Emma (1932)

Expected more

Excellent, a Must See

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

This was truly Marie Dressler's finest hour. She was justly nominated for an Oscar for the lead role of Emma in this film. Clarence Brown, who directed so many of Greta Garbo's films, had directed Dressler as Marthy in ANNA Christie (1930/1) with Garbo, and clearly appreciated her unique screen power by casting her in EMMA. It is not often that a 64 year-old actress can entirely dominate a film, but that is what happens here. Among the cast was the young Myrna Loy. The film is based on an original story by Dressler's close friend, the screenwriter Frances Marion. It concerns a middle-aged woman named Emma who is the maid to a family of a man with three children. When the story starts, his wife is in the middle of childbirth. She dies and the baby is also not breathing, but Emma saves the little boy. She then acts as mother to the four children until they are grown up. She also nurses Mr. Smith, the ailing father, a gentle and caring person excellently played by Jean Hersholt. After serving the family selflessly for 32 years, Emma's worth becomes suddenly clear to Mr. Smith and he proposes marriage. He then tragically dies on their honeymoon, having made a will leaving everything to Emma because his unruly children are not responsible enough to handle the money, so that he entrusts Emma with managing it for them. The eldest three turn on her viciously and take her to court, accusing her of having murdered their father to grab the money. This is a very emotional film with lots of comical moments, but it is also a bit of a weepie. It is a magnificent film of its time, and deserves wider recognition. It shows the best and worst sides of human nature. As for Marie Dressler, may her reputation never die.

I recall an old friend telling me of this thoughtful film years ago. At the time I had little interest in early talkies so made no attempt to see it. Even though, at that time I was watching and enjoyed several vintage gems on TV, it was not until that same dear friend screened several classic's (on 'film' in his home thr) for me, that I came to fully appreciate the importance and power of strong writing, combined with professional craftsmanship, as a serious art form in film making. I imagine many folk today may still not know how to look at a movie like "Emma" ~ even I was wondering if it would sustain me to the end. While I might have edited a short sequence from early on, I soon found myself being drawn in...the striking mobile camera shots, the subtle controlled direction, the changing moods of a well written story. This films young photographer, Oliver T. Marsh ('San Fransisco' '36 ~ A Tale of Two Cities' '36) seemed to work so well with the great humanities director Clarence Brown, each bring such rich imagery to a variety of diverse moods within some unexpected situations. Such a pity this superb image maker was lost to us at just 49 yrs of age - seemingly to the demon booze - more wasted talent!For those who know (or have yet to learn) how to 'read' vintage classics and don't give up too soon, this could prove rewarding. BUT, let yourself run with the varied emotions as situations alter. While this may not be known as one of Clarence Brown's major works, it is never the less, a fine one. Besides, how often do we see an overweight, aging matronly female, as the main 'star' (not easy to sell to the 'glamour' generation) she plays a character who gives unconditional, selfless commitment to her charges (even harder to sell to the 'me' generation). Award winning silent star Marie Dressler manages to convince all the way and gets good support from various troopers of the day, like youngster, Richard Cromwell (the DiCaprio of his day) playing her employers last born son and aviation enthusiast 'Ronnie', Jean Hershold as her gentle inventor employer, with a strong portrayal from John Miljan as the committed District Attorney. In the background is truly glamorous star-to-be, Myrna Loy, not yet in her top billing professional form. It's pleasing to see TCM being more generous with adding some surprisingly long missing pioneering gems!. Keep em' coming please. KenR................

I must have missed something here because the movie seems to have found so many receptive viewers, but it's necessary to call them as I see them. And this one is a ball, wide and outside.The tale puts Marie Dressler in the role of Mammy in "Gone With the Wind," except that Mammy, or Emma, in this case being Caucasian, she gets to marry the rich doctor after his wife dies in childbirth.Of the four children, only one, Ronnie, is gay and loving towards her. The girls are snobs. When the dead doc leaves everything to Emma, Emma of course wants to give it to the children, but the girls gang up on her and Emma is accused of murdering the doc, while Ronnie, flying to her rescue, dies in a crash. Emma is found not guilty but, realizing that she has no place in the home any longer, after 32 years, she bids the girls adieu and heads for the unemployment office or rather -- what is it called now? The Employment Assistance Ministry? Anyway, in 1931, it was the unemployment office, and it still is, though they transpose the name into Esperanto. Not to fear. Emma finds another loving family exactly like the dead doc's and everything ends happily.Marie Dressler is unimposing in every way except for her physical bulk. Her performance is of the period, as is the sob story. The comic element is limited to Emma's fake solo in a flight trainer. I can't find the slightest thing original about it, nothing that would separate it from dozens of other movies made during the early thirties.It isn't a BAD flick. And Marie Dressler may have been a fine and loving person. It's the movie and just about everything in it that never rises above the precisely routine.

I am shocked that this clunky; poorly acted, filmed and written; mediocre 72-minute film has been given generally 3-1/2 of 4 stars by the critics and in the user comments here. The final 5 or 10 minutes aside, the rest of the movie is not just not good, it is bad. It is an embarrassment in every way. You are in for a big disappointment to see this for the first time after seeing the high critical rating. I am not surprised that one hardly ever hears about this film, that there are virtually no external-newsgroup reviews, and that the user ratings are generally poor (ratings of either 6 or 7 are voted more often than 8 or 9 or 10).The final 5 or 10 minutes were touching/tearful/rewarding, but don't make up for the dull previous hour. This must be a prime example of a film that did not age well. I rarely write film user reviews, but felt compelled to here. It doesn't live up to its build-up.The beginning of the 72-minute movie dragged (the trip to Niagara falls), and the end part (confrontation with the kids, and trial) seemed rushed. I would recommend the movie solely for fans of Marie Dressler, who was nominated for Best Actress in a Leading Role. Purnell Pratt (Mr. Haskins, the Lawyer) did a commendable acting job.