User Reviews

In this silent farce, Marie Prevost as Marie and Harrison Ford as Bob are newly weds honeymooning in Paris. After Bob's friend George visits, Marie and Bob start arguing about small matters and Marie leaves and visits her friend Hector (played by the wonderfully mildly prissy Franklin Pangborn) who owns a fashion house in Paris. To test Bob's affection for her and at Hector's encouragement, Marie decides to don a blonde wig and a fake beauty mark. When Bob and George visit the fashion house they both are immediately smitten by the blonde Marie. As Bob and George are loitering outside her door, Hector tells Marie via a title card "That pair of one cent stamps must be sticking around trying to play post office." Bob of course does not recognize the blonde as his wife and George tells Marie that Bob is "...just a human lemon hanging around for some one to give him a squeeze." I love the title cards in silent comedies. The boys ask Marie out and she invites both of them for dinner at her suite at the Ritiz (a suite adjoining Bob and hers). We're soon informed that "dinner is ready from soup to nuts - but the nuts hadn't arrived yet." Soon the nuts and Hector arrive and there is much scurrying about. Even as absurd as it is, I'm a fan of farce and this one is enjoyable. Particularly noteworthy is Franklin Pangborn, his comedic time and mannerisms add greatly to the fun of this film. Also interesting is the glimpse we get of the fashions and customs of the very wealthy. While awaiting for Marie to return, Bob dresses for lunch, then dresses for tea and then dresses for dinner. The wealthy had both a lot of clothes and a lot of time on their hands.

This is a bright little silent farce of newlyweds Marie Prevost and Harrison Ford -- no, not that Harrison Ford, but the one first one who had his name in a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Although many silent farces fail because of the lack of good lines and that slammed door whose noise makes you jump, this works very well. Ford and Prevost quarrel over her mother and his friend. She puts on a blonde wig which, of course, renders her totally unrecognizable -- a convention of farces to this day. After all, if Lois Lane can't tell that Clark Kent is Superman because he wears glasses, who can blame a man for not recognizing his wife in a wig?

Sharply-written titles and good silent acting raise this one above average. Look for Franklin Pangborn, playing his familiar 'nance' character in an early outing.

An inconsequential comedy that fails to overcome the silliness of its plot - insecure new wife dons disguise of blonde wig in order to test her husband's fidelity - and is shackled by its leading man's lack of personality. At least there's a young(ish) Franklin Pangborn on hand to raise a smile or two.

Like no few of its brethren of the era, there can be little dispute that this is rather direct in its narrative, scene writing, and direction, to the point of being ham-handed to one extent or another. By this point in the 1920s, as talkies slowly began to take over, films started very gradually to trend toward more modern notions of acting and film-making, accentuating greater nuance. This isn't necessarily one of them, and the principles derived from stage performance (not least vaudeville) of exaggerated body language and facial expression still mostly rule the day. This certainly isn't to say that 'A blonde for a night' - a classic story of disagreement between newlyweds, men tripping over themselves for a woman, and a woman outwitting her fellows - isn't worthwhile, only that viewers who have difficulty abiding older films (and specifically, those without sound) might not find anything here to change their mind. Then again, with these traits in mind, the forthrightness quite lends to the comedy, and when all is said and done I think this is a swell little picture that's still a delight, and well deserving of remembrance.

It would seem that the writing and even the direction in this instance was the result of a meeting of many minds, but such far-flung foundations don't at all come across in the finished product. There are definitely familiar strains in the plot that we've seen again and again over the years, yet they are penned with cleverness and cheeky mirth that paints over any commonness. Why, though it never achieves the same heights of zaniness or brilliance, at its best one may discern a flair for the ridiculous that calls to mind the most well-beloved comedies of Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, or Harold Lloyd. This is thanks in part just to sharp wit in the scene writing and intertitles that amplifies every moment and story beat into a miniature tornado, yet it's also a terrific credit to the small cast that so joyously embraces the minor madcap energy of the proceedings. By all means this goes for top-billed stars Marie Prevost and Harrison Ford (not that one, the other one), but those in smaller supporting roles - Franklin Pangborn, T. Roy Barnes, Lucien Littlefield - are just as delightful in building the narrative and the humor. My commendations to them all, for it's fun simply to watch them at work.

Kudos as well to the crew operating behind the scenes, for the fundamental craftsmanship of 'A blonde for a night' is a real treat. The sets and costume design are utterly fantastic, stopping shy of the grandeur we saw in more epic dramas and adventures of the day but by the same token, surely more ornate than what many similar titles could claim. Such details absolutely enrich the viewing experience, and in this case are part and parcel to the course of events that in no small degree is about appearance and characters' perceptions. And I dare say joint directors E. Mason Hopper and F. McGrew Willis should also be recognized for firm command of the production - bringing out all the best exuberance of the cast, yet maintaining a tight grip on the reins of each scene so that no silly detail is skipped over. Why, especially given the limited setting, one might easily imagine how this feature could be adapted as a stage play, which perhaps only emphasizes the kinship it shares with the theater.

For whatever issues one may find with the silent era, by which I mean those factors that limit the audience so many decades later, the fact remains that a preponderance of the early heritage of cinema meets or exceeds the quality we've come to expect from the medium in all the years thereafter. Some of the best movies ever made have no need of verbal dialogue or otherwise sound, and even failing that, the culture must be preserved. 'A blonde for a night' might not be a quintessential must-see, but it nonetheless boasts a fierce intelligence and vitality in its lighthearted romp of a tale that helps it to stand out in the upper middle among its peers. I know I've definitely seen too many pictures far more recent than this one that were humdrum snore-fests; the fact that it continues to be so enjoyable nearly 100 years on speaks so well to the skill of all involved. One may be doesn't need to go out of their way to see this, but if you like silent comedies, this is very much worth checking out if you have the opportunity!