Man's Castle (1933)

Yet another film recommended in the "recommended for you" section, and interest was immediately high. Being someone who likes Spencer Tracy in many things and that 'Man's Castle' was a relatively early role for him and a largely forgotten film. Was also interested in seeing a young Loretta Young in a period where her acting for most people here seemed to appeal more than her later roles.'Man's Castle' is a very intriguing and to me pretty impressive film. Not perfect (one can see why it won't work for some) or an all-time classic and all have done better work, but it has a lot of great things and charms and deserves to be seen more. 'Man's Castle' has a theme of love amidst and against poverty, very much relevant then in 1933 and still something that can be related to today in having to overcome love in face of adversity and dire circumstances, so it was a film that wasn't hard to relate to.It is a shame that despite lovely photography, 'Man's Castle' is visually quite primitive. With a shantytown setting that doesn't look authentic at all and instead looking studio-bound on a modest at best budget and the miniature use looks pretty phoney.At times too, the character of Bill can be hard to take with it being overdone.However, the two leads are wonderful, with Tracy at his aggressively passionate and Young giving one of her most charming and winsome performances. Their chemistry is unlikely at first but is suitably complex and has passion. There is fine support from Glenda Farrell, Marjorie Rambeau and Walter Connolly.Frank Borzage, a sensitive and deserving-of-more-credit director, directs sensitively as ever, the film is scripted thoughtfully and with emotional impact and the story always engage and is both charming and moving. Sentimentality doesn't get too much generally or get too hard to stomach to me, though the ending goes a little overboard.On the whole, very well done and well worth seeing. 8/10 Bethany Cox

I saw this film on TCM the other evening and I really liked it. I think I particularly enjoyed Loretta Young's character. Anyway, the acting is that pre-Method type of acting that was pretty much the standard in films before 1950. For modern, young audiences it might take a little adjustment. It's like riding in a classic car; you don't do it for the luxury or to get some place in a hurry, but just to enjoy it.It is a pre-code film so the two lead characters were seen actually living together, and pawing each other. Then, before the wedding of the two, the female character announces that she is pregnant. It presents Tracy's character with a dilemma; does he do what his gut wants him to do, or does he do what his heart wants him to do.Despite the old-fashion acting, I thought that Tracy and Young showed a lot of chemistry together. I actually became a bit mesmerized by the two's performances.

The film begins with a woman (the beautiful Loretta Young) who is starving because this is at the height of the Great Depression. She meets up with a man who looks rich (Spencer Tracy), in a park. He takes her to an expensive restaurant for dinner. But, it turns out he is just as poor as she is. After bilking the restaurant out of dinner, they return to his shack down along the river, and she stays the night (this is pre-code), falls deeply in love with him, but does so with a great deal of stress because she realizes that while he loves her, he is also a man who has a strong bent toward being free. And that is the crux of the film, and the first reason I give this film bonus points -- I know the feeling. I have been in two relationships where my partner wanted to be free almost as much as he wanted to be in a relationship. And, it was a constant struggle for both of us. So, in that sense, this is a really "real" dilemma for both characters.The other reason this film earns some bonus points is that it is at least a bit unique. Stop and think of what group of people are usually portrayed in Depression-era films -- it's usually gangsters or high society people. In contrast, in this film the people depicted are primarily honest people living in the slums of the Depression.Now, the film loses a few points, too. For one thing, some of the transitions between shots from different angles are very sloppy. But, this was only 1932, so I can let that slide...a bit.Spencer Tracy's acting here (he's one of my two favorite actors) is very good, considering this is early on in his career. You begin to see elements of the Tracy we came to know throughout his film career. Loretta Young is not only beautiful, but perfect in this role. I have mixed feelings about Marjorie Rambeau's portrayal of an alcoholic, though her part is central to the plot. Walter Connolly is very good here, though I noted his poor teeth, and found that distracting. This role is a bit different for him, so it's nice to see him in something this is not a comedy.And one of the joys of this film is that it's pre-code, but not in your face about it. As Tracy says early in the film, "No female has to starve in a town like this." And then there's the nude swimming scene...although, trust me, you won't see anything. And the fact that Young becomes pregnant later in the film. And of course, all this was filmed at a point when the real Tracy and the real Young were having a torrid affair.Although I won't put this film up to an "8", it is darned good and well-worth watching. You're likely to learn something about the Great Depression, to boot.

I have seen this film recently during a retrospective of Borzage´s filmography. It´s a film situated in that strange period of time before "Hays code" when american movies could tell stories who break (explicitly) the conservative rules of the "classic Hollywood moral". Like in other films of Borzage (The seventh heaven, bad girl...) love faces poverty and survives because of his almost "magic" nature. But what makes this film more remarkable than others from Borzage is the complexity of Spencer Tracy´s role. He is full of passion for life but also fears "everybody´s life". When he meets Loretta Young has to face a new situation than creates an earthquake of contradictions. I was very surprised with this role and it explains why this movie had so many problems in his time. In the end, a very nice surprise