Dames (1934)

Warner Bros. spent much of the 1930s as the studio that turned out gangster-themed movies (and launched the Looney Tunes later in the decade). It was a surprise to learn that the studio known for Humphrey Bogart and Bugs Bunny also made "Dames", the sort of musical for which MGM was usually known.What I like about this movie is that it shows puritanical people as regressive lunatics (they really are). I just wish that they had done so without all the musical numbers. Seriously, the whole thing is a happy-go-lucky ego trip. If you ask me, the best kind of musicals - aside from the Beatles' movies - are satirical ones: the musical versions of "Reefer Madness" and "The Evil Dead".As for this one, I took the time to look for strings holding up the clothes during the "Girl at the Ironing Board" sequence (and I could make out a few of them).Basically, it's not the sort of movie that I recommend.

If you look at the movie poster or watch the trailer for this film, it is clearly--and unabashedly--marketing the fact that it contains hundreds of women, many of whom were used in Busby Berkeley's huge production numbers. "Dames" also contains hints of pre-Code scandal and nudity--just hints.This Depression-era film, with its energetic dancing, upbeat songs, and extravagant displays of youthful enthusiasm and beauty was designed to take viewers away from the realities outside the theater doors. And it does that very well.Dick Powell, Ruby Keeler, Joan Blondell, and a wonderful cast of character actors including Guy Kibbee, Zasu Pitts, and Hugh Herbert thespiate (that must be a word) through a script that holds together but is largely inconsequential, except to provide a contrast between the opprobrium of Hugh Herbert's (Ezra Ounce) character, which is directed at the impropriety of the theater, and the onstage (and on screen) entertainment.The entire film is held together by the glue of two great songs: "I Only Have Eyes For You" and "Dames". Dick Powell is the perfect vocalist (of his day).The other "star" of the film is Mr. Berkeley's imaginative staging and camera work, including zooms, camera movement and special effects that are start-of-the-art in 1934.This is a classic because it provides a view of its era, and stylistically it is a paragon of its genre. After "Dames", there will be better scripts, better dancing, better effects, etc., but it encapsulates the spirit of its time.

A wonderful musical comedy, fitting in well with 42nd Street, Golddiggers of 1933, Footlight Parade, and Golddiggers of 1935. Of the five, I would place this one tied for second, behind Golddiggers of 1933, equal to Footlight Parade, and just a hair better than 42nd Street. If you have seen none of them it would be good to start with this one. Then I would go to 42nd Street, Footlight Parade, saving the masterpiece Golddiggers of 33 for last. (Golddiggers of 1935 is quite a bit inferior.)The first strong point is the excellent comedic plot, better than that in 42nd Street, about the same as Footlght Parade. Guy Kibbe is wonderful as always, Hugh Herbert and Zasu Pitts are great. The three of them really steal the show, at least as far as acting and plot go. The jokes come quickly and can easily be missed. I would hazard a guess that some viewers will no longer get the joke in the name of Hugh Herbert's character, "Ezra Ounce." Joan Blondell is gorgeous and smart as always. Dick Powell is the same as in all the movies - which is absolutely fine! I love his voice. I find Ruby Keeler a delight to look at and watch. It's true, as others have commented, that she really doesn't do a heck of a lot in this one, though she is on screen quite a lot. Some people seem to love to put down her acting or dancing. OK, so she's not going to star in King Lear or Antigone. So what? Get over it! That's not the point. She is very appealing. Similarly, I like seeing her dance. She doesn't have to be as good as Cyd Charisse. Get over it!The real appeal of all five of the movies I've mentioned here, and the real star, is Busby Berkeley. It is amazing to read one or two of the reviews written here in the last decade by people who, I suppose, are rather young and set in their ways. How anyone with half a brain can watch this movie and not be absolutely blown away is unbelievable to me. Truly, such a person is blind. Maybe not in the sense of passing the eye test for a driver's license, but blind nonetheless. Surely Busby Berkeley was the most unexpected creative genius in the history of film.Let me echo something another poster has written. Though I was born long after the great depression ended, it was still a living reality in the minds of my parents, and something I absorbed somehow when growing up. Maybe a byproduct of the difficult economic times we are living through now will be a greater sensitivity on the part of some people to those times and the culture produced in those times. It does seem that some of the negative reviewers here need to broaden and deepen their appreciation, not just of movies, but of humanity.But I digress. This is a wonderful, fun, eye-popping movie, full of great songs and fantastic choreography. Enjoy.henry

This film defines "factory film-making" -- total paint by the numbers approach to musical film, with contempt for the intelligence of its audience. Let's wrack up the film's most obvious faults -- only one memorable song ("I Only Have Eyes for You") which unfortunately is played twice for a total of about 15 minutes so that you want to tear your hair out. Only one decent (I mean half-way decent) singer in Dick Powell. A poor script that doesn't allow the funny supporting players like Guy Kibbe to rise to the occasion.Everything about this movie was seemingly pulled together in great haste, so that various elements of the story that might have been fun just feel obligatory. Why does Ruby Keeler get angry at Dick Powell (I won't even bother to use the names of their characters.... Powell is "Jimmy", of course), and then decide to do the show anyway? Don't look to the film for any answers. It just seems to happen because that's what the audience expects to see in these films. I guess the formula was so set by this point that they felt they could use shorthand to express even what are supposedly the primary emotional moments in the story."Eyes for You" shows up so early, and so intimate, that it was easy for me to predict it would be used later for the extravaganza. In fact basically the structure of this movie is the first 2/3rds are a half-baked situational comedy about Guy Kibbe trying to inherit $10 million, and then the last 1/3rd is just a series of increasingly mind numbing musical sequences that have no relationship to the story or characters or to any idea. Geometrical shapes are used in stunning arrangements by Busby Berkeley -- my problem is that there is never any concept behind it. It's kind of neat to look at, but totally pointless. And the "Eyes" sequence with hundreds of images of Ruby Keeler is actually disturbing. I don't know how big of a fan you'd have to be of Ruby Keeler to watch that without feeling an urge to vomit or to run screaming out of the theater. Disembodied Ruby Keeler heads seem to lunge and lurch all about and then form their own geometric shapes, and at the end as it's supposed to be Powell's dream we should worry about his mental state. But of course, as usual there's also no attempt to show anything that could actually happen on a stage, despite the fact that the entire running length of the film prior to these sequences has been about Powell putting on a Broadway show everything we see is camera tricks that could never work on stage.In the film's most embarrassing skit, Powell's character plays some kind of showbiz bigwig who refuses to see George White and George Gershwin but readily allows a group of "dames" to enter his office and practically attack him. "Who knows the names of those composers?" he tells us, "Admit it, you pay to see the dames." This kind of cynical joke reveals everything about the mindset of the producers of this film, and explains why it's such a piece of garbage now compared to the better musicals of the 30s and 40s. First of all, the people behind this film would have been better off to hire somebody like Gershwin who could have provided some memorable music. Instead it's full of pointless sequences with hundreds of plump girls going through boring military routines in geometric shapes. Geez Mr. Powell, I sure do like that better than those lame musicals that actually have, you know, good music and decent stories.Lame, insulting to the intelligence, insulting to the taste, it's no wonder the steam ran out of these types of musical shows long before the big war broke up the party for good.