- Messages
- 17,263
- Location
- New York City
The Animal Kingdom from 1932 with Leslie Howard, Ann Harding, Myrna Loy, Henry Stephenson and William Gargan
There is a conceit amongst playwrights and screenwriters, at least in the twentieth century, that "art" is "superior" to commerce in some metaphysical sense, making artists superior to businessmen and women and, in general, people focused on money.
It sets up a false dichotomy that, not surprisingly, puts the artist at the top of some philosophical pyramid of integrity and human awareness. In The Animal Kingdom, playwright, nay "artists," Philip Barry lets his inner superiority complex rip.
Leslie Howard, plays the son of a wealthy and socially prominent banker. Howard, though, is not interested in “crass things” like money or “position.” He, instead, owns a modest publishing house that puts out books of "artistic value."
One, though, can guess where he got the money to start his business. It is probably the same source that funds his upper-class lifestyle. It's easy to denounce money when you have a rich dad to tap when you need some of that "filthy lucre" to buy, say, a new tuxedo.
Howard also, effectively, has been living with his "bohemian" girlfriend, played by Ann Harding. She is a successful commercial illustrator who quits to become a painter - "a real artist with something to say."
At the open, we see Howard's father, played by Henry Stephenson, and Howard's new girlfriend - his relationship with Harding is "completely free and open -" played by Myrna Loy plotting to bring Howard into their monied social milieu.
It takes a little familiarity with 1930s movie-language obfuscation to understand it, but it seems the sexual passion has run out of the Howard-Harding relationship, leaving Howard straining at the bit to bed Loy.
Foreshadowing the 1970s "free-love" fiasco, Harding learns an "open relationship" isn't so great when one's partner exercises his option. "Free love" is just another bohemian conceit that, every few generations or so, the cognoscenti has to learn anew doesn't work.
Thinking with the wrong part of his anatomy, Howard marries Loy. From here, the movie is Loy and Stephenson plotting to pull Howard away from his "bohemian" world and into theirs, while Howard struggles to reconcile his marriage with his artistic inclinations.
Proving Howard's sensitivity to the common man, Howard treats his butler, a roughly mannered ex-prizefighter played by William Gargan, as a friend, while Loy and Stephenson are annoyed that he is not a good "servant."
It's forced in a way, but it echoes the play's main theme and Gargan plays the role so well, it works. Plus, he and Howard have outstanding on-screen chemistry. Gargan looks like he got along with the entire cast.
Over the course of the movie, Harding becomes more self righteous as she even denounces money while living in tony Sutton Place (dear Lord). Meanwhile, Loy becomes more obviously conniving as she attempts to turn Howard into a copy of his father.
Howard, in a role he was born to play, is the unsure-of-it-all man in the middle. He thinks everything through slowly as he weighs everyone's opinion. But in truth, Loy's real hold on Howard is sex; once he figures that out, his choice is pretty clear.
Loy is outstanding as she slowly lets herself be revealed. Her acting is so subtle, you see her manipulating Howard almost as an echo of her behavior, at least until they've been married a bit when she becomes more flagrant.
Harding, too, is excellent. Little about her refined beauty says true bohemian, but as she did often, playing a rich dilettante "bohemian" is in her acting sweet spot. She is the perfect "artsy/intellectual" girlfriend/wife for trust-fund-kid "bohemian" Howard.
The movie feels like the play it is based on was tweaked only a bit and then filmed. The dialogue is smart, but in a theater-stylized way. One doubts the production company ever left the RKO studio soundstage.
As much as you can see the artifice, the human emotions Barry limns are very real and moving. His characters might all be a bit too full of themselves, but they are complex humans who hurt and hurt each other in, often, poignant ways.
There is, at least, a PhD thesis waiting to be written on why Depression era audiences - struggling for food and shelter - loved movies about the very rich having silly relationship problems as they bounced from mansion to mansion in chauffeur-driven cars.
The easy answer is escapism; maybe that's all it is. There's also a "highbrow" gloss to these plays turned into movies that lets the audience (and influential reviewers) feel as if they're seeing something of artistic and intellectual value even if it's just dressed-up melodrama.
Artists don't exist on a plane removed from life's baser needs. Howard and Harding live quiet comfortable lives - earned directly or indirectly from the capitalist economy they denounce. And many businessmen and women enjoy and embrace art and culture.
It is only in the minds of playwrights like Barry that the world is divided into the good and kind artist and the crass and cruel business person. It is, though, a cliche still embraced, not surprisingly, by artists and filmmakers to this day.
The Animal Kingdom wasn't a hit, but many movies like it were proving there was an appetite for these playwright-indulgent efforts.
It makes sense, too, as it is fun, even to this day, to watch wealthy, young and attractive people passionately discuss their silly and pretentious ideals, while the timeless pulls of sex, money, ego and love really drive most of their decisions.