Checking out the 1935 Call of the Wild

Is it worth watching?

If you have a soft spot for 1930s Hollywood gloss, sure. It’s got Clark Gable in a fur coat, which is basically half the battle won right there. But if you’re coming for a gritty, true-to-life survival story? Probably skip it. It’s a bit too polished for its own good.

Clark Gable is doing that thing where he’s just Clark Gable, but in the Klondike. It’s hard to care about the harsh reality of the Gold Rush when the lead looks like he just stepped out of a salon. 🐕

The Dog

Buck is the real star, obviously. There’s something strangely hypnotic about watching a real animal work alongside the actors, even if the editing makes the geography of the scenes jump around like crazy. Sometimes the dog is in the frame, then suddenly he’s in the next county. It’s fine, though. You stop counting the continuity errors after twenty minutes.

The Vibes

The whole movie feels a bit like His Woman in terms of that weird, stilted romantic tension. There’s a scene where the snow is clearly fake—you can tell because it doesn't melt on their shoulders—and the actors are shouting their lines just a little too loud. It’s charming in a 'they tried their best' kind of way.

• Gable’s mustache is the most reliable actor in the film.
• The pacing goes from zero to sixty for no reason.
• The widow plot feels tacked on just to give Gable something to do between sled rides.

It’s not as interesting as The Man in Possession, but it’s got enough spirit to keep you watching. Don’t expect the book. Expect a 1935 version of a 'man vs nature' flick where nature mostly loses to the studio lighting department.

That one reaction shot of the dog near the campfire lingers for about five seconds too long. It’s almost funny. You can feel the director going, 'See? The dog is sad! Get the emotion!' It’s a bit desperate. Still, I didn't hate it.