secondtake Cain and Mabel (1936)Clark Gable is great in most of his movies and this is almost no exception—and I couldn't wait for him to appear. The corny style and silly humor that gets the film going is so dated and painful I almost gave up. But I stuck to it, and I tried to get used to Marion Davies. In short, this is an "old-fashioned" kind of musical compared to the "new" style propelled by Astaire and Rogers at the same time.The plot is great in the outline: a woman loses her waitressing job and a boxer is trying to get the attention of the world. They meet, and the sparks don't fly. But the pressures around them keep trying to get the two to ignite. Davies is "promoted" by a PR hack played by character actor Roscoe Karns, who is somewhere between funny and annoying. His exaggerated humor leaves nothing to the imagination, nowhere for the viewer to escape if it doesn't click. Gable's PR handlers are more generic, but equally formulaic. What makes things sometimes work is the interaction between the leads. While not billed as a screwball comedy, the elements are lined up here, especially the two leads at unbelievable odds and yet, somehow, you know they'll hook up. And there is the two- pronged plot element of wanting these two nice enough people to succeed—Davies as a dancer and Gable as a fighter.The premise is that the careers of both will soar if they fall in love in the public eye. Well, they do, and then what?Frankly, the singing styles and even the basic choreography is so simple and based in 1920s musicals (which I can't tolerate) and on Busby Berkely films from earlier in the decade, this movie was no fun to watch. If you like other musicals as much as I do (I'll watch Astaire and Rogers any day of the week), you might still have trouble with the acting styles, and the pushy jokes. Further, the basic premise of the two falling in love is stretched beyond the limit. The chemistry is just missing.The man behind all these style decisions is the director, Lloyd Bacon, whose movies (in my experience) tend toward caricature and a handling of stories that seems almost like it's taken from teen novels. ("Oklahoma Kid" is the poster child for this.) He was often surrounded by great talent, and of course he has Gable here, as well as the great cinematographer, George Barnes.So be warned. The high rating is a complete mystery. It's not that kind of classic.

SimonJack This is one of the very few Clark Gable movies that I score below six stars. But I must do so with "Cain and Mabel" because it barely makes it as entertainment. Even then, my five stars are for a few specific points. First, this is an early look at Gable sans mustache, and he is good in a lousy role. Second, the extravagant staged musical production – seemingly inserted from another film, is quit good by itself, and I do find most things about musicals very entertaining. Third, it has a very fine supporting cast who do very well with what they have in their roles. Allen Jenkins is Dodo, Walter Catlett is Jake Sherman, Ruth Donnelly is Aunt Mimi, William Collier Sr. is Pop Walters, and Roscoe Karns is Reilly.I like Marion Davies as an actress. She definitely had the looks and a special appeal in her big broad-eyed face. Had Davies not been in a 30-year affair with the married William Randolph Hearst, or had he not pushed so hard on Hollywood to give her fame, she may well have had a much better career. She may have had some better films than she made. Other reviewers have made this point. I like her in some, but in most of her films she is mediocre at best. And, I agree that while she can act, she is not a great actress and was often cast over her head.Among many different people there likely will be many different tastes. For that reason, I don't like to take exception to other reviewers directly. But I find it hard to fathom an average rating of 8.0 for "Cain and Mabel" as of the end of April 2016. Especially with more than 1,200 votes cast. Could it be that the ghost of William Randolph Hearst is haunting viewers and pushing the numbers? Here are some specific points on the downside of this film. The idea of the plot is hokey, but OK if it works. But it doesn't. The story squirms all over the place and the screenplay is terrible. It does have a few funny lines interspersed here and there. But it is not at all a witty script. There is absolutely no chemistry between Davies and Gable, and when they come together toward the end, it just seems phony. Gable's character, Larry Cain, hardly seems to be a heavyweight contender because he doesn't have energy. Only toward the end with some ring shots do we ever get an idea that he really might be a boxer.Marion Davies wasn't a singer, although I thought I heard her utter a couple of short lines as though she were singing here. They were off key. Her dancing looked amateurish in the beginning, and we saw very little of it. Surely, the producers don't want us to believe that the short routine she was constantly having to practice passes as dancing in this movie. Her brief moments in the big production number are barely passable. So, where is the singer/dancer leading lady that she was supposed to be playing – Mabel O'Dare? In that long musical section we simply see Marion in three or four different gowns standing and smiling, while different male tenors sing songs, and choruses chime in and ensembles of dancers perform below and around her. So where is the Marion Davies/Mabel O'Dare star? Is that the limit of her talent? Is that what the movie would have us believe people on Broadway would pay to go see? A big name star who doesn't sing or dance (well, once) but stands around as eye candy while the whole rest of the troop perform? This was a hard movie to sit through, even with my refrigerator breaks at home. The script just seemed so forced, the occasional snappy lines just seemed like snapping at people. And nary a spark between the two leads, let alone a fire. I can't recommend this film as one people are likely to enjoy.Here are the best samples of funny dialog in this film. Jake, "I'll tell you frankly, the ushers are quitting because they're afraid to be alone in the dark." Pop Walters, "Now listen, Larry. This guy Reed's got a good night's sleep in both hands."There were many very good comedy-romance musicals made during this period and into the 1940s. The lead actresses sang, danced or did both. I can recommend any films with Jeanette MacDonald (singing), Eleanor Powell (dancing), Judy Garland (singing and dancing), Doris Day (singing and dancing), Deanna Durbin (singing), Jane Powell (singing and dancing). While their films all are well rated, none of them have averages as high as 8.0.

holly Since Clark Gable became famous for punching women in films (notably Barbara Stanwyck in Night Nurse), it is worthy to note that Marion Davies gives HIM the black eye! Cain and Mabel has a cute premise: a boxer and an actress get together for the sake of publicity but secretly despise each other! Unfortunately there isn't much spark here. Davies is serviceable in the reluctant golddigger role with platinum hair and impossibly blue eyes that seem to have no iris at all, but she doesn't seem particularly committed. Gable also phones it in as a one-note brute -- almost a parody of his many other roles. The subplot that they'd both rather stay home and eat pork chops than act out their romance for the audiences, seems a little too real. This is one of those films that pairs up two huge stars in a mediocre script, hoping sparks will fly with arguments and overturned ice buckets, but mostly it fizzles.The one stunning exception comes in the third reel when Davies performs in the finale of her Broadway show. It is a jaw-dropping tableau of romantic imagery in huge puffy sleeves and fluffy white feathers. From Louis XVI wigs, to Venice canals, to flying angels, to a choir arranged to look like a pipe organ. Curving staircases, ornate bridges, miles of drapery, and a princess double-cone hat with cascading tulle..., and it just keeps coming. Thematically it steals -- I mean, pays homage to half-a-dozen depression era musicals like "Shall We Dance", and even borrows the violin song from "Gold Diggers of 1933". At the center of it all Davies struggles to keep a relaxed smile, like a bride statuette on a wedding cake so ornately decorated with white icing there is no room left for the groom!Without this scene I would have only given the movie a 4, but this sequence is EVERYTHING YOU WATCH SILVER-AGE MUSICALS FOR! I have to bump it up to an 8 as a "must see" in musical history.

beyondtheforest In what would be her second to last film, Marion Davies stars as a waitress who lands a job as a lead dancer in an expensive Broadway show. The only problem is she is not an established star and cannot draw many people to see the show. Her managers concoct a plan to keep her name in the papers by linking her romantically with a famous prize fighter, thereby creating publicity for the show, but unfortunately they can't stand each other. However, when the fighter (Clark Gable) learns she is really down to earth, and was once a waitress, his opinion of her changes and they decide to be married (quite abruptly). The publicity people keep getting in the way and end up turning them against each other for the sake of publicity, until in the end both decide to throw their big careers in the bucket and get married.The plot is sort of silly, but not entirely phony. I sort of like the idea of presenting two famous, successful people who both willingly give up their careers for love (and not just the woman giving up her career). It was a novel approach. It a rare example of equality between the sexes for its time.The publicity angle is also good. Here we have two people torn apart and brought back together by media lies. It happened then, and is still relevant today, when "don't believe everything you read" is as true as ever.Ultimately, the movie is not completely successful, although it satisfies to an extent. The casting of Marion Davies, who was by all means a huge star of the day, in a leading role of this nature seems all wrong. Her strong points are her charm and comedic abilities, neither of which is shown much to her advantage in CAIN AND MABEL. She is pretty and likable throughout, but she is never an authentic film presence, nor does she display any genuine or deep emotion. It is all surface, but the surface is where she excels, and she would have shone in any number of supporting roles as a character actress, or in a stronger comedy as a lead. Here, she is not given much to do besides pose, whimper, and smile, which she does charmingly but not convincingly. She might have fared better if given more to do.Her role, and the film in general, was reminiscent of DANCING LADY, another story of a showgirl who makes it big and has man trouble. Where that film was perhaps more formulaic in its conclusion, it was also twice as convincing, perhaps because the lead was played by the dynamic Joan Crawford. This is not to say Davies is a lesser actress than Crawford, but each had their strengths, and this type of role was more suited to the emotionally available Crawford.The whole film feels somewhat dated, as if it was filmed in 1932, not 1936. The story you have seen before, and in superior films. Both the lead actors have given better performances. Gable's performance was adequate and likable, but it felt like one of his earlier performances, and not a performance drawing from his experience. It's hard to believe, while watching the film that it is a product of so much talent, or of movie stars at the height of their careers. With so much going into it, not limited to an expensive budget rivaling any number of Shearer or Garbo films, but also fantastic musical numbers, how could the result be so utterly underwhelming?The film should have been a comeback for Davies. It should have been a very modern vehicle to showcase Gable at the top of his game, and reintroduce Davies as a formidable rival to the other screen queens of the era. Instead, we end up wondering what Clark Gable is doing in a Marion Davies movie, and by then Davies' image was dated and she would have benefited more by starring in a Clark Gable film.CAIN AND MABEL could have been an important, ground-breaking film starring two great stars. Instead it is an empty vanity project, in which Gable is used for window dressing, Davies is not allowed to exercise any of her talents, and the plot was a formulaic re-hash of something from five years earlier (done better the first time).It is a curiosity piece, though, and a must for fans of the stars, or for people who enjoy pleasant entertainment which demands little from the viewer.