Coquette (1929)

5/10

mukava99119 April 2008

The chief flaw of Coquette is the generally poor quality of the sound which sometimes fades entirely, making it difficult to follow the plot which is propelled mostly by spoken exposition as opposed to purely cinematic techniques. The play on which it is based was a hit for Helen Hayes on Broadway but was sanitized and oversimplified for the screen (not at all unusual in those days). Dialogue and acting are florid and broad but nevertheless the story does manage to hold the attention. A doctor's daughter (Mary Pickford) outrages her tradition- bound father (John St. Polis) by falling in love with an uncultivated fellow from "the hills" (John Mack Brown). A fatal shooting results, but I won't give away the exact circumstances here.

Although she was in her mid-30's at the time of filming, Pickford is convincing, if somewhat mannered, as the maiden with one foot still in girlhood, displaying wide emotional range and a masterful command of her body, no surprise considering the physicality of her long silent film career. Her diminutive stature also works in her favor. When she sits in the maid's lap for consolation she really does look like the little girl she had played for so many years. Sadly, she is made to spend a great deal of time sobbing hysterically. (Vivien Leigh had to deal with the same requirement in Gone with the Wind ten years later.) Although not much of an actor, John Mack Brown has a kind of animal appeal, with a relatively deep, strong voice which registers clearly; one can understand why he became a popular player in talking films. Here, he seems to seesaw between menace and tenderness and you just have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise you cannot believe Pickford's feelings towards him. St. Polis has a stately presence and a sonorous, trained voice and seems the most comfortable of the supporting players in his role. The character of the black maid played by Louise Beavers departs from the norm; she moves torpidly and even talks back to the master's teenage son when he tries to rush her through her chores.

There is a lively scene at a country club featuring a jazz band and young revelers stomping to the hotsy-totsy musical numbers with wild abandon, suggesting that the later jitterbug and sixties dances did not come out of nowhere. The courtroom climax is hard to swallow did judges in the South or anywhere else ever allow witnesses to sit in the laps of defendants for long personal dialogues while on the stand?

7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

"Jiminy"

Steffi_P31 December 2011

The earliest sound movies quickly became known as "talkies", as oppose to "soundies" as one might expect them to be called. It makes sense though, because these pictures tended to have a lot more talking in them than did the sound films of a few years later. The reason is most of them were culled from stage plays (where speech largely takes the place of action) because this was seen as the most appropriate material for the new technology. And back then, theatre was not the prestigious medium it is today. Just as there have been B-movies and dime novels, so too were there plenty of cheap and cheerful stage plays ripe for adaptation to the screen.

Coquette comes from a play by the rarely-remembered theatre legend George Abbott along with Ann Preston Bridgers, and is essentially a melodrama-by-numbers. All the familiar hackneyed elements are here – a flirtatious young woman, a disapproving father, a gun going off and so on. It is all a rather silly affair, putting some rather large strains on credibility in its final act. And in its translation to the screen it has retained the structure of a theatrical play. On the stage you can't cut back-and-forth from one place to another, so big chunks of plot will take place consecutively, often in the same room. And this looks odd in a movie.

Coquette is probably best remembered now as the movie for which (mostly) silent star Mary Pickford won her only Oscar for acting. The deservedness of this award has since been called into question. Her performance is an abundance of mannerisms, but while certainly overt it never quite goes over-the-top, which is a fair feat given the plot requires her to go through every conceivable emotional state. She is actually at her best when saying nothing, such as the odd little expression that crosses her face at the end of the court scene. The best turn however belongs to John St. Polis, who gives a nice solid performance. Theatrical, but solid. By contrast though, the unbearable woodenness of John Mack Brown is like an acting black hole, threatening to drag what little credibility the movie has left into oblivion, and would have succeeded if someone hadn't had the good sense to pop a cap in his ass halfway through. Ironically Brown was to have the most lucrative post-Coquette career of all the cast, albeit largely in B-Westerns.

The director may seem like a strange choice. Sam Taylor was first a gag man and then a director at Hal Roach's comedy studios, but lately he had got into drama. Staging in depth was always one of his fortes, and he makes some neat little compositions which really give definition to the limited number of sets. For example when Brown first comes on the scene, he has him in the background with Pickford on screen right and Matt Moore a little closer to the screen on the left, creating a zigzag pattern. He also makes some attempt to bring a bit of cinematic dynamism to what is essentially a filmed play, making sharp changes of angle at key moments such as St. Polis's walking in on Pickford and Brown, but by-and-large the fact that nearly everything takes place in one room – or rather a frontless set – is inescapable.

Perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on Coquette, as its flaws are really only the flaws of its era. And in all honesty, if you try not to take it too seriously it can be enjoyed on a certain level, especially since it runs for a mere 75 minutes. But then again, there were also plenty of pictures from this early talkie era – yes, even as early as 1929 – that managed to rise above their circumstances. And after a look at how much talent and imagination there really was in Hollywood at the time, it's not difficult to see how Coquette could have been so much more.

6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

COQUETTE (Sam Taylor, 1929) **1/2

Bunuel19764 February 2014

The first few Oscar ceremonies were, perhaps inevitably, characterized by films whose appeal has faded with the passage of time; this one – which gave "America's Sweetheart", Mary Pickford, her Best Actress nod – is certainly among the biggest culprits in this regard! Indeed, the film has virtually no reputation outside of this fact – and it is not even favourably discussed among its leading lady's most representative work! Incidentally, this marks my introduction proper to this most beloved of Silent stars – having previously only watched her in a couple of D.W. Griffith one-reelers from the early 1910s and her uncredited cameos in two of even more iconic husband Douglas Fairbanks's vehicles; for the record, I do own SPARROWS (1926; her best-known effort), THE TAMING OF THE SHREW (1929; the only official pairing of the famed Hollywood couple) and SECRETS (1933; Pickford's swan-song).

Back to COQUETTE: the plot is redolent of the hoariest stage melodramas – and the treatment is accordingly antediluvian. A flirtatious girl turns the heads of many local boys, but herself has her heart set on ne'er-do-well John Mack Brown (another popular name back then, but subsequently forgotten); however, their romance finds strong opposition from her doctor father – because the old man deems him below her station. Though Brown accepts to undergo a period of separation in which to prove his self-sufficiency and commitment, he turns up at a party three months in advance and even persuades Pickford to spend the night with him at a remote cabin. The next morning all hell breaks loose, as he presents himself before her father intent to ask for her hand, but the gruff patriarch will have none of it, goes after Brown with a gun and fatally shoots him! The lawyer father of one of the heroine's rejected beaux pleads with Pickford to save her dad from the gallows by making a "beast" of Brown; she refuses at first but relents when taking the stand at the subsequent trial. The doctor, understanding the nature of his daughter's sacrifice and mortified of his own actions, then takes the matter in hand and shoots himself on the spot with the very same gun that instigated the tragedy.

Despite having such luminaries as cinematographer Karl Struss and art director William Cameron Menzies among the credits, as I said, there is nothing remarkable about the film's style: actually, the whole Southern atmosphere drowns the interest all the more with the embarrassing repetition of such corny phrases as "honey precious" (the way in which Pickford addresses her father!), her pet phrase "adowable {sic}" and that of her younger brother, "jiminy"! With respect to the actress' personal contribution, I concede that the last act gives her ample opportunity to display a fair level of histrionics – but, having just watched fellow nominee Corinne Griffith in THE DIVINE LADY, I feel that the latter (mostly silent) performance, survives much better at this juncturethough I have yet to check out Ruth Chatterton in MADAME X, Jeanne Eagels in THE LETTER and Norma Shearer in THEIR OWN DESIRE (while the Betty Compson nod in THE BARKER, regrettably, seems lost to the ages)!

6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mediocre & Rather Unfortunate

Snow Leopard1 September 2004

It's rather unfortunate that this is the only film for which many current movie fans remember Mary Pickford, because of the neglect of silent films and because of the undue weight given to well-known but arbitrary motion picture awards. While she is often unfairly blamed for the mediocre quality of "Coquette", the fault really lies elsewhere. Without a thorough adaptation of the material to make it more suitable for the screen, hardly anyone could have performed well enough to make this much better.

The story did hold possibilities, but it's the kind of familiar, rather routine melodrama that needs interesting characters, unusual situations, or snappy dialogue to make it work. There is none of that here - only a talky and generally predictable script, which would work better as a stage play or even a radio play. Neither Pickford nor Johnny Mack Brown has much of a chance to give it life. They do their best, and they simply perform their roles as they were written. Nor is it one of the worst movies ever - it does contain some stretches of genuinely good acting, and the story is at least a little better than the warmed-over scenarios of so many recent movies.

Pickford deserves to be remembered for her many fine performances during the silent era. She could also have made top quality talking films if she had been given the chance, but she was never given roles that allowed her to use her greatest strengths. Further, in the early sound era, producers and directors were overly interested in dialogue-heavy pictures like this, which seemed impressive at the time only because talking pictures were still a novelty. Audiences of the day enjoyed them, but now they look as dated and dull as today's over-praised computer-imagery extravaganzas will look in fifty years or so. None of that is the fault of the actors and actresses of the era.

39 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

4/10

Coquette review

JoeytheBrit30 June 2020

Mary Pickford's first talkie also sees her shorn of the long golden tresses that made her such a recognisable star of the silent era. She's a flirtatious Southern Belle from a respectable family who's seeing a boy from the wrong side of the tracks (Johnny Mack Brown), much to the chagrin of her traditionally-minded father (John St. Polis). Although Pickford won an Oscar for her performance, the film is something of a plod, with all concerned apparently struggling to come to terms with the new technology of sound.

5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Much maligned film is actually quite charming.

David-24013 December 1999

Mary Pickford won the Best Actress Oscar for her performance in this film - and this fact has dominated the way people have treated it over the years. Yes, perhaps her award had more to do with her power than her performance - but the performance is actually pretty good. At times she rises to great emotional heights - the death scene is quite extraordinary and the court-room sequence powerful. Of course she's too old for the role - but she was too old for nearly every part she ever played, and just a few years later Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer played Romeo and Juliet to great acclaim - so such age issues were probably not issues in 1929.

It is true that she talks a little like an adult Shirley Temple (did Shirley model herself on Mary - they certainly played many of the same roles?)- but her silent acting is excellent - her looks can really kill.

The supporting cast is not very good, except for the wonderful Louise Beavers, - but Johnny Mack Brown is devastatingly handsome as Mary's love interest. The script betrays its stage origins, and the film suffers the same problems most early talkies suffer - inadequate use of music, poorly synchronised sound effects, completely absent sound effects (eg doors opening and closing silently), and limited movement of both actors and camera.

But all things considered this is a worthwhile little film - certainly not great but not as bad as myth would have it. And the ending is really gorgeous. Watching the great silent stars struggling in early talkies, I always feel that they were learning a new craft, just as the cameramen, directors and writers were. Sadly the audiences were less forgiving of their beloved stars than they were of those unseen behind the camera, and rejected them before they had a chance to develop a new acting technique. I can't help thinking that, if they had been given the chance, many of these actors would have been great talkie actors. The technicians were allowed to develop but, by the time they were skilled enough to make the actors look and sound good, most of the old stars had gone. The supreme example of a silent star who was allowed to develop is, of course, Garbo - and, to a lesser extent, Ramon Novarro (but he could sing - which helped). Is it possible that, given the same opportunities as Garbo, we may have seen Fairbanks, Pickford, Talmadge, Swanson, Bow, Brooks, Gish, Gilbert, Colleen Moore, Leatrice Joy etc for many more years than we were allowed? But within ten years of this film being made Gilbert and Fairbanks were dead, Gish was carving out a new career on the stage, Pickford, Swanson, Bow, Talmadge, Brooks and Moore had retired, Joy was doing the occasional character role and even Ramon Novarro was out of work. What a waste!

30 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

3/10

I was so disappointed!

Patrick-9613 March 2001

I've seen many of Mary Pickford's silent films. The picture she made right before this was `My Best Girl,' (her last silent film) which Mary co-starred with her future husband, Buddy Rogers. It was wonderful! The film still held its charm and it was a delight to see and experience. I expected this much from `Coquette,' especially when you consider that Mary won the best actress Oscar for it.

I was so disappointed! Mary seemed to have lost all her ability as an actress when she made this turkey. She mugs at the camera, poses, and does everything she can to be stilted. It's embarrassing!

I know at one time Mary wanted to destroy all her movies because she didn't think the public would appreciate them anymore. She was talked out of it, thank heavens. But I do sort of regret that this one didn't make it into the fire!

17 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

A museum piece

Jamie-5816 May 1999

Taken strictly as entertainment, "Coquette" has conspicuously little going for it. By any standard it is a stodgy, dull and uncommonly boring film. As a museum piece it has rather more going for it. If nothing else it shows what even superstars of the Pickford calibre had to put up with in the earliest days of sound. Clearly everyone concerned was treating the new medium somewhat gingerly, and Pickford cannot be blamed for playing it safe. She chose a property that had already proved itself on the stage (with Helen Hayes in the lead)and provided her with a fine opportunity to emote like mad and chew up scenery.

And that proves its undoing. With a dated stage technique to draw upon, Pickford's declamatory style comes over as something from the stone age. But it unquestionably would have been more impressive to 1929 audiences, who were themselves grappling with the new technology. The film itself was a big hit, and received its share of critical praise.

The plot is ludicrous, and does come over as a filmed stage play. Pickford is much too old for her role, and most of the other characters are either caricatures or one dimensional. (I particularly like one scene where the action is interrupted by two Charleston champions who stop by to demonstrate their latest steps, oblivious to Pickford's hair tearing histrionics.) And when Pickford rushes through the town to be near her dying beloved the laughter is hard to avoid.

For all its obvious deficiencies, "Coquette" has a certain historic importance, and it gives an insight into what passed for drama (or soap opera) in 1929. Did Pickford deserve her Oscar? Probably. It's hard to tell; this sort of grand gesturing was already on the wane, but it still passed for great acting at the time. "Coquette" does not add to Mary Pickford's mystique, but it doesn't detract from it either. If it's not exactly entertainment, it's still of interest.

16 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

3/10

While historically important, also a terrible film when seen in the 21st century

planktonrules16 February 2007

Warning: Spoilers

I actually had a previous review for this film that I just deleted and am replacing it with this new and updated one. That's because I first tried watching COQUETTE on videotape from MGM but the sound was so horrendously bad that it was practically unwatchable. It was just re-shown on Turner Classic Movies and while the sound improved slightly, it was still an awful chore watching and understanding the film--particularly since they never bothered to Close Caption the movie. The big problem was that the movie came out in 1929 and sound systems for films were brand new and often were inadequate. In this film, the sound varies according to who is speaking--some of the actors come across loud and clear and others (such as Miss Pickford and the man who played her brother) were a major chore to understand. You can't blame the actors for this, but it seriously hampered my enjoyment of the film.

Now as for the film itself, I am shocked to see that this film has a huge number of scores of 10 on IMDb. Maybe this is because it was such an important film historically speaking. It was Mary Pickford's first sound film and she did win the Best Actress Oscar for it. Sadly, by today's standards, she was not particularly good to put it mildly. I also wonder if maybe giving her the Oscar was a way to pay tribute to her vast collection of earlier works. While I do love Mary in SUDS, SPARROWS, DADDY LONG LEGS, MY BEST GIRL (probably her best film) and so many other silent films, she just didn't seem to deserve an award for her overly melodramatic performance here. Overall, her emotional range was HUGE--too huge to be believable. Also, at 37 years old, she simply was too old to be believably playing a young and flirtatious woman.

In fact, overall this was a not particularly good film and seems horribly old fashioned and silly. So often, lines were delivered as if this were an old-time morality play being performed in front of a lot of hicks who loved and expected over-acting. Much of the film seemed stagy and the film went on way too long. Also, there were many story elements that seemed so contrived and stupid. The worst of these was at the end of the film when Pickford's father grabbed the gun which had been submitted into evidence for this courtroom scene. Inexplicably, it was STILL loaded and they left it right where this accused murderer sat!! How ridiculous can you get?!?! Please, do yourself a favor and try some other old-time films first. I am a huge fan of both sound and silent films from Hollywood's Golden Age and there are too many deserving films you should see well before viewing COQUETTE. In fact, any of Pickford's silents would be preferable to this wretched film.

13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Mary Pickford was a great actress

waelkatkhuda14 December 2012

before you watch this film you must know it is not a grate movie such as GWTW (gone with the wind ) cause it was released in 1929, which mean it was The first talkie film for Mary Pickford so the sound isn't that much but it isn't that bad. It was a lovely thing to watch a film in 1929 to know how much they were brave to start a new line , Miss Pickford was The first Major actress to speak in a movie she was a very brave lady and the only reason I put 7 out of 10 is because of her acting, her voice was very good at that time (which is because she acted in the theater at the beginning of her career), although her acting was such like an acting on the stage, but she has her moments especially at her final scene she brought it to the screen perfectly

11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

4/10

Oscar's Worst Best Actress?

evanston_dad30 November 2018

"Coquette" has the reputation for featuring one of the worst performances to win Best Actress in Oscar history. So maybe it was because I was expecting the worst that I didn't find Mary Pickford's performance to be THAT bad. It's certainly no worse than any other performance in the film, which are all bad. This was 1929, the year that proved that few in the movie business had a clue what to do with sound, and "Coquette" recreates the experience of watching a badly-directed high school play.

The story is some Southern claptrap about a ditzy rich girl who wants to marry someone below her and the father who won't let her. There's a murder, and the daughter has to testify at her father's trial, all before he blows his brains out in front of the audience with the gun submitted as evidence (that they leave it loaded during the trial is only one, and not even the most, ridiculous things about this movie). I know times were very different and films need to be watched in context, but it's difficult to watch a film like "Coquette" now in the middle of racially charged America and give a hooey about all of these rich white people and their problems while a black maid slinks around in the background having to comfort this dimwit daughter and keep a straight face while doing so.

Grade: D

8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

America's Sweetheart Speaks!

rudy-4627 December 1999

As with most early talkies, some of the performances will appear insecure and the dialogue may seem either flat or overracted. For many actors the transition to sound was not an easy one. The early recording devices of the late twenties were not refined until many years later. So to modern audiences much of this will seem crude amidst this age of digital technology. This film is certainly not one of Mary Pickford's best work. I think its true to say her silent era was her golden age.

Upon viewing this film it becomes evident of the transition period in the film industry. The actors are speaking but there is the hint of gestural expressions that became common in the silent era. Its by no means a cinematic work of art, but there are some redeeming qualities. I happen to have got a tape taken from a good print so as to observe that some of the photography and lighting was somewhat decent but not too brilliant. Some of the acting takes a back seat but it is Miss Pickford's presence that saves what would be a forgettable film. This was a whole new concept. Mary Pickford speaks for the first time and her personna was altered by her trendy apparell and short, shingled hairstyle. In my opinion she was worthy of the Academy Award. Not only was she one of greatest actresses of the century but she was very instrumental in the deveopment of the film industry. But still her talkies don't compare to her silent films. It is these more than anything that secures her status of the icon she truly was, "America's Sweetheart".

17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Don't dismiss Coquette; plenty of others seemed to copy it

mlevans27 August 2005

In watching Croquette for the first time, I had a handful of things to overcome. One was finally hearing Mary Pickford's voice only to hear it as a lilting southern drawl. Of course the inherent sound and static staging problems of a very early "talkie" was another. The third was that the plot and performance seemed quite clichéd. At least it did until it dawned on me that this was only because OTHERS came along LATER and followed (intentionally or not) Croquette's lead.

Overall, I found Croquette a solid film and Pickford's performance quite good, although it took me a while to accept the accent. I also had to remind myself that although Bette Davis (Jezebel, 1938), Vivien Leigh (GWTW, 1939) and half a dozen others portrayed scheming southern belles in a very, very similar manner, it was Pickford's performance that set the tone for all future southern potboilers.

Did Pickford deserve her Oscar? Well, Davis and Leigh won them for drawling their way into and out of romantic jams in similar vehicles (albeit Leigh in a much more elaborate one). I would put Pickford's performance at least on par with Davis' and probably on par with Leigh's, if one takes the newness of the sound medium into account.

The only real weakness I found was William Janney's hammy portrayal of Pickford's little brother. It was Janney's first film role, at age 21, and not a particularly auspicious debut. The rest of the cast was solid enough, including a very young Johnny Mack Brown, who had not yet found his cowboy persona. True, Matt Moore was a bit flimsy as Stanley, but his underplaying fit the wimpy role.

Pickford was clearly the driving force and she drove well. I have no doubt she could have been a serious sound actress, had her public been able to accept her in adult (and, inevitably, as time went on, middle-aged) roles. The lady could act.

The film is at least a 6 by today's standards and probably an 8 when all of the conditions under which it was filmed are taken into account. I'll split the difference and call it a "7." While I will probably continue to envision Mary Pickford as the pre-teen or early-teen ragamuffin of silent film days, I am very glad to have a copy of her best "talkie." Don't dismiss her Oscar, either. Plenty of others during the next 20 years seemed to think her performance was worth emulating!

24 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

3/10

Pickford's worst performance!

JohnHowardReid19 October 2017

Warning: Spoilers

Director: SAM TAYLOR. Adapted by John Grey and Allen McNeil from the 1928 stage play by George Abbott and Ann Preston Bridgers as produced on Broadway by Jed Harris. Dialogue: Sam Taylor. Photography: Karl Struss. Song, "Coquette", by Irving Berlin. Other songs: "L'il Liza Jane" by Ada De Lachau; "My Old Kentucky Home", "Swanee River" by Stephen Foster. Film editor: Barbara McLean. Art director: William Cameron Menzies. Production manager: Walter Mayo. Dialogue director: Earle Browne. Assistant director: Lucky Humberstone. Producer: Mary Pickford.

Copyright 30 March 1929 by the Pickford Corp. Released through United Artists. New York opening at the Rivoli, 5 April 1929. U.S. release: 12 April 1929. 9 reels. 6,993 feet. 77½ minutes.

SYNOPSIS: Southern belle falls for a man hated by her father.

NOTES: Academy Awards, Best Actress, Mary Pickford (defeating Ruth Chatterton in Madame X, Betty Compson in The Barker, Jeanne Eagels in The Letter and Bessie Love in The Broadway Melody).

The stage play opened on Broadway at Maxine Elliott's on 8 November 1927 and ran a smash 366 performances. Helen Hayes established her reputation as one of the nation's strongest dramatic actresses in the title role. Also cast: Eliot Cabot, Charles Waldron and Una Merkel. The director was George Abbott.

I waited sixty years to view this film and it turns out to be absolutely dreadful. It is impossible to believe that any Academy voters in their right senses would prefer this hammy, posturing Pickford to the likes of Jeanne Eagels, Ruth Chatterton, Betty Compson and especially Bessie Love.

Pickford's exaggeratedly stilted, scenery-chewing performance here seems a long way from the fresh-faced, engaging highlights of her silent career. True, this was her first sound film, but the director should have restrained her incessant, over-the-top mannerisms. The rest of the players seem equally ill-at-ease with sound, though none approach the amateurish depths to which Miss Pickford constantly sinks. Her "acting" is so embarrassingly bad, we shudder every time she comes on stage — I mean on-screen!

8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Watch it as history....

mesocricetus_squatus5 January 2004

More than the silents that preceded it, this is a rare glimpse into a world that is almost impossible for our generation to imagine. The acting style seems bizarre by modern standards. The characters walk as if they were trying to dance, and they speak as if they would rather sing their lines. Okay, sound equipment may have been awful then - "talkies" were brand new in 1929 - but that fact does nothing to make it less pretentious when the characters stretch their mouths to yawn proportions to utter dated lines like, "darling, I love you more than life itself."

Then there's the plot, another feature of this film that is as quaint as the acting and the dialogue. "Norma," played legendary silent screen actress Mary Pickford at the end of her prolific career, becomes "compromised" by a night with a boyfriend, Michael. Michael vows to marry her but instead finds himself in an angry confrontation with Norma's father, the doctor.

Father takes a gun to avenge his violated daughter - who is played, remember, by a 37-year-old woman. And poor Norma, finding her lover on his deathbed, pours forth a mind-numbing, melodramatic declaration of her love that had to have been way over the top even in those days.

But the most amazing part is the end, where the doctor is on trial for murder. Norma takes the stand to accuse her lover of rape and thus save her father, which she does admirably and with all the flourishes and eye-batting appropriate for the era. Suddenly, the father's conscience is stirred and he rushes to the feet of his daughter - this in a court of law - and pleads with her to let him take the blame with honor. The doctor eyes the murder weapon, a revolver sitting on a table before the judge, and then stands before the court and demands that he pay his debt to the state. Imagine that!

Father then rushes to the arms of daughter and begs her to "hug daddy" as she used to. What follows was surely, even to audiences of the day, an excessively-long, gruesomely-sentimental embrace. To a modern viewer seeing it in the contemporary context, it would clearly suggest incest, though this was certainly not the meaning of the scene. That done, father grabs gun and commits suicide in the courtroom. To the film's credit, the event is conveyed well by the sound of a single gunshot - no blood.

Pickford may have been the darling of silent film, and she was undeniably a remarkable actress in that setting. But her talkie debut is flawed in every conceivable way, from the bogus southern accents of her and others' characters to the comical arm gestures she makes to emphasize her schmaltzy love-talk with Michael.

You have to cut this film some slack not only for the year it was made, but also because sound movies were then in their infancy. Still, the story line and script are painfully exaggerated and the acting horribly stilted.

But is it worth watching? I say yes. It's important cinema history. And it's fun.

17 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

2/10

Honorary Oscar for a overrared actress

maguire210 February 2021

This movie would be totally forgotten in the history if Mary Pickforn didnt win an Oscar for it. She is by far the worst oscar winner in this category ever. What makes it even worse Jeanne Eagels was nominated the same year for her amazing work in The Letter, however she had no chcences against the fame of MP. Shame

6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Not particularly flattering for Pickford or the South

AlsExGal12 November 2009

Warning: Spoilers

This film won Mary Pickford the second Oscar for Best Actress ever awarded, and was one of the more controversial decisions ever made by the Academy for that particular award. When Pickford made this film, she was already 36 but was playing a girl who was approximately 20. However, her tiny size and petite features prevented her from looking ridiculous. Pickford plays Norma Besant, daughter of Dr. John Besant, a southern belle of the flapper era known as a "coquette" - in modern terms, a flirt. Her lack of affection for her numerous suitors does not prevent her from accepting their gifts and leading them on, but her heart truly only belongs to Michael Jeffery, a "man from the hills". This is a polite term for what southern rural society in those days would call white trash. The two want to get married, but Dr. Besant, being a noble southern doctor of that era, holds dear several nonnegotiable rules of behavior - defending one's honor seems to require lots of gun play, never allow blacks in the house unless they're serving you dinner or cleaning your house, and poor white people - such as Norma's suitor - should be neither seen nor heard. Thus when the young man performs the bold act of coming to his house to ask for his daughter's hand in marriage and mentions that they have been alone together the night before - though they were only talking about their future plans - Norma's father follows after Mike and shoots him down in cold blood.

What follows is Pickford's best scene. When she hears Mike has been mortally wounded by her father, she rushes to his bedside just in time to see him die. In shock, she keeps trying to tend to him, at first refusing to believe he is dead. Her brother, one of her suitors, and an old family friend convince her Mike is gone. Now, they say, she must concentrate on saving her father from the gallows. They tell her she must lie and say Mike forced himself on her and that her father was doing the noble thing. I guess lying was considered OK in the code of the old south if the victim is "just a man from the hills". Norma understandably refuses, saying that if her father hangs it is what he deserves.

Months pass, and the trial is in progress. Norma has forgiven her father, and here, unlike Mike's deathbed, her attitude is just bizarre. She acts as though her father has done little more than take away her cell phone privileges - to put it in modern terms - rather than kill the only man she ever loved. She is now ready to go on the witness stand and lie about Mike's character - which by everyone else's account was noble and hard working - in order to free her extremely guilty father. However, it does indeed tear up Norma's conscience to say untrue things about her deceased beau, and she breaks down on the stand. At that moment, her father has a moment of clarity, goes to her, and tells her he was wrong to do what he did, and the two reconcile. He then grabs the gun that is lying as evidence on a nearby table and shoots himself, declaring that he owes his life to the state for his actions. You have to admire her dad, he is so even handed. He has no trouble taking the law into his own hands whether it is his life or someone else's life on the line.

Pickford's performance viewed today appears merely mediocre compared those of other early talkie actresses. You have to remember though, seeing America's Sweetheart talk for the first time was for the audiences of 1929 like seeing and hearing that T-Rex in Jurassic Park in 1993 - it's easy to confuse a technological milestone with a great performance, at least until the novelty wears off. What was interesting for me was to see the "code of the South" in its death throes. The attitudes of the upper class toward even the hard-working members of the poorer classes in the south were about to collapse when the Great Depression made poor people out of so many of the so-called nobility and put them all in the same crowded, uncomfortable boat.

9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

3/10

Like a fly in amber, one may study why a bad film is so bad.

max von meyerling17 February 2007

Warning: Spoilers

Many, many years ago, in a universe far, far away, film criticism was bound on one side by studio style, and on the other by cycle, or what we would call today, 'genre'. History was rendered chronologically, year by year. Early talkies like COQUETTE (1929) were dismissed as stagy because of the primitive sound equipment available during the transition to sound. The dynamic photography and fluid narrative of late silent cinema was sacrificed. SINGING IN THE RAIN satirizes this period which was also known for the fall of gigantic movie stars who couldn't, for one reason or another, make the transition to sound. Some later research mentioned that a lot of writers headed to Hollywood, initially playwrights and later journalists. But first came the plays, avidly bought up by the moguls as sure fire hits because now people living in any town large enough to have a movie theater (virtually everywhere) could see a Broadway play with real stars. This was a founding cornerstone of the film business- Adolf Zukor's company had been called Famous Players Film Company whose slogan was "Famous Players in Famous Plays". The idea of sound naturally lent itself to the hit plays of the era.

Today, with film archives, cable TV, video tapes and DVD's not to mention restoration projects, what was one taken on faith can now be examined by scholars and all.

What has never been mentioned in connection to the poor quality and subsequent unpopularity of these films was the mediocre to awful Broadway plays of the era. Even before Broadway became the realm of vulgar and witless tourists, New Yorkers supported real junk. Viz: COQUETTE. As presented on the American stage starring the First Lady of the American Stage, Mrs. Helen Mellon herself, COQUETTE has one idea which is played out with a singular relentlessness to the exclusion of any sub plot, social consciousness, moral or ethical controversy, nuance, humor or reflection. Its a heliocentric world and the leading actress is the sun. Everyone else navigating the stage exists to serve the queen bee. Its left to her to strike this pose and that, as the audience would want to respond to each change in the facts of her emotional environment are manipulated.

Of course this is all play acting. Nothing is meant to resemble actual human behavior. In one short stretch, COQUETTE's father murder's her fiancée who dies pitifully in her arms and her father blows his brains out with a pistol in front of her after eliciting condemning court testimony. She seems none the worse for wear, maybe a touch wistful (its in the stage directions?). A real person my become a mite nervous but I guess in those days when a relative went 'funny' they were just quietly placed somewhere out of sight.

This wasn't real life, this was a night out. Sure there was Ibsen and O'Neil but this wasn't that. The funny thing was that because of the change in economic conditions which happened almost simultaneously with the change over to sound what flew with the uncritical Broadway audience in the 20s became so inconsequential that it was no longer an evening out. It was so besides the point.

In COQUETTE, sub-titled " A Play of the American South", we deal with stock characters in stock situations. Father is a gent of the old school who throws a most unsuitable suitor for his daughter's hand out of his house and bids him to never darken his daughter again. The suitor, played by Alabama All-American football player Johnny Mack Brown we have to take on faith is disadvantaged in class, to wit: he doesn't own a suitable suit of evening clothes for the seasonal country club balls. Imagine if he'd been black?

He pledges to overcome his disadvantages by taking an unspecified job 'in the mountains' where he'd make enough money to get married to her and buy a house. If you gotta ask how come these more liberally munificent jobs seems to exist outside the town, 'in the mountains', this play ain't fer the likes of you all.

COQUETTE is compromised on a visit to COQUETTE at a country club ball and earnestly wants to make this all right by marring her. Dad reacts to the joyful news by plugging him. COQUETTE in court tells a story in euphemisms which adds up to her being raped and her father acting under "the unwritten law", suh. Dad tells her to tell the truth and blows out his brains.

That's the play a simple straight line, no deviation, no nothing else. Act one Father disapproves of daughter's boyfriend, act two he is on trial for killing him. Even though it was filmed on a sound stage it seems as if great designer William Cameron Menzies has just cleverly redressed one set to look like the living room of the mansion, the country club and most disturbing of all, the courtroom.

And then we're done.

Savagely bad, it made a million bucks when that meant something and won Mary Pickford a best actress Oscar, the dubiousness of which is on view for all to see. The disappointment with these early talkies would become screamingly clear a year later when picture after picture would fail. The stars would be replaced and the business reinvigorated by more sophisticated techniques and stories.

In short, it was a steep learning curve and COQUETTE is at the very beginning of the curve so is important as a historical document only. It is a filmed play complete with a phantom proscenium. It misses being a chore to watch because of its short running time, but it still is a time waster. Unless you are the type who likes to mix their idol worship with necrophilia. Then this truly is your meat.

14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Mary Should Have Dialed It Down

bkoganbing31 October 2007

For her sound film debut, Mary Pickford chose what she figured would have a built in box office appeal besides her own good name, a long running Broadway play. Coquette which was authored by George Abbott and Ann Preston Bridger and directed by Abbott for Jed Harris, ran 386 performances in the 1927-1928 season. Pickford took over a role popularized by a young Helen Hayes on Broadway.

Mary Pickford knew that her days of playing adolescents or young teens were gone. Still there's a trace of the juvenile in her performance as a young and flirty southern belle who her father, John St. Polis, should not be out slumming with white trash like Johnny Mack Brown. Mary's family is of the southern country club set.

Mary's got a younger brother played by William Janney and when dad thinks it's him that stayed out late, he's just got a boys will be boys attitude. But when Mary stays out with the forbidden Mr. Brown, that's the proverbial horse of a different color. After that film gets highly melodramatic.

The fabled Douglas Fairbanks/Mary Pickford romance was starting to come apart with both of them cheating on the other. It probably helped that Mary was involved with Johnny Mack Brown at the time of the filming of Coquette. Gave her scenes quite a bit of conviction.

Johnny Mack Brown who was an All American halfback with the University of Alabama's Crimson Tide before Paul Bryant ever took over, chose the silver screen over professional athletics. For this southern story his Alabama accent no doubt helped as it did later when he became a cowboy hero in a ton of B westerns.

Mary does overact a lot here. Then again, all the silent stars who had no real stage training or directors to help them dial it down a bit did the same thing, her husband definitely one of those. Though it wouldn't get a look today, I'm sure Mary's performance in that transition year, probably was one of the best and she no doubt deserved her Best Actress Oscar.

Coquette is a play I'm sure you won't see get revived to often. It never has on Broadway. It's dated and highly melodramatic, still for today's viewers it's a curiosity.

11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

2/10

Creaky antique : strictly curiosity value

rfkeser27 November 1999

Helen Hayes had a big success on Broadway in this drama of a Southern flapper juggling her beaux, so it must have seemed a good vehicle for Mary Pickford's talkie debut. However, Pickford was then 37, not 17, and found herself negotiating miles of "hush-my-mouth" dialogue. For this more accurately, for her power in Hollywood], she received the Academy Award for Best Actress. To be fair, she has a few good moments, but unconvincing moments predominate. The rest of the cast seem to be playing in different productions: Johnny Mack Brown in the senior college play, William Janney in the senior high school play, Matt Moore in a modern movie, and John St. Polis in a D.W. Griffith melodrama. It's hard to believe that the clunky direction is the work of the same man who guided Pickford at her best in the charming and fluently cinematic MY BEST GIRL.

14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

This film reflects its period but still fascinates.

bbhlthph10 August 2007

Today any sound film made in 1929 will almost certainly be watched with considerable attention by all those interested in the history of the cinema. When it includes the performance by Mary Pickford which won her only Oscar award, it should be an irresistible attraction. But this does not necessarily mean that it will provide an experience which can be directly compared with what most viewers would expect from any modern film. Most importantly, in 1929 sound recording technology was still at a very primitive stage and in addition the technicians still had to learn how to use the equipment they had to create a sound recording that was even basically acceptable. Design engineers also had to do a great deal more work before this recording could be incorporated onto film as a sound track that could be reproduced electro-optically with reasonable quality. The large bulbous microphones of the period, designed to be held and perhaps even caressed lovingly by a singer, were not appropriate for the cast of a film; and there were no fully acceptable alternatives. The cast would generally have had silent movie experience which had suddenly been rendered obsolete and would therefore have been feeling very lost. The Director had no experience to call upon in helping them overcome their problems. The better known the stars might have been, the more serious this would be for them. Finally we need to remember that there are now very different expectations for movies themselves. Even if revivals of 50 year old films could be presented with all the sophistication modern equipment and technology allow; they would still have a limited appeal to most members of a contemporary cinema audience, the technological limitations reduce this dramatically. The film-scrip raises other problems. Apart from these technical considerations, the film will seem alien to many people's expectations because, as with so many very significant films from the silent era, it has more in common with a mediaeval morality plan than most modern dramatic works - something most of us find difficult to adjust to today. Both emotions and acting are laid on thick with a trowel, but the script will still be found to go back occasionally to underline the "truths" that it aims to depict, in case these are not being fully appreciated by the audience. It is therefore pointless to either view or review a film such as Coquette with expectations based on the types of film normally thought to be acceptable today. Despite this, I very strongly recommend those interested in the development of modern cinematographic entertainment to watch it for themselves when opportunity arises. As long as the above points are born in mind, it will prove a fascinating experience. But one cannot afterwards review or comment on the film in the same way that one would do for a more modern release.

What does a film-goers gain by watching such a rather turgid melodrama today? Apart from a greater understanding of the history of the cinema, one answer is a much better appreciation of the traumas associated with the transition from the silent film era to that of the talkies, and another is greater respect for the achievements of early stars who are recognised today more by their names than by their performances. If these are of no interest, modern viewers should not watch such films even when IMDb users give then a high rating. By today's standards Coquette would barely justify a five star rating, but recognising that everyone involved, cast, director, cameraman and the new and vital 'recording artist' (who I could not even find credited) were learning a new trade together, the original film was certainly worth an eight. If you doubt this, re-watch it and note how many of the sequences in films which were released during the following decade and are now regarded as classics, were closely based on some of those in Coquette. Trying to fairly bridge this difference, I am rating the viewability of Coquette today at 7 stars.

11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

2/10

The Belle in Her Fall

wes-connors15 March 2008

If you've never seen a Mary Pickford film, this is not the place to start. Ms. Pickford was one of the greatest early film performers; and, this, her first sound offering, is an artistic failure. The Helen Hayes play "Coquette" (1927) might have seemed like an ideal way to introduce a talking Pickford. Sadly, it may have contributed to her impending retirement from films; and, Pickford continued to choose some questionable film projects. The opening scenes, with Pickford positively awful as the coquettish southern belle "Norma Besant", are embarrassing. If you can get used to the characters, later scenes may marginally repair the damage; in fact, the much admired "trial" and "cabin" breakdown scenes earned Pickford a "Best Actress" Oscar.

** Coquette (3/30/29) Sam Taylor ~ Mary Pickford, Johnny Mack Brown, John St. Polis

9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

Pickford leads a fine cast

gbill-7487728 February 2017

In watching 'Coquette', you have to cut it some slack for having been made in 1929, when acting was generally hammy and plots were a little thin. Mary Pickford does her share of over-emoting, but she also has a couple of brilliant scenes while grieving, really letting go, and showing she was ahead of her time as an actor. At 37, she also pulls off the look of a young flapper, and is so cute with her short hair and standing 5'1". John St. Polis plays the part of her father well, the Southern gentleman who must look out for the family's honor, and who detests her love interest, played by Johnny Mack Brown. The two of them also have some powerful scenes as emotions overheat. I also loved the snippets of dancing scenes we get to see, they are so energetic and really convey what we think of about the 1920's. At the beginning of the film, I was put off by its slow start and the spotty quality of the film after all these years, particularly when it was hard to understand the dialogue. If you feel the same, I would recommend sticking with it. It's flawed and not going to be your favorite film of all time or anything, but it's worth spending the 75 minutes to watch Pickford and the rest of this cast.

12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

A Sociological Problem That, Hopefully, We Can Someday Put Behind Us...

Real_Review22 May 2019

This is a surprisingly good film, suspenseful, and well-made. I didn't expect much from the first year of talking pictures - this film far exceeded my expectations.

This is a supposed to be a simple movie review, but this isn't a simple movie, so feel free to stop reading here and move on...

There seemed to be this idea among the past generations (and still carried by some today) that children are some kind of symbol of a parents success in life. There is this idea that a young woman's behavior directly relates to her parents education, place in society, career, etc. If this illogical idea is followed to it's logical conclusion, then we are to believe that a child is little more than a status symbol for it's parents - a slave to their expectations and views on society. Therefore, a child should have more concern for their parents perceived reputation than the child's own wants, desires, and happiness.

This idea is perpetuated by 17 year old boys and girls that are stifled by their own parents, becoming 18 year old husbands and wives, and then 19 year old parents of a baby. By 35, they have spent their whole lives struggling, and then feel entitled to the same blind adherence that they were expected to give their parents. And so, the cycle continues...

In a perfect world, immature children with little life experience wouldn't be allowed to become parents themselves until they understood the true responsibility of dedicating your life to the development of another person. Then, when they were actually capable of sacrificing their own wants and needs for those of the child, they could either create a healthy family or choose to live their lives for themselves.

Because, you see, you can't do both. Either you dedicate your life to your child, or you will, eventually, try to subjugate that child for your own wants and needs. People are, inherently, selfish creatures. And, parents are people, too.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria: Acting - 1/1; Casting - 1/1; Directing - 1/1; Story - 1/1; Writing/Screenplay - 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -): Standout Performances: +1 ( Mary Pickford );

Cultural Significance: +1;

Total RealReview Rating = 7

5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

4/10

Shrill and hammy

mik-1921 April 2005

Mary Pickford is a favorite of mine from the silent era, which makes her early talkie 'Coquette' so much the sadder. The Academy Awards made no more sense in these early days than they have later on, and Pickford won an Oscar as an appreciation for more than a quarter of a century on the silver screen.

She didn't deserve the Oscar, and the film, with all the failings of an undistinguished early talkie, is hard to watch today, and I am saying that as a lover of pictures of the time. The Southern accents are grating to the ears, the voices shrill, partly, I believe, because of the way they were recorded, and the acting hammy.

Mary Pickford is the Southern Jezebel Norma who flirts with all the boys, but takes a special fancy to hunky working-class Michael (Johnny Mack Brown looks excruciatingly young in this part). Her father disapproves vehemently and one day, with gun in hand, decides to take action. The drama ends in a courtroom, and Norma is torn between her love of her beau and her love for her father.

There is almost nothing good to say about 'Coquette'. Miss Pickford has a moment or two of successful drama (NOT the atrocious ending, though), the lighting overall is wonderful, but apart from that? If you watch this picture and is tempted to blame it all on Miss Pickford, do yourself the favor of looking up some of her best silent pictures, the best of which are bona-fide masterpieces.

12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

User Reviews

See also

Opinion

Details

Storyline

Did You Know?

Photo & Video

Related Items

User Lists

Recently Viewed