One More Spring: A Depression-era oddity that almost works

Is it worth your time?

If you like movies that feel like a dusty book you found in an attic, One More Spring is worth a look. It is for people who enjoy 1930s sentimentality and don’t mind if the story meanders like a slow river. If you need snappy dialogue or a real climax, you will probably hate this. It is more of a mood piece than a narrative engine.

The whole thing is basically about three people living in a shed in Central Park because they have nowhere else to go. It is 1935, and everyone is broke. Janet Gaynor is in it, which is the main reason to pay attention at all. She has this way of looking at a wooden crate like it is a luxury bed that really sells the struggle.

Oddly specific observations

• The shed looks way too clean for something in the middle of a public park. I have been to Central Park; that place is never that quiet.
• Warner Baxter plays the auctioneer with a level of politeness that feels completely out of place for a guy who is technically a squatter.
• There is a scene involving a stolen sandwich that carries more dramatic weight than the entire third act.
• The lighting in the shed changes from 'cold winter night' to 'warm studio glow' whenever the plot needs a hug.

I found myself thinking about The Dupe while watching this. Both films have that weird, artificial sense of 'we are all in this together' that the studios loved to push back then. But where other films might lean into the tragedy, this one chooses to be a bit of a fable. It is not exactly realistic, but it is not trying to be.

The pacing is… well, it is not fast. It is not even medium. It is a slow, steady walk through a park in early spring. Sometimes the characters just stop talking to look at the trees. It’s a little bit strange, honestly. You expect something major to happen, like a park ranger showing up or a big confrontation, but it just keeps being about them sharing a meager meal.

There is a sequence where they try to fix up the shed, and the camera lingers on a hammer hitting a nail for way longer than necessary. It felt like the editor just forgot to cut the take. It was actually kind of charming, in a 'we are just making this up as we go' sort of way. 🤷‍♂️

Is it a masterpiece? No. Does it feel like a human being actually filmed it? Yes. It has that specific, slightly imperfect, dusty energy that you don't get in modern, hyper-polished dramas. It is a movie that exists just to be a little bit sweet in a very bitter time.

Just don't expect it to explain where the ending comes from. It just sort of stops. Which, honestly, might be the best part.