calvinnme This movie was released the same year as the Oscar winning British film Cavalcade. I've seen them both, and yet Cavalcade was more celebrated then - and now - than "Secrets", even though Secrets is similar to Cavalcade in many ways. Secrets tells the story of a couple through 50 years from their secret courtship in New England and elopement, to their days building up a farm in California, through the husband's rise in politics and then their old age. It really is strongly structured into three acts, but that neither adds to nor subtracts from the film. I thought Mary Pickford still seemed young enough to play the youthful part at this point, and Leslie Howard gave a strong performance as her husband.Even though this film was well acted, ably directed by Frank Borzage, and had an interesting storyline, it failed at the box office. Perhaps it was just not what Depression era audiences wanted, or perhaps Pickford fans still couldn't get used to Mary in talking roles. At any rate, because Pickford financed her own films, this hit her hard financially. She had started making this film in 1930, stopped production, and then started over, finishing three years later. Thus, this was Mary Pickford's last film, although she remained active behind the scenes as a producer for many years.If you like films like "Cavalcade" or "Giant" that tell epic stories of families over time, you should like this one. It does show that Mary Pickford did very well understand how to take on a talking film role.

mukava991 SECRETS is one of director Frank Borzage's lesser-known romantic dramas. It's essentially a three-act play divided by artfully shot poetic montages, much more interesting than the usual succession of newspaper headlines used in cinema of the time (though this film too resorts to headlines near the end). We follow Mary Pickford and Leslie Howard from east- coast mansion to rough-and-tough cattle ranch and finally to west-coast mansion through 50 years of tender loving marriage. Pickford shines, especially in sequences without dialogue, as when she discovers that her baby has died as her house is under attack by cattle rustlers; she is at her most visually magnificent later in the film as the mature mother of grown children with hair swept high on her head giving her a regal aspect and framing her face in the most flattering way. Borzage seems to have been drawn to economy of shots. Much information is telegraphed by the perfect close up. ***POSSIBLE SPOILER***For instance, at one point Howard leaves the ranch house to pursue the cattle rustlers who have stolen his herd. The next shot shows the shadows of the legs of three hanged men. ***END OF POSSIBLE SPOILER*** Although the surface of the film is that of a sweeping saga, the core of it is the loyalty of the lovers, a type of story that Borzage directed often. Despite the beautiful cinematic touches, the result is not terribly gripping. There is a packaged, formalistic feel to it, probably because of the episodic structure that too often breaks our connection with the main characters.

MartinHafer I love Mary Pickford films and would list many of them among my very favorite silents. She was magnificent in gems such as DADDY LONG LEGS, SUDS, SPARROWS and MY BEST GIRL and is perhaps my favorite silent actress. However, I am NOT a "Kool-Aid drinker"--you know, a person that loves a star so much that I can't objectively review their films. This is the type person that gives every single one of the movies scores like 9 or 10! And, when I looked at the overall score for this (7.4) and some amazingly positive reviews, I knew I was in the land of Kool-Aid!The bottom line is that the talkies were not kind to Miss Pickford. Even though she received an Oscar for COQUETTE, she clearly didn't earn it for that performance. The Oscar was more an acknowledgment of her past film achievements. However, by 1933, it was obvious that America's Sweetheart was no longer a guaranteed box office draw and SECRETS fell flat in theaters. However, its failure wasn't due to Pickford this time as much as it was due to a terribly dull and episodic plot. Her acting here was actually better than COQUETTE, as at least she was believable and didn't put on a crazy accent--though she was rather old to play such a young girl. At 41, she played a woman who was probably about 16 at the beginning of the film--though she did a great job of making it all seem possible and this really didn't hurt the film.The movie seems very much like an Edna Ferber novel (such as CIMARRON)--a sweeping saga that is so grand and so bigger than life that the characters seem more like caricatures than real people. In particular, Leslie Howard comes off as rather wooden and tough to understand--especially since his personality in the film changes so wildly and unpredictably. In spite of this, Pickford stood by her man like Tammy Wynette and this hurts her character as well--making her seem like a sad door mat late in the film.The plot involves rich Easterners Pickford and Howard eloping and going West in the mid-nineteenth century. Pickford came from a rich family and gave up everything for her love. Once they arrive, life is hard but the film is engaging...for a while. The segment where they fight against cattle thieves and they lose their baby is reasonably well done and engaging--and none of the rest of the film is anything like it!! After this decent segment, the final half of the film is more like watching a highlights reel--with only very short snippets shown of various decades until the pair become old and decrepit. Amazingly, although this is dull and unsatisfying, the writers manage to make it worse by sticking in some pointless sexual peccadilloes that manage to make you wonder why you even care about the characters any more. The film would have been MUCH better had it stuck to a much briefer time span or if they'd filmed it as a series of two or three films. Shoving all this into 131 minutes was just impossible.The bottom line is that this film is a huge disappointment to fans and will do nothing to make those not in love with Pickford care a bit about her. Despite decent acting on her part, her character seems a bit desperate and stupid and her husband, Leslie Howard does an unconvincing job playing a human weasel! Don't bother with the film unless you are a die-hard fan or if you want to see Ned Sparks in one of his better supporting roles.

rvbunting-1 Yes, it's dated now, but it has moments that are riveting by any standard. Both Mary Pickford and Leslie Howard are very good, and give the film an authenticity that is rare indeed.Pickford goes from somewhat naive young Eastern girl to frontier housewife in convincing manner, endures the hardships, bolsters the reticent Howard, and raises her family that over the roughly 50 years, transitions to success.Her scenes in the cabin, under attack, are not to be missed. I think her experience in silents helped her in these, because even without dialogue, she conveyed panic, terror, resolution, grief, yet determination within seconds. Not many actors could have done it.One terrific part, is that all the costumes and armaments were original. None of the hats had the silly "cowboy roll" of later years, the gun-belts I hope made it to collections.