Praise for Age of Consent (1932)

[Lokke Heiss]

I finally saw La Cava's Age of Consent (1932) for RKO, which starred Richard Cromwell, Eric Linden, and Dorothy Wilson, which was on TCM this month.

This is a story of some college age kids who are trying to keep their hormones under control, AND get a college degree, AND not commit a felony. Tough job, and they can't quite it without somebody getting killed.

I was impressed. Okay, so the actors are second-rung, but they give it their all, and La Cava does a good job keeping things on track. And the whole thing is so...adult. Gosh, people talking about real feelings. And the characters are allowed to have faults, some strengths, and many weaknesses, and the professor who we think is just going to be a stuffy pedant, comes through with some genuine compassion in the end.

And some nice scenes in the restaurant, then later with the house-dance-hooch debauch.

The best kind of pre-Codes are the ones that have a content too strong, or unlikely to be made today. And the conclusion of this film: Forget a formal, college education--but instead go with your feelings--that feels almost revolutionary. Today, it would be milksopped into some kind of saccharine happy ending in which we can have everything.

[Jim Roots]

The best kind of pre-Codes are the ones that have a content too strong, or unlikely to be made today. And the conclusion of this film: Forget a formal, college education--but instead go with your feelings--that feels almost revolutionary. Today, it would be milksopped into some kind of saccharine happy ending in which we can have everything.

Lokke, have you watched any movies made in the past 20 years?

The idea that ANYTHING could be "too strong" today suggests you have not. Perhaps you should pick up something in the Saw franchise tonight.

As for saccharine happy endings ... Disney is still at it, but perhaps you could look at Reservoir Dogs and, oh heck, even Titanic. To name but two.

Jim

[Lokke Heiss]

Lokke, have you watched any movies made in the past 20 years?

The idea that ANYTHING could be "too strong" today suggests you have not. Perhaps you should pick up something in the Saw franchise tonight.

As for saccharine happy endings ... Disney is still at it, but perhaps you could look at Reservoir Dogs and, oh heck, even Titanic. To name but two.

Jim

Jim, I wasn't very clear about films being 'too strong.' I don't mean violence, or down-beat endings. That's not at all what I meant. What I mean is a film that goes counter to the cultural expectations of the day. With our society's current fascination--obsession with violence, especially violence toward women, eg. how many ways can we stage the gruesome death of an attractive woman--in this sense, movies like Saw are the most conventional films possible.

Age of Consent defies the cultural expectation that promotes the idea of an education being a ticket to advancement. This film says, $#@ that idea, do what you want to do. And it makes a case for pre-marital sex! This is in 1932, so this is really defying cultural expectations.

And the film feels 'honest' in a way that modern films don't. Age of Consent makes the point that you have to make tough choices. Compare this film with Legally Blonde, which fantasizes that a young woman can have everything--social status, a face that would take three hours to put on a day (makeup, hair, lighting, etc.) AND she can book enough to know the tough legal points to shine in the courtroom. Films like that, and most Hollywood films feel like a cheat, because the screenplay gets run through so many gauntlets that it almost always goes along with the prevailing cultural expectations, and that includes lots of video-game violence, if that's the genre. Even a chick-flick like Juno, which on the surface seems 'empowering' is, to me, a very conventional film in that it mirrors the American cultural standard of female empowerment, perhaps making a mild claim that this empowerment should be extended down to the teenage years. But a film that made a case AGAINST this standard in this country would be taking quite a chance.

So that was my point about films being strong. I mean a strong point of view, often contrary to, or making a case against the social norm at the time.

[Jim Roots]

Ah, that's a much better explication of your point...

There are some films out there that encourage people to think education is a waste of time. In fact, any teen comedy set in high school and not a musical pretty much implies this (what you might call the Ferris Bueller effect). They can claim to reflect what teens "really" think about school, but that's pretty questionable and probably outdated too. (Then again, it could be a cultural thing. I only know that all of my 4 teenagers' friends value education and have no intention of stopping along the way from high-school diploma to degree/diploma to graduate degree, and that seems to be the general attitude in Canada.) And in the end, the American anti-school films usually come off with the be-cool-stay-in-school message after all, belying everything they'd said in the previous 89 minutes.

There seems to be more of a "to hell with school" attitude in British films. Probably due to the class system of schooling and the fact that if you're not born into the upper classes, all the education in the world is unlikely to get you off the dole. (Apologies to any British readers who find this stereotyping offensive ... but it's the impression overseas viewers get from their films!)

Jim

[Nancy Lorraine]

Very glad to see praise for THE AGE OF CONSENT. I saw this a few years ago - taped it, watched it, didn't keep it... and regretted the not keeping part ever since. So I've been waiting for it to show up again because it really stuck in my memory as a very strong little pre-Code. This due in large part to Arline Judge, in my opinion, as what I'd remembered most was her seduction scene and her big tell-'em-what's-what speech at the end.

I also have an odd appreciation for Eric Linden, and I realize now it originated with this film, then followed up with some other pre-Codes he's in - LIFE BEGINS, BIG CITY BLUES, AFRAID TO TALK, and ARE THESE OUR CHILDREN (annoying though he was in the last one).

I recorded it again and will definitely be keeping it this time!

Nancy

[Lokke Heiss]

I also have an odd appreciation for Eric Linden, and I realize now it originated with this film, then followed up with some other pre-Codes he's in - LIFE BEGINS, BIG CITY BLUES, AFRAID TO TALK, and ARE THESE OUR CHILDREN (annoying though he was in the last one).

I see he was playing the second lead in this film. That gave him the chance to play the tennis-racquet-overly-strung-by-thirty-pounds friend doomed to die, which I guess was a part that he got stereotyped into playing.

I think Le Cava did a very good job at getting the most of his actors. For the great actors, it was fantastic (in his later features), but in films like these, in some ways, it feels more 'real' since we are not so much carrying star personalities into the film.

[drednm]

I thought this was a very well acted film, and although the young actors are the stars, there were nice scenes with John Halliday and Aileen Pringle as well.

[Marr&Colton]

I agree---what a fascinating depiction! Realistic and not as over the top as Warners Pre-Codes were. The IMDB entry for this picture has fascinating bios of the cast--second string in Hollywood at the time.