Margaret Sullavan is remembered for the work she did later at MGM, especially the romantic films she made with James Stewart. But she began her Hollywood career under contract at Universal. In the mid-1930s she appeared in several noteworthy pictures for Universal that merit attention.
One gem is LITTLE MAN WHAT NOW? (1934) which pairs her with two very different men-- Douglass Montgomery and Alan Hale (Sr.). Talk about a contrast! The story focuses on a young couple struggling to survive, and it is a remake of a German melodrama from a year earlier which itself was based on a popular novel.
Universal executive Carl Laemmle would act as if he had conceived the idea for this production, when in reality he was just borrowing the template of what had been a hit in Germany. Laemmle and his team who endeavored to adapt the material don't seem to Americanize it very much. But that doesn't matter.
What does matter-- the stars at the center of the drama. Douglass Montgomery, who had played the object of Katharine Hepburn's affections in RKO's LITTLE WOMEN (1933), is an actor who's always drawn me in with his performances. How come nobody ever cast him to play Romeo? I think it's his unique combination of masculinity and femininity that he projects on camera. There is a soft quality in him that works when he has to play a vulnerable guy on the brink of failure.
Alan Hale is the total opposite. Older and a "man's man" all the way, he brings experience and assuredness to his part. He portrays a paternal benefactor who would like to cross the line with young bride Sullavan. But things remain platonic between them. Hale's character doesn't have a huge amount of screen time. He usually appears when there is a turning point in the narrative, trying to help solve some of the couple's problems which sometimes creates new problems. Adding a layer of complexity is Hale's open relationship with Montgomery's mother (the much underrated Catherine Doucet). She is basically running a brothel.
As for Sullavan herself, she brings every bit of noble suffering and triumph that she can possibly muster to the screen. We know things will eventually improve as long as she remains by her husband's side. This includes periods when he is unemployed and they are barely scraping by. After she becomes pregnant, their situation is even more delicate.
Watching the film I kept wondering what the title meant-- but that all becomes clear in the last few shots. The little man is not the underachieving husband in a world of business giants. It is their newborn son who has a world of opportunity and life decisions ahead of him.
One gem is LITTLE MAN WHAT NOW? (1934) which pairs her with two very different men-- Douglass Montgomery and Alan Hale (Sr.). Talk about a contrast! The story focuses on a young couple struggling to survive, and it is a remake of a German melodrama from a year earlier which itself was based on a popular novel.
Universal executive Carl Laemmle would act as if he had conceived the idea for this production, when in reality he was just borrowing the template of what had been a hit in Germany. Laemmle and his team who endeavored to adapt the material don't seem to Americanize it very much. But that doesn't matter.
What does matter-- the stars at the center of the drama. Douglass Montgomery, who had played the object of Katharine Hepburn's affections in RKO's LITTLE WOMEN (1933), is an actor who's always drawn me in with his performances. How come nobody ever cast him to play Romeo? I think it's his unique combination of masculinity and femininity that he projects on camera. There is a soft quality in him that works when he has to play a vulnerable guy on the brink of failure.
Alan Hale is the total opposite. Older and a "man's man" all the way, he brings experience and assuredness to his part. He portrays a paternal benefactor who would like to cross the line with young bride Sullavan. But things remain platonic between them. Hale's character doesn't have a huge amount of screen time. He usually appears when there is a turning point in the narrative, trying to help solve some of the couple's problems which sometimes creates new problems. Adding a layer of complexity is Hale's open relationship with Montgomery's mother (the much underrated Catherine Doucet). She is basically running a brothel.
As for Sullavan herself, she brings every bit of noble suffering and triumph that she can possibly muster to the screen. We know things will eventually improve as long as she remains by her husband's side. This includes periods when he is unemployed and they are barely scraping by. After she becomes pregnant, their situation is even more delicate.
Watching the film I kept wondering what the title meant-- but that all becomes clear in the last few shots. The little man is not the underachieving husband in a world of business giants. It is their newborn son who has a world of opportunity and life decisions ahead of him.