Here's an interesting old movie, one of the earliest examples of a formula that would later define a whole genre, more a whole industry. Man meets girl and immediately falls in love. There is an event followed by a misunderstanding that send them apart. They rejoin at the end. Later this ending would require a public avowal, something missing here.This is also an example of somethings that did not stick. Deep in the depression, many movies featured the ultra rich - people who just seemed to have money for no reason. Because this was before comical prudery changed films starting with the Code, we have the situation that guy knocks up the girl.But I found it interesting for yet another reason. Movies from this era were far more willing to question gender roles than now is the case. Oh, today we worry about professions and opportunity. I'm talking about what it means to be a woman or man. In this film, we have our girl, with appealing innocence. She is the child of Manhattan, with clear immigrant, lower class heritage. Both she and the rich guy are noble people, but she far more. The film is about her decisions.Sturges has taken the time to introduce four older women. They are shoehorned in and have nothing at all to do with the story; they are there only to show strong women, sometimes frustrated strength. There is the older woman at the dance hall where our girl works, who is much loved as she takes care of her girls. We have the aunt of our rich guy who is shown as a forceful nut job.Then we have the girl's mother. We learn a lot about her past and values. She turns her daughter out on the street when she gets pregnant by her then boyfriend. This woman slaps her adult kids, hard. We spend the final third of the movie with the girl's aunt, something of a world traveller, a poor person's playgirl. She drinks too much but always seems to be on top of things.Four strong women form the situation-of-womanhood in which we interpret our girl's life. Nothing like that today in mainstream films.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

I saw this movie this morning by accident. I love 30s movies for the clothes, the beauty of which hit me during the "first" mini era. I was a teenager and I had never seen such gorgeous clothes.The movie is predictable, but Nancy Carroll is adorable and I can see what her appeal was. With that pretty face and hair, she would have absolutely no chance of getting any job as an actress today, in this world of gaunt, giraffe-like women-men. Too bad we don't have any visual differences among the "leading actresses of today", all those interchangeable bland flat-haired blondes.Those clothes are wonderful. Too bad we'll never see their like again -- after all, how can anyone be attractive wearing anything other a mini or jeans?Hey, wasn't Buck Jones handsome! I won't contrast him with our "leading men" today. I leave that up to you.

As other reviewers stated, this Columbia pre-code has some of Preston Sturges characteristic touches. But I especially enjoyed the dance hall matron and mentor "Aunt" Minnie, who is a salty, bawdy Jewish tough girl who curses in Yiddish,"mamzer"- bastard and steals every scene. The movie has its dull spots due probably to the unheralded director. It also suffers from Columbia's cheap budget. Although it does give us little luxe in one of the funniest scenes in an expensive dress shop . The owner/salesman makes no secret of his gay orientation as he says as he squeezes Nancy Carrols body,"Don't think of me as a man, think of me as an artiste!"Nancy figures it out and minces, "Okay Dear!"Nancy Carrol is pretty good in the leading role but the male actors are dull as dishwater. There are some interesting sociological/historical bits worth noting. A lot is made of Nancy's low class Brooklyn accent(she says apperntment and Greenpernt instead of appointment and Greenpoint). Archie Bunker spoke similarly. That pronunciation has practically vanished from New York of today. New Yorkers still have distinctive accents but some of the distinctions have disappeared over the years.Also worth noting is the sexual attitudes. Nancy works in a dance hall but it is made clear that she is not a prostitute and she is told by her mother to try to refuse money if it offered to her. Her lazy brother calls her a tramp as soon as she moves in with her lover, without being married and she is soon punished with a dead baby for her sins. The sexual revolution of the 1960's changed attitudes and behaviors. But this movie is worth seeing for 1930's peak into the sexual attitudes of the day.

I admit I obtained this film because I wanted to see John Boles' performance (he's always been a heart throb of mine) but it was Nancy Carroll's superb and sensitive performance of a common dance hall girl from Brooklyn with a heart of gold which kept me watching, especially considering the poor quality of the print I obtained.With this multi-faceted performance Nancy proved she was capable of much more than silly flapper roles. Her character is not self-serving in the least, while John Boles' character Paul is indecipherable. After admitting he is totally in love with the dance hall girl he then states he doesn't want to marry her. An unexpected pregnancy forces his hand and he does the honorable thing by marrying her, but the marriage is a secret one. We are to assume it was to protect his older daughter, but since we never see this daughter we don't have much sympathy for Paul's concerns.The audience receives a typical happy Hollywood ending in Child of Manhattan but somehow it doesn't quite fit the sum total of the film.Watch Child Of Manhattan (if you can find it) to see Nancy Carroll at her best.Update: TCM has recently broadcast this film in a lovely print. That's the one to see.