7/10
Early New York Film
15 January 2016
Made at Paramount's Astoria Studio in New York, whose relatively primitive facilities took advantage of the talents that could be plucked from Broadway during the first few years of sound filming, Young Man of Manhattan gives us a marital drama about two newspaper writers, Norman Foster and Claudette Colbert (real life spouses at the time) during the latter parts of Prohibition. Marrying very quickly after meeting one another following the Tunney-Dempsey boxing match, they appear to take a rather flippant view of their marriage vows with Colbert proposing (discreetly) that they make it something of an 'open marriage', for after all, they're still quite young and what else can you expect?

It's an attitude that doesn't survive the first flirtations as jealously rears its ugly head the first time that teenage flapper Puff Randolph (Ginger Rogers) slithers onto the scene and takes dead aim at Foster. Between Puff and her husband's drinking and his general childishness, Colbert soon has had enough. The plot takes a melodramatic turn that lessons somewhat what had been an interesting look into domestic life during the Roaring Twenties.

Foster is the main figure and had a nice Pre-Code career before turning to direction, probably not a bad decision on his part as his general whininess prevented him from ever breaking through into real stardom. It served him well in this role, however. Perhaps the main points interest of Young Man of Manhattan today are the early roles provided for Claudette Colbert and Ginger Rogers (indeed, it's Ginger's first feature film, made by her at the age of eighteen). For Claudette it's a straight dramatic part, perhaps not her real strength but adequately accomplished here. Ginger, as well as Charlie Ruggles, serves as comic relief in a Baby Doll role which is right up her alley, and she does quite well with it as well as with a couple of short songs. As others have noted, she uses the Betty Boop style voice that would disappear once she got to Hollywood.

The print of the film that I saw was in very poor shape. I wonder if anything better has survived?
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed