Stand-In (1937)

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

A Major Disappointment

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

A movie studio is losing money so they send stuffy accountant Leslie Howard out to Hollywood to find out why. There he meets an assortment of wacky characters and becomes involved in their stories. Great cast helps this satirical comedy rise above a script that tries a little too hard. Many of the characters have silly names like Fowler Pettypacker and Atterbury Dodd, so it's that kind of movie.Leslie Howard is great at playing the straight man to all those around him screwballing it up. Joan Blondell is fun as the former child star and now stand-in (hence the title) for fading movie star Marla Shelton. Humphrey Bogart is the producer in love with Shelton. Bogie is very good in one of the movie's more serious parts. No doubt he was happy to be taking a break from playing gangsters at the time. Alan Mowbray hams it up as a director with an indiscernible accent. Jack Carson is amusing as a loudmouth press agent. It's basically the standard Jack Carson role. My favorite performances are that of Tully Marshall as the wheelchair-bound grouse heading the studio and Marianne Edwards as Elvira, a little girl that was obviously a parody of Shirley Temple. Definitely worth a look if you're a fan of any of the actors involved or if you like movies that satirize filmmaking.

Often I don't agree with Leonard Maltin, as he obviously doesn't see all the movies in his review books. But here his remarks are spot-on, as "Stand-In' does, indeed, tail off into disappointment in the second half. Naturally, viewers want to see Humphrey Bogart do comedy, but he's not really funny here. He's surrounded by some people who are pretty good at it, mainly Leslie Howard and Joan Blondell, but when Bogie's on screen he's usually teed off or griping about something, so this picture is not a good test of his comedic instincts.The picture hums along and is reasonably funny and entertaining, but the screenwriters have ace accountant Leslie Howard 'see the light', and the end of the film descends into confusion and a hastily contrived ending, with Howard doing a Spartacus turn and leading the workers in revolt. Not funny, and very unsatisfying. "Stand-In" is a curiosity that doesn't really need to be seen, except that it's billed as a comedy that Bogart is in.

"Stand-In" was shown by the BBC as part of a Bogart season. As someone else mentioned in another comment, that's odd to say the least: while billed third, Humphrey Bogart can't have more than 20 minutes in this movie. "Stand-In" is a comedy. I gather that from the IMDb info and from the collection of moments in the film when I'm supposed to have laughed. I can't say I did. Maybe once or twice. At most.Nevertheless, I'm glad the BBC showed this Bogart comedy and here's why. Even though the comedy bits may have been funny in 1937 (comedy standards tend to differ from era to era - although I can imagine people not being amused by this at the time either), "Stand-In" also spoofs the movie-making business. It's a bit better at that. They say imitation is a odd form of flattering. "Stand-In" both mocks and loves its subject. Atterbury Dodd is a mathematics-loving efficiency expert who has to investigate why Colossal Pictures is losing money instead of making it. He's the odd one out in town, learning that to every question there is but one answer: "This is the movie-making business." It's obvious from the start that Dodd will learn to respect and cherish the movie-making business, unlike most Hollywood films about the movie-making industry (which tend to treat Hollywood as a shark pool situated in either Sodom or Gomorrah). If you watch carefully, you will learn - just like Atterbury Dodd - that every movie you see is made by thousands of people you don't think about when you're in a darkened room (so always stay in your comfy seat till the credits are over, kids!).So while as a comedy, "Stand-In" sucks and as a movie about the movies it is interesting, the pivotal reason to see the movie is the combination of Leslie Howard (Dodd) and Joan Blondell (Miss Plum). Not only does she educate him about the movie business, she also triggers him in another way: just like Dodd slowly realizes movies are made by people (not units), Miss Plum makes him realize he is merely a calculator in a human form rather than a living creature. Combine that idea with a chemistry that works and you have a movie that is still very watchable, even if you don't feel like laughing.

Atterbury Dodd is opposed to his New York banker bosses selling off Colossal Studios for only half of what he thinks its worth. Being the first person ever to stand up to the big boss he's sent off to see whats going on with the seemingly failing studio. Once there he finds that the buyer is manipulating the latest Colossal movie into being a turkey so he can buy the studio cheap and turn a profit when he closes it down. Dodd also runs into Miss Plum who will soon becomes Dodd's guide through the madness of film making.Much of the film is concerned with Dodd dealing with the insanity of film studios while not realizing that he's falling in love with Miss Plum. The last third of the film concerns efforts to turn save the studio and the film.This is really a Leslie Howard movie. Howard and Joan Blondell, as Miss Plum are a wonderful screen couple and one wishes there was even more time of them together. Although Humphrey Bogart is listed third he's in maybe 20 minutes of this often funny film. He is wonderful in a the role of the previous studio head and producer of the turkey in the making. The film is filled with funny lines and fleeting appearances, Charles Middleton is a scream; as is a stuntman who refuses to do his stunt for money. This is a funny funny movie especially if you love old movies.The problem is that the film is at times unfocused. Is it a comedy? A Romance? The sequences with the villain seem to be from another movie. I question why some of the characters are allowed to be so annoying, Potts, the publicity man in particular, is the screen version of fingernails on a blackboard. I'm sure there were people like that in Hollywood, but I never want to meet them.I also have a problem with the ending which ends too soon for my tastes.Still this is 90 minutes of great fun, especially if you love old films.Worth seeking out, possibly even buying.7 out of 10 with spikes of truly wonderful moments (Going under the table for one)