Best Pictures of 1933 – Footlight Parade (#10)

Number 10: Footlight Parade (U.S., Dir. Lloyd Bacon)

There is so much that’s wrong with Footlight Parade that I had a hard time understanding why I enjoyed it so much.  Musicals have never been my favorite genre and I’m always a little tougher on them.  So how could a story about a producer of musical prologues (numbers staged before a film in the Depression era), breaking his back and straining his creativity for a big contract while looking for love, hold my attention so completely?  Whenever I think back to this movie’s fast-paced dialogue, glittering musical numbers staged by Busby Berkeley, and cast of manic characters I come back to two things: James Cagney and Joan Blondell.  They are perfectly matched with Blondell playing Nan, the long suffering lovelorn secretary to Cagney’s Chester Kent.  They are both fantastic.  Cagney, in a departure from his star making turn in The Public Enemy, easily slips into musical comedy and handles the scripts crackerjack dialogue with ease.  After an assistant suggests a stale idea for a number, without missing a beat Cagney shoots back, “I almost fell out of my cradle when the Schubert Theater did that back in nineteen hundred and twelve.”  And Blondell, secretly in love with her boss, is ever faithful both to him and to the show (but they really go hand in hand).  Of course he can’t see her love for him and chases one wrong woman after another, with Nan there to pick up the pieces.  Her big eyes moon over him every time they’re together.  I love how she gets territorial when her phony roommate gets her hooks in Kent.  She doesn’t come out and sabotage the relationship; she just bides her time, making sure to get in her wisecracks whenever she can (“As long as they have sidewalks, you’ll have a job.”).  She knows it will fall apart and loyally waits for Kent to come around.  (You always have to wonder why intelligent women would want a man who always picks awful women.)

I have some trouble with Ruby Keeler’s character who begins the picture as a competent, intelligent and efficient employee – symbolized by glasses, school marm-ish clothes, and excellent diction.  When Dick Powell’s character, attracted to the possibility of the woman rather than the actual woman, chides her for not being ladylike enough for his taste (“You aren’t alive. You’re not a bit feminine!”), she suddenly discovers that she never really needed glasses, that makeup is sold in drug stores, and that she really knows how to dance.  She becomes the star of the show alongside Powell and never shows another hint of intelligence.  I like that Cagney’s Kent is ambivalent about Keeler going on the stage.  He sadly shakes his head and bemoans her choice: “The one girl who showed any sense around here.”  Too bad the picture didn’t give her the opportunity to have any more sense once she put on the tap shoes.

I know that the musical numbers were meant to be the main attraction of the picture, but they go on way too long and one of them planted the song “Shanghai Lil” in my head for a couple of days.  Despite their length in relation to the rest of the picture, they are impressive.  One thing I like about Busby Berkeley numbers in general and in Footlight Parade in particular is the way he broke free from the natural constraints of the stage and embraced cinematic technique.  Nothing you see in this movie could have ever happened on any real stage.  We see massive scenery changes, aquatic numbers, birds eye shots showing off kaleidoscope patterns, close ups, costume changes in a flash.  But that is the joy of movies like this: they show us what is possible on the screen, not in reality.  And Footlight Parade is definitely escapist fare with so much style, charm and wit that we can’t help but fall for it, flaws and all.



Filed under 1933, Yearly Best Pictures

8 responses to “Best Pictures of 1933 – Footlight Parade (#10)

  1. The combination of Cagney and Berkeley makes for a unique Warner Bros. moment, but I guess we can never experience the shock/novelty of Cagney dancing that 1933 audiences must have experienced. I share your feelling for Berkeley; he realized that only the unreality of cinema could do justice to the unreality of the stage. I’ve seen enough early musicals to understand the error of the more realistic approach. I look forward to the rest of your top ten.

    • Samuel, Thanks for stopping by and commenting. Your blog has turned into one of my favorites about movies. Your insight and writing about movies are top notch.

      I, like most people, knew Cagney as a tough guy and usually thought of his musical turn in “Yankee Doodle Dandy” as an anomaly. I forget that he spent years dancing on the vaudeville stage and that really shows in this picture. He effortlessly breaks into dance at the least expected moments. You are right about the novelty in 1933 of seeing Cagney dance in a Berkeley musical. It would be like seeing Dwayne Johnson break out into song and dance today and pull it off, though of course Cagney was a much better actor than Johnson.

  2. Sadly, most people automatically see musicals as flaw-ridden, largely because of the suspension of belief and the form’s almost embarrassing seque into song from what appeared to be a real-life situation. FOOTLIGHT PARADE is not the best musical of the 30’s by a long shot – Mamoulian’s LOVE ME TONIGHT not only tops the field, but ranks among the greatest film musicals of all-time. As mentioned here Cagney and Blondell do have the chemistry, as does Powell and Keeler, and Berkeley choreographs three of his greatest numbers ever with “Honeymoon Hotel,” “By a Waterfall,” and “Shanghai Lil.” with the latter containing some splendid tapping. Needless to say there are some gaps in the script, which leave certain motivations unsanswered. You have penned a wholly marvelous review here, and I completely agree with your contention that Berkeley worked within the parameters of teh cinema, and that this could hardly be negotiated on a real stage.

    • Sam, I agree that Footlight Parade isn’t the best musical of the 1930s; it is only coming in at #10 of 1933 and will easily be knocked off should I see a better movie from that year. My problem with Love Me Tonight is, as always, Maurice Chevalier. I never found him charming, funny or anything other than smarmy. I used to think I had similar feelings about Jeanette MacDonald until I saw some of her pictures with Nelson Eddy. Chevalier just bogged her down and, in my view, bogged down everything he was in. I remember I liked Love Me Tonight, but I need to revisit it. I suspect I should have included it on my 1932 list.

  3. I’m still going through your blog and leaving comments all over the place, Jason! As a fan of Cagney and Blondell I love this movie and think they are great together in it – totally agree that the Busby Berkeley musical sequences couldn’t be done on a stage, but I suspend my belief and just enjoy them. It’s amazing that Berkeley did three all-time great musicals in just one year.

    • Great! I love all the comments. One of the main reasons I am doing this blog is for the discussion and debate.

      Yes, Berkeley’s output in 1933 was impressive and visionary. I wasn’t knocking the fact that his numbers would never work on a stage. I was complimenting his bucking the constraints of the stage and embracing the possibilities of film. There are some truly wonderful numbers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s