In the year that this was made all of the major studios were busily making over 50 films a year.Some of them masterpieces,some of them still remembered but the majority of them forgotten.This is one such film.I had never heard of it when i purchased a copy.I bought it on the strength of the cast.It is a familiar story.Son of wealthy businessman wants to strike out on his own and prove his worth to his father.It is difficult to believe that the Carole Lombard here is the same woman who only 6 years later would star in such films as Nothing Sacred or Swing High Swing Low.In this film she seems a little gawky and unsure of herself.Norman Foster is not one of my favourite actors and his performance in this film is just as poor as in orher films of the same period.So this film is only of historical interest for watching a nascent Carol Lombard
7 Reviews
A Satirical Farce Falls Flat
boblipton15 January 2019
Eugene Pallette pays Carole Lombard $5,000. She has gotten his son, Norman Foster, to fall in love with her and go to work. He wants to keep him working, so he offers her an additional $5,000 and 25% of whatever he earns if he's still working in six months. Unfortunately for him, Norman has decided to go into the soap business, reasoning that if Pallette can make money in it, anyone can. Because Pallette and his biggest competitor, Lucien Littlefield have agreed to cut back on advertising, Norman and his press agent pal, Skeets Gallagher decide to go all out advertising their new soap. There's just two problems. They haven't any customers, which is just as well, because they haven't any soap to sell; they've spent all their capital on advertising.
Workhorse director Frank Tuttle has a great set-up for a satirical farce, but the only accomplished farceur in the bunch is Pallette. Gallagher is a distant second because he can talk almost as fast as Glenda Farrell, but Miss Lombard hasn't developed any comedy chops as yet. What's left is far too mannered and standard to be of much interest.
And Louise Brooks. She's in this movie, so she must be mentioned. She appears in the first couple of minutes as a stage dancer with whom Foster is baiting reporters for publicity for a stage show. She gets to show off her legs a couple of times, then disappears.
Tuttle himself would never gain great accomplishment as a comedy director, although he would direct a fair number of them in the course of his career. He was a director who could direct anything competently, although his real strength, it would turn out, was in crime dramas. He was a key man in the rise of film noir in America, directing the 1935 proto-noir version of THE GLASS KEY and Alan Ladd in THIS GUN FOR HIRE. This comedy, however, doesn't quite ring the bell.
Workhorse director Frank Tuttle has a great set-up for a satirical farce, but the only accomplished farceur in the bunch is Pallette. Gallagher is a distant second because he can talk almost as fast as Glenda Farrell, but Miss Lombard hasn't developed any comedy chops as yet. What's left is far too mannered and standard to be of much interest.
And Louise Brooks. She's in this movie, so she must be mentioned. She appears in the first couple of minutes as a stage dancer with whom Foster is baiting reporters for publicity for a stage show. She gets to show off her legs a couple of times, then disappears.
Tuttle himself would never gain great accomplishment as a comedy director, although he would direct a fair number of them in the course of his career. He was a director who could direct anything competently, although his real strength, it would turn out, was in crime dramas. He was a key man in the rise of film noir in America, directing the 1935 proto-noir version of THE GLASS KEY and Alan Ladd in THIS GUN FOR HIRE. This comedy, however, doesn't quite ring the bell.
A no-good son does good...
planktonrules15 December 2016
Rodney Martin (Norman Foster) is a lazy and rich young man whose prospects for the future don't look very good. After all, he's shown no interest in work...only in having fun and spending his father's money. But his father (Eugene Palette) has an underhanded scheme he cooked up with his secretary, Mary (Carole Lombard). She will motivate him to work and be more serious. She does this by pretending to be in love with him, though naturally it soon becomes the real thing. But the plan backfires when the son wants to be TOO successful--and go head-to-head against his father's soap business.
This is a pleasant little comedy and it's worth seeing. However, nothing about it yells 'must-see'. So if you love old films, you'll enjoy the film...otherwise, it's not exactly a classic.
This is a pleasant little comedy and it's worth seeing. However, nothing about it yells 'must-see'. So if you love old films, you'll enjoy the film...otherwise, it's not exactly a classic.
Pleasant early screwball comedy with Louise Brooks as an aperitif
bbmtwist13 May 2017
Brooks only appears in the first six minutes of this screwball comedy and is only competent in a role anyone off the street could have played -eloping couple waylaid by publicity newsmen and involved in a plane farce.
Very short and not really worth anyone's attention.
Very short and not really worth anyone's attention.
Uninspired and disappointing
I_Ailurophile17 March 2022
I'm not altogether familiar with everyone who appears here, but three names are enough to begin forming an opinion. Carole Lombard, appearing in the primary supporting role, was a great actress, and a comedic genius. Louise Brooks, here in a bit part, was a legend of the silent era, ahead of her time. Eugene Pallette, in a secondary supporting role, demonstrated swell range and versatility in his career. Here, all three - and their costars - are reduced to portrayals that too often feel dull and lifeless. I know the deficient acting isn't the fault of the players, which means it must be accounted for by either weak writing or weak direction.
There are some strong ideas in the adapted screenplay concocted between Ethel Doherty and Arthur Kober. I detect lively and varied character writing, and sharp and sometimes cutting dialogue. The narrative is complete and cohesive, and like the scene writing that builds it, is slanted strictly toward fun. The situational comedy at the heart of 'It pays to advertise' produces light amusement that's good for some soft chuckles. And yet - more so than not, half the runtime has passed before a real sense of entertainment manifests. Even still, and almost as prevalent in the second 30 minutes as in the first, there are instances where scenes are overfull, or self-indulgent, and unnecessary to either the levity or the story being told. Other scenes feel underwhelming, or ill-considered. I think the writing is stronger than not in wide strokes, but it's a bumpy ride.
That leaves the direction. Frank Tuttle's name isn't well known to me, but I suppose it should be, seeing as how he betrayed fellow leftists to fascists in the U. S. government during the McCarthy era. That doesn't speak to his worth as a filmmaker, of course, but to his character - yet if 'It pays to advertise' is any indication, one facet is just as flawed as the other. If the cast isn't to blame, nor the writing, for the broadly spiritless lack of meaningful merriment, then it must be Tuttle. This picture is derived from a play, and with the absence of any music for 98% of the duration, it certainly feels like it. If Tuttle took the notion of such adaptation a step too far, perhaps that explains the restrained air about the acting and the entertainment at large. It's worse than that, though: so wholly bereft is the feature of real, lasting mirth that it comes across not as a motion picture, not as a stage play, but almost as more of a table reading, with no vigor beyond what one may summon while seated in a chair. I don't know about Norman Foster, Richard Gallagher, or others involved here, but I do know that Lombard, Brooks, and Pallette are far, far better than this.
I want to like this more than I do, but the passing enjoyment to be obtained herein is scarcely greater than what any fundamental presentation of light and sound may portend. It's harder still to take pleasure in the production when the cinematography and sound design seem flat and hollow, diminishing what can be perceived on a rudimentary level of some intended jokes. And with that, it's difficult to care much about rounding details like art direction or production design. I began watching with high expectations based on the cast alone, but the level of Good Times to be had with the feature can maybe best be visualized as a bell curve - a mostly straight line along the horizontal axis, with a thin, short protrusion in the middle. There is some value here, but plainly not enough to make it especially worthwhile. Unless you have a distinct reason to seek it out, 'It pays to advertise' isn't really a movie I can recommend.
There are some strong ideas in the adapted screenplay concocted between Ethel Doherty and Arthur Kober. I detect lively and varied character writing, and sharp and sometimes cutting dialogue. The narrative is complete and cohesive, and like the scene writing that builds it, is slanted strictly toward fun. The situational comedy at the heart of 'It pays to advertise' produces light amusement that's good for some soft chuckles. And yet - more so than not, half the runtime has passed before a real sense of entertainment manifests. Even still, and almost as prevalent in the second 30 minutes as in the first, there are instances where scenes are overfull, or self-indulgent, and unnecessary to either the levity or the story being told. Other scenes feel underwhelming, or ill-considered. I think the writing is stronger than not in wide strokes, but it's a bumpy ride.
That leaves the direction. Frank Tuttle's name isn't well known to me, but I suppose it should be, seeing as how he betrayed fellow leftists to fascists in the U. S. government during the McCarthy era. That doesn't speak to his worth as a filmmaker, of course, but to his character - yet if 'It pays to advertise' is any indication, one facet is just as flawed as the other. If the cast isn't to blame, nor the writing, for the broadly spiritless lack of meaningful merriment, then it must be Tuttle. This picture is derived from a play, and with the absence of any music for 98% of the duration, it certainly feels like it. If Tuttle took the notion of such adaptation a step too far, perhaps that explains the restrained air about the acting and the entertainment at large. It's worse than that, though: so wholly bereft is the feature of real, lasting mirth that it comes across not as a motion picture, not as a stage play, but almost as more of a table reading, with no vigor beyond what one may summon while seated in a chair. I don't know about Norman Foster, Richard Gallagher, or others involved here, but I do know that Lombard, Brooks, and Pallette are far, far better than this.
I want to like this more than I do, but the passing enjoyment to be obtained herein is scarcely greater than what any fundamental presentation of light and sound may portend. It's harder still to take pleasure in the production when the cinematography and sound design seem flat and hollow, diminishing what can be perceived on a rudimentary level of some intended jokes. And with that, it's difficult to care much about rounding details like art direction or production design. I began watching with high expectations based on the cast alone, but the level of Good Times to be had with the feature can maybe best be visualized as a bell curve - a mostly straight line along the horizontal axis, with a thin, short protrusion in the middle. There is some value here, but plainly not enough to make it especially worthwhile. Unless you have a distinct reason to seek it out, 'It pays to advertise' isn't really a movie I can recommend.
We're All Sheeple
view_and_review29 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I just can't with these movies. I try to suspend disbelief and tell myself it's just a movie, but my brain just won't shut itself off. If I see stupidity or unoriginality, I can't get into it.
In "It Pays to Advertise" a soap mogul named Cyrus Martin (Eugene Pallette) paid his secretary, Mary Grayson (Carole Lombard), $5000 to make his son, Rodney (Norman Foster), fall in love with her and make him work.
Sound familiar? What about "Men of Chance" (1931) where Mary Astor was paid to date a guy in order to sink him? Not quite? How about "The Lady Refuses" (1931) where Betty Compson was paid by Gilbert Emery to make his son fall in love with her so that he could become a proper architect?
Yes. That fits perfectly.
Mary Grayson accepted the $5000 from Mr. Martin and accepted other terms that would make her richer. Mr. Martin offered Mary another $5000 plus 25% of whatever Rodney made if she could keep him working for six months. She was all aboard. Mary was all about her money and there was no chance she would fall in love with Rodney.
Suuuuuuuure. I'll tell you what, she'd be the first woman not to fall in love with her mark.
Let's see, there was "Dishonored" (1931), "Men of Chance" (1931), "The Big Gamble" (1931), "Waterloo Bridge" (1931), and "Girls About Town" (1931) which all featured women who were seeing men as an occupation or because they were paid to and fell in love with said men. They can't help themselves. Or so Hollywood would have us believe.
So, naturally, Mary fell in love with Rodney in spite of the money she was being paid to be with him.
Knock off five points for unoriginality.
Putting aside the ridiculous love story for the moment, the rest of the movie was even more ridiculous. Rodney decided he was going to go into the soap business like his father. It couldn't be that hard could it?
He hired Ambrose Peale (Richard 'Skeets' Gallagher) to be his ad man because with the proper advertising any product can take off.
"It Pays to Advertise" was trying to warn us or inform us that we're all just sheep. I think sheeple is the 2022 term. We don't know why we buy the brands we buy and furthermore we're not even aware of the brands we buy; we mindlessly wander into stores and pick up the item that we saw on a billboard or on a commercial without knowing if it's even the best product.
And I'd say that's partially true. But I'd also say that most people internalize that if a company can afford that much advertising then they must be successful, and they could only have gotten successful by having a superior product. So advertising works, but I wouldn't say it works because people are mindless zombies who buy whatever they're told (though I won't deny such people exist).
With a bank loan and a brilliant ad campaign, 13 Soap (the soap brand Rodney created) became a hit. He didn't have a factory, distribution, or even a formula for his brand, but everybody wanted it. He was even bought out by his father which I thought was totally preposterous. How does a successful businessman buy out a business that has NO assets? Literally, all he had was a brand name and a logo. Is that all it takes to get rich? Come up with a brand of a non-existent product then advertise it well and watch the big businesses line up to buy you out. It was absurd and I couldn't get my brain to believe otherwise.
Deduct four points for absurdity and I believe that leaves us with one star.
Free on YouTube.
In "It Pays to Advertise" a soap mogul named Cyrus Martin (Eugene Pallette) paid his secretary, Mary Grayson (Carole Lombard), $5000 to make his son, Rodney (Norman Foster), fall in love with her and make him work.
Sound familiar? What about "Men of Chance" (1931) where Mary Astor was paid to date a guy in order to sink him? Not quite? How about "The Lady Refuses" (1931) where Betty Compson was paid by Gilbert Emery to make his son fall in love with her so that he could become a proper architect?
Yes. That fits perfectly.
Mary Grayson accepted the $5000 from Mr. Martin and accepted other terms that would make her richer. Mr. Martin offered Mary another $5000 plus 25% of whatever Rodney made if she could keep him working for six months. She was all aboard. Mary was all about her money and there was no chance she would fall in love with Rodney.
Suuuuuuuure. I'll tell you what, she'd be the first woman not to fall in love with her mark.
Let's see, there was "Dishonored" (1931), "Men of Chance" (1931), "The Big Gamble" (1931), "Waterloo Bridge" (1931), and "Girls About Town" (1931) which all featured women who were seeing men as an occupation or because they were paid to and fell in love with said men. They can't help themselves. Or so Hollywood would have us believe.
So, naturally, Mary fell in love with Rodney in spite of the money she was being paid to be with him.
Knock off five points for unoriginality.
Putting aside the ridiculous love story for the moment, the rest of the movie was even more ridiculous. Rodney decided he was going to go into the soap business like his father. It couldn't be that hard could it?
He hired Ambrose Peale (Richard 'Skeets' Gallagher) to be his ad man because with the proper advertising any product can take off.
"It Pays to Advertise" was trying to warn us or inform us that we're all just sheep. I think sheeple is the 2022 term. We don't know why we buy the brands we buy and furthermore we're not even aware of the brands we buy; we mindlessly wander into stores and pick up the item that we saw on a billboard or on a commercial without knowing if it's even the best product.
And I'd say that's partially true. But I'd also say that most people internalize that if a company can afford that much advertising then they must be successful, and they could only have gotten successful by having a superior product. So advertising works, but I wouldn't say it works because people are mindless zombies who buy whatever they're told (though I won't deny such people exist).
With a bank loan and a brilliant ad campaign, 13 Soap (the soap brand Rodney created) became a hit. He didn't have a factory, distribution, or even a formula for his brand, but everybody wanted it. He was even bought out by his father which I thought was totally preposterous. How does a successful businessman buy out a business that has NO assets? Literally, all he had was a brand name and a logo. Is that all it takes to get rich? Come up with a brand of a non-existent product then advertise it well and watch the big businesses line up to buy you out. It was absurd and I couldn't get my brain to believe otherwise.
Deduct four points for absurdity and I believe that leaves us with one star.
Free on YouTube.
This thing is hilarious...
AlsExGal11 December 2016
...so don't believe the low rating.
Norman Foster plays Rodney Martin, playboy son to self made man Cyrus Martin (Eugene Palette), head of a soap company. Cyrus has paid 5000 dollars to his secretary, statuesque Mary Grayson (Carole Lombard), to make Rodney fall in love with her and therefore stop his silly publicity stunts that make dad look bad in the papers and go to work. Cyrus promises her another 5000 if the whole thing works out with Rodney being a serious working man.
Cyrus pretends to be outraged by the match, pretends to fire Mary, pretends to cut off Rodney without a cent if he goes through with any marriage to her, but it is all a ruse. But the ruse is about to get out of Cyrus' control.
Rodney meets up with slick publicity man Ambrose Peale (Skeets Gallagher), playing his usual mischievous part. Ambrose suggests they start on an advertising crusade for a product that doesn't even exist yet - "13 soap". It's named by Rodney and the name means "Our soap is an unlucky number for dirt". Rodney is determined to beat dad at his own business. So soon there are jingles, ads, billboards with pretty girls in bathtubs (this is the precode era - anything goes) all over town. But Rodney and Ambrose have spent so much money on making their product a household word they have nothing left to make a product with, much less pay the rent.
Cyrus is angry at the 13 Soap ads everywhere he looks, and a competitor accuses him of making his son's company a front for his own soap and withdraws from their mutual agreement not to get into advertising wars. Worse yet, Mary is falling for Rodney for real.
So Rodney has name recognition and no product and no money. Dad has a product, money, and no ad campaign. How will this all work out? Watch and find the humorous answer.
This is the beginning of Eugene Palette's grumpy roles, a type of character that he made famous in "My Man Godfrey" and "The Lady Eve" - the put upon self made man of industry with daffy relatives that don't know the value of a dollar. If you are expecting Carole Lombard the screwball comedienne to show up here, she has not found that persona yet. As for Skeets Gallagher, he was always fun whenever he showed up in early Paramount roles.
The only reason I can figure that this one doesn't have a higher rating is that the copy in general circulation is a poor print taken from old VHS tapes when it was shown on TV twenty or thirty years ago. That doesn't mean that the film is not clever and well done. I'd recommend it.
Norman Foster plays Rodney Martin, playboy son to self made man Cyrus Martin (Eugene Palette), head of a soap company. Cyrus has paid 5000 dollars to his secretary, statuesque Mary Grayson (Carole Lombard), to make Rodney fall in love with her and therefore stop his silly publicity stunts that make dad look bad in the papers and go to work. Cyrus promises her another 5000 if the whole thing works out with Rodney being a serious working man.
Cyrus pretends to be outraged by the match, pretends to fire Mary, pretends to cut off Rodney without a cent if he goes through with any marriage to her, but it is all a ruse. But the ruse is about to get out of Cyrus' control.
Rodney meets up with slick publicity man Ambrose Peale (Skeets Gallagher), playing his usual mischievous part. Ambrose suggests they start on an advertising crusade for a product that doesn't even exist yet - "13 soap". It's named by Rodney and the name means "Our soap is an unlucky number for dirt". Rodney is determined to beat dad at his own business. So soon there are jingles, ads, billboards with pretty girls in bathtubs (this is the precode era - anything goes) all over town. But Rodney and Ambrose have spent so much money on making their product a household word they have nothing left to make a product with, much less pay the rent.
Cyrus is angry at the 13 Soap ads everywhere he looks, and a competitor accuses him of making his son's company a front for his own soap and withdraws from their mutual agreement not to get into advertising wars. Worse yet, Mary is falling for Rodney for real.
So Rodney has name recognition and no product and no money. Dad has a product, money, and no ad campaign. How will this all work out? Watch and find the humorous answer.
This is the beginning of Eugene Palette's grumpy roles, a type of character that he made famous in "My Man Godfrey" and "The Lady Eve" - the put upon self made man of industry with daffy relatives that don't know the value of a dollar. If you are expecting Carole Lombard the screwball comedienne to show up here, she has not found that persona yet. As for Skeets Gallagher, he was always fun whenever he showed up in early Paramount roles.
The only reason I can figure that this one doesn't have a higher rating is that the copy in general circulation is a poor print taken from old VHS tapes when it was shown on TV twenty or thirty years ago. That doesn't mean that the film is not clever and well done. I'd recommend it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
