6.2/10
Senior Film Conservator

A definitive 6.2/10 rating for a film that redefined the boundaries of cult cinema. A Man's Man remains a cornerstone of transgressive art.
So, you’re wondering if A Man's Man from way back in 1929 is worth your time today? 🤔 Well, if you’re into early Hollywood melodramas and don’t mind a story that feels a bit like a stage play translated to film, then yeah, give it a shot. It's got this quaint charm, especially if you appreciate the era’s acting styles. But if you're expecting anything fast-paced or super complex, you'll probably find it pretty slow going. Not for everyone, for sure.
The whole premise of Peggy, played by Gloria Davenport, heading off to Hollywood to become a star is, like, *the* classic dream. You can almost smell the hopes and dreams wafting off the screen. She meets this guy, John Gilbert’s character, a soda jerk, and he's just so *earnest*. Pretty Mrs. Smith or even A He-Male Vamp, they often had this kind of aspirational lead, but here, it's about the innocent guy getting caught up.
Gilbert, he’s a handsome fellow, and he plays the gullible husband with such wide-eyed sincerity. You really feel for the guy, even when he’s making some incredibly dumb decisions. Like, when the assistant director, who’s clearly a bit of a snake, starts talking about investing in worthless stock for Peggy’s career. You just want to reach into the screen and shout, “No! Don’t do it!” It’s a moment that feels almost painful to watch, knowing how it’s gonna end.
That assistant director, Sam Hardy, he has this smarmy grin that just screams trouble. Every time he’s on screen, you know he’s up to no good, and his interactions with Peggy… they’re just a little too smooth, you know? Davenport as Peggy, she’s good. She manages to convey both ambition and a certain innocence, even when she’s navigating this tricky situation. You can see her trying to figure things out.
One thing that really stuck with me was the way the film shows the 'glamour' of Hollywood. It’s not all shining lights and big sets. There are these little moments in offices or on the edges of studios that just feel… *realer* somehow. Like they’re letting you in on a secret about how things actually worked back then, before everything was so polished. The sets, while simple, give you a solid sense of place, a time capsule vibe. 🕰️
The pacing is definitely a product of its time. It’s not rushed, not at all. Scenes linger, giving you time to absorb the emotions, sometimes maybe a little too long. There’s a particular scene where Gilbert’s character is just sitting there, contemplating his choices, and the camera just holds on him. You can almost feel the weight of his regret, it’s quite effective. But I mean, you can also feel the film trying to really *make* you feel it.
And speaking of cast, Greta Garbo and Norma Shearer are listed, which is wild for such a specific story. They’re mostly blink-and-you’ll-miss-them cameos, if you can even spot them clearly! It’s less about them and more about our core trio, which is fine. It keeps the focus tight on Peggy's struggles and her husband’s big heart. It’s not a sprawling epic like One Stolen Night; this is a smaller, more intimate story.
The ending, well, it’s what you might expect from a film of this period. Things wrap up in a way that’s satisfying, if a tad bit predictable. There’s not a lot of ambiguity left hanging, which I guess was the style. You leave feeling like the characters got what they deserved, more or less. A simple story, told simply. Not exactly groundbreaking, but a decent watch for historical context.
It’s interesting to see these early films. They have a different kind of rhythm, a different way of telling a story. A Man's Man isn't a masterpiece, but it’s a solid little peek into the era, and it has a certain honest charm that still shines through. Worth it for fans of classic Hollywood, especially those who enjoy John Gilbert’s earnest performances. Just don’t go in expecting modern sensibilities. 😉

IMDb —
1917
Community
Log in to comment.