 play, reportedly lasting five hours with a dinner break for intermission, was trimmed down to 109 minutes, eliminating plenty of material. Aside from being the movie to introduce Clark Gable with a mustache (during the second half of the story) that would make him world famous, STRANGE INTERLUDE is notable for a new gimmick of hearing spoken inner thoughts through the minds of its players. Wondering how this was accomplished on stage can be seen by Groucho Marx in his parody by having his "strange interlude" in ANIMAL CRACKERS (Paramount, 1930). Spencer Tracy and Joan Bennett briefly spoke out their thoughts for one scene in ME AND MY GAL (Fox, 1932). While this thinking out loud thoughts gimmick (for audiences only to hear) seemed like a good idea at the time, it became an experiment to never be repeated again.

Following the open titles on how viewers are to fully understand the characters, the story, set in a small New England University town in Connecticut shortly after the World War, introduces Charlie Marsden (Ralph Morgan) returning from Europe. He's revealed as the man in love with Nina Leeds (Norma Shearer), but her true interest is on Gordon Shaw, recently killed in the war, Her bitterness towards her father (Henry B. Walthall) for preventing her marriage due to his jealousy, finds Nina wanting to leave home and pay her debt to Gordon by nursing wounded soldiers in the Massachusetts hospital. After her father dies, Nina returns home accompanied by Doctor Ned Darrell (Clark Gable) and Sam Evans (Alexander Kirkland), two friends she met during her year absence. Still ignoring Charlie love for her, Nina marries Sam instead. After learning the family secret of insanity running in the family through Sam's mother (May Robson), Nina, to avoid the possibility of her child might become insane, secretly allows Ned to father her son she names Gordon. With Sam pleased with fatherhood, Nina and Ned keep secret of their affair. Through the passage of time, Nina becomes disturbed watching her little boy (Tad Alexander) grow to college athlete (Robert Young) in love with Madeline (Maureen O'Sullivan) to continuously show his hatred towards Ned whenever he's around.

Considering how the story spans 25 years, starting around 1920, it's a wonder that the final half, with the characters aged and children fully grown, should obviously take place in the future of the 1940s rather than the movie release of 1932, something to stir up confusion to a first-time viewer.

Though recording thoughts coming from the minds of principals might have been difficult to accomplish, it's certainly an interesting factor presented on screen. Being a Norma Shearer movie, the reason for viewing this today would be for the strong presence given by Clark Gable. Quite believable from youth to middle-aged man, he shows his great acting skills when confronting the little boy who hates him to desperately want but unable to express his true feelings towards him. Alexander Kirkland, with few films to his credit, is satisfactory as the weakling husband while Ralph Morgan memorable as "good old Charlie." STRANGE INTERLUDE has limited incidental underscoring but more talking heard than in any early talkie up to this point.

Available on video cassette in the 1990s and later DVD format, STRANGE INTERLUDE can be seen and studied whenever broadcast on Turner Classic Movies cable channel. (***)

A hard movie to sit through

[richard-1787 · 4/10 · 4 May 2017]

The Eugene O'Neill play on which this movie is based evidently ran between 4 and 5 hours, so at least twice the length of this movie. It was popular on Broadway, running a year and a half.

But even cut down to just under 2 hours, it does not transfer well to the screen.

Yes, in part the voice-over thought monologues are problematic. But it's really the often stilted and sometimes even downright corny dialogue that makes them seem so strange. At times the language seems to reach for the poetic, but too often it just seems pretentious.

And then there are the very selfish and self-centered characters, chief among them the female lead, who are basically impossible to like or feel for.

In the end, I was left feeling that I was watching a failed attempt to give some nobility to the messed-up lives of a group of fairly superficial rich people who made most of their own problems.

There are a few things here that I occasionally enjoyed. Norma Shearer acted using certain poses and expressions - when you've watched several of her movies, you see them reappear over and over again. Some of them make her look very beautiful. She over-dramatizes her lines something terrible, but it's interesting to hear her do so.

On the other hand, the makeup used to make the characters, especially Gable, look old at the end of the movie is remarkably bad. Gable is really wasted in this movie, for that matter.

I truly can't recommend this movie to anyone. See it if you want to see a strange attempt at psychological drama. But not, in my opinion, a successful one.

Strange faces of 1932

[marcslope · 4/10 · 31 August 2009]

A four-and-a-half-hour O'Neill play gets boiled down to a little under two, and much of that running time is devoted to actors with frozen expressions on their faces as they read their characters' thoughts in voice-over. It can work onstage, but it looks hilariously stilted in this soap-opera adaptation, which soft-peddles its heroine's bad behavior and never explains why she has so captivated so many men. Norma Shearer and Alexander Kirkland, overacting ludicrously, are outclassed by a naturalistic Clark Gable--he's the only one who makes the frozen-face technique work. It gets even funnier when Shearer's and Gable's son, a surly moppet, does the frozen-face shtick. There are also Frank Morgan's brother Ralph as an unsuccessful suitor, given to soliloquizing "poor Charlie!" over and over again, and a young Robert Young and Maureen O'Sullivan. By the time they show up, the voice-overs have largely been abandoned, and it plays as a ripe soap, with a sentimental fadeout that actually plays "Silver Threads Among the Gold" as background music. Robert Leonard's direction is stodgy and he shows little facility for reining in hyperactive actors. It's certainly entertaining--there's nothing else like it, unless you count Groucho's satirical parody in "Animal Crackers," or an old Mad Magazine satire that rendered Shirley Booth's sitcom "Hazel" a la "Strange Interlude". But it isn't good.

Creaky melodrama suffers from O'Neill's wordy script and voice over technique of actors...

[Doylenf · 5/10 · 17 May 2011]

STRANGE INTERLUDE is a strain to watch and listen to. It's an obviously dated piece by a great playwright who put his actors through an ordeal of a melodrama that depends for effectiveness on letting us in on the character's real thoughts as opposed to what they actually say.

It doesn't work well as melodrama, especially since all of the performances bear the earmark of silent screen technique combined with early talkie films style. Furthermore, the story is more soap opera than anything else.

Shearer is a woman who loves unwisely, and then manipulates the men in her life (as the neurotic Nina), including CLARK GABLE, RALPH MORGAN and Alexander KIRKLAND, as well as her grown son ROBERT YOUNG and his sweetheart MAUREEN O'SULLIVAN (in a tiny role). She hides the fact that she has chosen to bear Gable's son (rather than her husband's), because insanity was rampant in Kirkland's family. This, of course, leads to a never-ending series of scenes in which the cover-up becomes more and more a strain on all concerned.

It's also a strain on the viewer to watch such an outdated production from MGM in the early '30s. All concerned do what they can with the wordy script and demands of voice over technique to register their ever-changing expressions, but none of the melodrama seems the least bit convincing or worthy of Eugene O'Neill.

This is one better left to the archives.

A Strange Little Film, But Definitely in a Good Way

[EightyProof45 · 10/10 · 22 September 2003]

In Clark Gable, M-G-M found the perfect compliment to Norma Shearer. Both epitomized the strength of their particular gender, and visually, one could not find a better looking on-screen couple. In their first film pairing, in 1931s A Free Soul, the two created sparks together, and Shearer, already an established star, had enormous `chemistry' with newcomer Gable. The success of that film (it earned an Oscar for Lionel Barrymore's acting, and a nomination for Shearer's) lead to two other successful pairings, both topping the success of A Free Soul (not back then, but from a modern filmgoers point of view). The first of these films was 1932s Strange Interlude (the last was 1939s Idiot's Delight, with Gable's famous `Puttin' on the Ritz' number), an adaptation of the Eugene O'Neil drama about how a web of lies and deception can ruin lives. Of course, there has to be a catch: the characters reveal their most personal thoughts to the audience with `inner monologues.' On the stage, these speeches were recited by the actor while the rest of the cast froze in their actions. With the advantage of film, however, the actors simply `voice over' their thoughts as they think them. Although it works very well, it must have been a hard thing to do. Just think of what it would have been like on the set. You not only had to know what you were doing, you had to think how you would look thinking, and realize how it would look when combined with a voice over. You had to imagine your lines, time them perfectly, and record them later. In some scenes, all of the actors are `thinking' one after another, meaning that there would be minutes of filming that would merely be changes in facial expressions. Even if it hadn't worked at all, one would have to give them credit for trying. But luckily, Shearer was a star from the silent days, and this proves no problem for her. Her actions match her thoughts beautifully. Gable, too, although not a silent star, began his career as an extra in silent films, and he handles his `thoughts' quite adequately. Although not all of the readings and reactions are perfect, one must try to understand how difficult this must have been. That every single syllable does not sound preposterous is a small miracle; that many of the thoughts and reactions are lucid and clear is a big one. The story is an engrossing one, almost a precursor to Peyton Place, and only a few years later the Production Code would have prohibited such a racy story being filed (and this was considerably tuned down from the original four-and-a-half-hour long play)! Shearer is Nina Leeds, a neurotic young beauty whose fiancée is killed in WWI. She marries, rather impulsively, a charming young suitor, but when she learns from his mother that insanity and mental illness has plagued his father's side of the family for countless generations, she knows that she cannot bear his child, the thing she wants most in the world. She also, however, knows that if she divorces him, that, too, might induce the illness. So she has sex with a young doctor (Gable), gives birth to his child, names it after her lost love Gordon, and tells her husband that the baby is his. The child grows up hating his real father and idolizing the man he has grown up with. The characters age throughout the film, quite convincingly also. Shearer was M-G-M's most beautiful and glamorous star, and that she allows herself to be so de-glamorized is very lucky. The one problem with the aging factor springs from the original play: Although the actors look quite convincing in their age makeup, the degree of it is much too far. When her son is about twelve, Shearer and Gable should only be in their forties, but they look like mid-fifties at least. When he is graduating school, they should only be in their early fifties, but for some reason, they look more like late sixties, and only a little while later, they are practically in their mid-eighties. Thank God the makeup at least looks realistic! In the end, however, this is only a slight drawback, and when one takes into account the acting, script, and novelty of hearing the actor's thoughts, it is very easy to overlook. To compliment all of this, there is absolutely beautiful photography by Lee Garmes. Whether Shearer is in her early 20s or possibly pushing 120, she is still lushly and lovingly photographed, and the sets and backdrops perfectly frame these beautiful people. Any fan of early thirties cinema should take a look at Strange Interlude, but it is definitely not the place to start for someone who is not used to the techniques of the era. Daring in its day, both in its subject matter, and in its attempt to adapt a piece of legitimate theatre to the screen, Strange Interlude is startling, provocative, and successful in its adaptation, even though it failed at the box office.

A film without any merit.

[iamcross · 1/10 · 15 August 2001]

This is a piece of Hollywood product that should have never left a film can. Dialogue without a plausible thought, plot without a point, staging without skill, directing without direction, and acting without the worth of some backwater high school's freshman class play. The entire cast should have been arrested for over acting.

But otherwise, okay!

You Seen the Bad Play, Now Watch the Bad Movie!

[dmh7 · 19 November 2004]

Horrid. Truly, stultifyingly, wretchedly horrid. The "idea" (of having the inner thoughts of the characters spoken aloud for the audience) is a stilted one which doesn't work on stage either. But in a movie, where the voice-overs are added later, it forces the actors to create responses to feelings they are not having, and also prompts the actors into providing rather charmless and ugly facial "clues" to their inner thoughts. It makes for a bad cinematic experience. The story itself - adapted by Eugene O'Neill from a Greek play)is the purest "eternal triangle" tripe, and tripe which never really explores any true psychological impetus, but only deals with the thinnest of human motivations, so being "let in on" these great human secrets is no grand privilege. Norma is at her worst here; stagy and melodramatic, and most of the cast comes off equally badly. An experiment gone horribly wrong. I felt - at times - like slapping any or all of the characters, just to awaken them from their banal self-pity and deep delusions. And the only fun to be gotten from it is to replace the "inner speech" with phrases of your own. Otherwise, a very bad film.

Interesting idea, badly executed

[gbill-74877 · 3/10 · 22 June 2021]

Hearing the thoughts of the characters is an interesting concept and I applaud the film's creativity and daring (especially for the period), but unfortunately, it's flawed in execution and didn't turn out very well. For one thing, the mindreading is done in place where the actor could have told us what they were thinking non-verbally, with their face or body language. For another, listening to the narration while the actors try to fit an appropriate reaction or gesture to their thoughts comes across like a silly SNL skit, and the acting in these moments is usually pretty poor. Norma Shearer has some nice moments flirting with Clark Gable but her performance is uneven and the others are worse; e.g. Ralph Morgan, who's awful as the friend/vet harboring a secret crush on her.

The other issue is the story itself, which always felt forced. Even on the night of Shearer's father passing away, the men around her talk about what's best for her and try to bend her to their will, which was both odd and irritating. Later we find that the mother-in-law has been keeping a massive secret not only from Shearer but also her own son. It's absurd that she would allow her son to marry if she was so concerned about the mental illness in their family being passed along, rather than broaching the subject beforehand. The plot that's then cooked up, to have her produce the child with a different father, has a tinge of subversiveness to it, but it's pretty damn far-fetched, and that's just the beginning.

The melodramatic plot and the issues with what the film was trying to do make it a tough go, and the scenes after the little boy grows up all the way to the end are truly horrible (and 109 minutes was way too long, even if we do get Margaret O'Sullivan and Robert Young in the final 20). There are times when Shearer and Gable's chemistry shines, and just as in 'A Free Soul' from the previous year (and hilariously commented on by Gable), Shearer boldly walks around braless in one scene. There are also times when the mindreading legitimately works, like Gable's character thinking this after we see him embrace Shearer's and understand they've been having an affair: "I said I loved her. She won. I don't love her. I won't. She can't own my life." That's a surprise, and a fine scene. The film needed to have confined the technique to those type of moments, and had some subtlety, to have stood a chance. As it is, it's an interesting curio, so bad it could almost be a cult film, or for Shearer/Gable completists only.

Nope

[smithjlj-08339 · 2/10 · 23 May 2020]

I couldn't handle the pauses in the acting so the internal dialogue thought could be played. I want to see acting. The internal dialogue process should be saved for getting a feel for your character before you act the part. That's my opinion anyway. Snoozeville.