Bed and Breakfast (1930) Review: A Loud, Weird Little Comedy

Is Bed and Breakfast worth your time today? Only if you have a very high tolerance for 1930s stage-acting and people shouting their lines like they are trying to reach the back of a theater in another zip code.

Fans of early British "talkies" will find it charming in a dusty way. Everyone else will probably want to turn it off after ten minutes of the husband huffing around.

The whole thing starts with a fight between a newlywed couple. I honestly cannot remember what they were fighting about, which feels very realistic for a real marriage fight.

To get back at each other, they both decide to hire or find "lovers" to show off. But the catch is they don't actually want to do anything, they just want to make the other person jealous.

It is basically a movie about the stress of logistics. How do you find a fake lover on short notice in 1930?

Sari Maritza is in this, and she was supposed to be the next big thing back then. She has this way of looking at the camera that makes you think she knows the script is a bit silly. 🧐

There is a scene in a hotel—the titular bed and breakfast, I guess—where everyone is running in and out of doors. It is a classic farce, but the timing is a little clunky.

Sometimes a character will walk into a room and just stand there for three seconds before saying anything. It makes the movie feel like it is buffering in real life.

I kept thinking about Wife Tamers while watching this. That movie handled the "annoying spouse" trope with a bit more energy, though this one has better hats.

The dialogue is thick with that 1930s British slang that sounds like someone rubbing two pieces of dry toast together. It’s snappy but also kind of exhausting after an hour.

The "Lovers" are the Best Part

The people they bring in to be the fake lovers are much more interesting than the main couple. They seem confused to be there, which I relate to.

• The fake boyfriend looks like he wants to go home and have a sandwich.
• The fake girlfriend is trying way too hard to be "scandalous."
• The hotel staff all look like they are judging everyone, which is the most honest part of the film.

There is one guy, Ian Wilson, who has a face that just belongs in black and white. He pops up and the movie gets about 10% faster for a minute.

I noticed that the sound quality is pretty rough in the beginning. It sounds like the actors are speaking into a tin can hidden in a bouquet of flowers. 💐

If you’ve seen Caught in the Act, you know how these early sound comedies can feel a bit trapped by the technology. Bed and Breakfast definitely feels trapped.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of Bed and Breakfast (1930) through its definitive frames.

The writers include Sidney Gilliat, who ended up being a really big deal later on. You can see flashes of his wit, but it’s buried under a lot of "What-ho!" and "I say!" nonsense.

The scene where they are trying to organize the "deed" without actually doing the deed is actually kind of funny. It’s so uncomfortable and the bed looks like it’s made of actual bricks.

I wonder if people in 1930 actually found this scandalous. By today's standards, it's about as spicy as a glass of lukewarm milk.

The pacing gets weirdly slow toward the end. There is a long stretch where people just talk about who is in which room, and I found myself looking at the wallpaper in the background instead of the actors.

The wallpaper is actually quite nice. Very floral. Very distracting.

It reminds me of The Hug Bug in the sense that the title is way more exciting than the actual plot. You expect a lot of breakfast, but there is very little eating involved.

One thing that really bothered me—and this is a small thing—is how the husband holds his cane. He holds it like he’s afraid it might bite him. It’s very unnatural.

But then again, everything in these early films feels a bit like a rehearsal that someone decided to film. There is a raw quality to it that I kind of like, even when it’s bad.

Is it a masterpiece? No. Is it better than Mrs. Thompson? Probably, because at least things happen in this one, even if those things are mostly just misunderstandings.

The ending is exactly what you think it will be. They realize they love each other because they both failed at being "bad" people. It’s sweet, I guess, if you ignore all the shouting from the first act.

I think the movie would have been better if the fake lovers had just run off together and left the newlyweds to argue in the rain. 🌧️

Anyway, if you find yourself on a deep dive of 1930s cinema because you can’t sleep, this is a fine way to spend 70 minutes. It won't change your life, but you'll see some great coats.

Just don't expect the breakfast part of the title to be a big deal. It’s a lie. It’s mostly just the bed part, and even then, nobody is actually tired.

The way Alf Goddard moves across the screen is almost like he's in a silent movie still. He hasn't quite figured out that he doesn't need to wave his arms to be heard anymore. It’s kind of endearing.

Final thought: The movie is fine. It’s a polite mess. ☕