No Man of Her Own (1932)

Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

Every film buff knows this title because it was the only film Clark Gable (in his pre-moustache days) and Carole Lombard (billed below the title alongside Other Woman Dorothy Mackaill) made together long before they married in 1939. Otherwise it would now be totally forgotten.Neither star is really at their best, and Gable in particular looks as if he can't really believe in any of this. It begins in classic pre-Code form with Ms Mackaill wearing a low-cut dress that would never have got past the Hays Office eighteen months later; while Gable bumptiously sending librarian Carole Lombard (sorry, didn't I tell you she plays a librarian in this?) to investigate a couple of books on a high shelf so that he can admire the view from where he's standing would probably be frowned on today. (The library set is terrific by the way.)Despite the title, marriage and morality kick in disappointingly quickly, and after the amusing but facile ending the pair of them are likely to find raising a family in Depression-era America an extremely uphill struggle after turning their backs on Gable's hitherto highly lucrative and satisfying career as a card shark; which nevertheless means that he will be attempting to sell himself on the labour market as an ex-con.

I think other reviewers heard that this was supposed to be "a screwball comedy" and ran with that idea because they didn't know what else to say. I didn't see anything light and fluffy or "screwball" about it. Perhaps "offbeat" might be a more apt characterization. Gable's interpretation of the New York gambler was interesting because something in his usual sort of charming yet manly approach was notably lacking. He possessed the irreverent and utterly confident attitude we have come to associate with his other performances, but a number of his youthful facial expressions were of a more complex and unfamiliar sort. The reserved yet knowing way he nodded howdy-do upon introduction to Lombard's mother and then her father was especially amusing, I thought. There were also the many intriguing interactions with the actress, herself, particularly with regard to the touchy subjects of marriage and stability. The oft-subtle writing in this flick made for several interesting moments and both actors were fully up to the challenge of a sensitive and intelligent interpretation of the script. It is also interesting that there was allegedly no actual romantic attachment between these two because the chemistry was already quite evident. It must have miffed a number of the more glamorous Hollywood starlets when Lombard won Gable's heart in real life. Although beautiful, she wasn't glamorous, nor was she pretentious and affected, but more like the girl next door. I read that the library scene (where Gable sent her up a ladder as an excuse to examine her legs) single-handedly started some sort of decency league in the motion picture industry. The bluenoses are always with us, aren't they, shoving their childish attitudes down the throats of the adults. Much more risqué was the scene in which Lombard's predecessor, Kay, appeared on screen in a see-through nightgown that revealed critical aspects of her anatomy, both front and back. The thirties obviously were a much less prudish time because her gentlemen friends didn't even pay much attention, at least not overtly, and scenes such as that would not appear in movies again until the sixties. We've noted a similar sensuality in other movies from that era. As a society, we keep coming back to the cultural doldrums, where they are pushing wealth or war or something else that always seems to further the interests of those in control. Unconventional times like the thirties and the sixties are few and far between. It showed in this movie.

I mainly got this out because I wanted to see some eye candy: Clark Gable and the wonderful Carole Lombard (plus all the wonderful '30s fashions). It's a good screwball comedy, but a little boring until Carole Lombard comes into the picture. I found some scenes unnecessary and a little boring, but there are some genuinely good scenes with Lombard in it - she really is the queen of screwball comedies. Her comic timing is wonderful. I was very much impressed. Clark is as usual very handsome and sexy. I'm not familiar with the pre Hollywood code but I guess this would be fairly risqué as Carole is shown in her underwear. A good movie, nothing special, but fun to watch.

Although this film is from relatively early in his career, this film doesn't feel particularly original. Already by 1932, Gable was starting to fall into a pattern where he plays the slick guy looking to earn a dishonest buck and by the end of the film he shows that he really has a heart of gold. He went on to do this in perhaps a couple dozen films--even in his most famous role of Rhett Butler.Apart from being the one and only pairing with his future sweetie, Carole Lombard, it is a pretty ordinary and forgettable film. Now, this is NOT to say it is bad--it's a time-passer and a good film for fans of Gable to see--this is pure Gable--even without his later trademark mustache. Now as far as Lombard goes, this film is a little more disappointing. Instead of her usual feisty character, she is a bit saccharine and one-dimensional. This film could have been better.About the only thing that distinguishes this film is that it was obviously made before the production code was tightened--with more sexual innuendo and skin that later Hollywood offerings.