Love in High Gear (1932) Review: The Other Harrison Ford

Is Love in High Gear worth your time today? Only if you are the kind of person who enjoys hunting through old bargain bins for black-and-white movies that everyone else forgot about.

If you like movies with clear sound and logical plots, you are going to absolutely hate this one. It is loud, the editing is jumpy, and the plot depends on people being very oblivious.

But for those who love the 'Poverty Row' vibe of the early 1930s, there is something weirdly cozy about it. It feels like watching a high school play where someone accidentally found a decent budget for suits.

The first thing you notice is the name Harrison Ford in the credits. No, not that one. 🤠

This is the silent-era Harrison Ford, and honestly, he looks like he is constantly trying to remember if he left the stove on at home. He has this very specific way of holding his face that makes him look permanently surprised.

The story kicks off with Ronald and Anne planning to elope. In 1932, eloping was basically the only thing young people did in movies besides dancing on giant pianos.

They are making their big plans in a place where a jewel thief can hear everything. The thief isn't even hiding that well; he's just sort of there, leaning against things.

The thief decides to use their getaway car to escape with some stolen loot. It is one of those plots where everything would be solved if anyone just looked in the backseat of the car for two seconds.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of Love in High Gear (1932) through its definitive frames.

I found myself wondering why the car looks so much nicer than the actual sets they used for the houses. The house interiors have this empty, hollow sound, like they were filmed in a gymnasium with one rug.

Alberta Vaughn plays Anne, and she is easily the best part of this whole mess. She has this frantic energy that reminds me a bit of the lead in June Friday, though maybe not as polished.

She talks so fast that I had to rewind a few times just to make sure I didn't miss a joke. Most of the jokes are just people being confused about who is holding which bag.

There is a scene near the middle where they are at an inn, and people keep walking through doors at the exact wrong time. It is pure farce, but it feels a bit tired, even for 1932 standards.

You can tell the director, George B. Seitz, just wanted to get the shot and go home. Some of the reaction shots linger for a heartbeat too long, making the actors look like they are waiting for someone to yell 'cut.'

It lacks the weird, dark atmosphere of something like Victory, which is fine, because it is trying to be a comedy. But the comedy is mostly just people shouting at each other in small rooms.

The jewel thief is played by Tyrell Davis, who is doing this very 'theatrical' villain thing. He sneers a lot and moves his hands in ways that no normal human being would ever do while trying to be stealthy.

Small things I noticed:

• The way the characters handle their hats is like a choreographed dance. Everyone is always taking a hat off or putting one on.
• There is a dog in one scene that looks more confused by the plot than I was. 🐶
• The lighting in the night scenes is basically just 'turn off one lamp and hope for the best.'
• One of the older characters has a mustache that looks like it might fall off if he sneezes too hard.

If you have seen Going Places, you know how these early talkies can feel a bit stiff. Love in High Gear is definitely in that same boat, struggling to figure out how to move the camera while people are talking.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of Love in High Gear (1932) through its definitive frames.

I actually liked the parts where the movie stops trying to be a mystery and just lets the couple bicker. Their chemistry is actually kind of sweet, in a very dated, 'stay in your lane' kind of way.

The ending comes out of nowhere and wraps up so fast you might blink and miss it. It is like the producers realized they only had five minutes of film left in the camera and had to finish the story right then and there.

Is it a masterpiece? Absolutely not. It is more like a forgotten postcard from a time when movies were still trying to figure out how to have a conversation.

It reminded me of Beauty and Bullets because of the weird mix of crime and lighthearted romance that doesn't quite blend together. It’s like putting orange juice in your cereal; it's interesting, but maybe not 'good' in the traditional sense.

I think I enjoyed the idea of this movie more than the actual experience of watching it. But there is a charm to the grainy footage and the scratchy audio that makes me glad I saw it once.

Don't go looking for deep themes here. There is no 'exploration of the human heart' or whatever people say in fancy reviews.

It is just a movie about a car, a girl, a guy, and a bag of jewels that everyone keeps losing. Sometimes, that is all you really need on a Tuesday night when you can't sleep.

If you see it on a streaming service for free, give it twenty minutes. If you aren't laughing at the outrageous outfits by then, you can probably turn it off and watch Crooked Streets instead.

Anyway, it’s a short one. It doesn't overstay its welcome, which is the best compliment I can give to a movie where the main conflict is caused by a thief who can't hide in a car properly. 🚗