Song of Love (1929) Review: Belle Baker Sings Her Heart Out While Her Kid Just Wants to Play Ball

If you have a soft spot for early sound films where everyone feels like they are shouting at a hidden microphone in a flower vase, you should prolly watch Song of Love. It’s a movie for people who miss the smell of old theaters. If you want something fast-paced or subtle, you’re gonna hate this one. It’s loud. It’s very melodramatic.

The story is pretty simple. Tom and Anna Gibson (Eddie Kane and Belle Baker) are vaudeville stars. They have a kid named Buddy, played by David Durand, who is actually part of the act. They are a happy family until they aren't. Anna starts to see that Buddy is becoming a little stage robot. It's a classic 'showbiz is killing our souls' plot before that became a tired trope.

Belle Baker is the big draw here. She was a legend on the real stage, and you can tell. She doesn't just sing; she attacks the songs. Her voice has this vibrating power that probably shook the back row of the balcony. It’s cool to see a real vaudeville star in her element, even if the film quality is a bit grainy now.

There is this one scene that really stuck with me. Buddy is supposed to be getting ready for a show, but Anna finds him playing ball instead. He’s just a kid in the dirt. The look on Belle Baker’s face in that moment is actually pretty great. You can see her realizeing that her kid doesn't care about the applause. He just wants to hit a ball with a stick.

The kid, David Durand, is surprisingly not annoying. Usually, child actors from 1929 make me want to walk into the ocean. But he has this natural way of moving. When he’s on stage with his parents, he looks like he’s actually having fun, which makes the conflict feel more real. If he was terrible at the act, it wouldn't be a dilemma.

Eddie Kane as the dad, Tom, is exactly what you expect. He’s the guy who thinks the next big contract will fix everything. He’s not a villain, just a guy who’s addicted to the spotlight. I’ve seen this character in Naughty and a dozen other movies from this era. He’s okay, but he’s mostly there to be the thing Anna has to fight against.

I noticed a weird thing during one of the musical numbers. There is a wide shot of the audience, and you can tell half of them aren't even looking at the stage. It feels like they just told a bunch of extras to sit there and look vaguely happy. It’s one of those small things that makes these old movies feel so human. It’s imperfect and messy.

The dialogue is... well, it was written by four people. Dorothy Howell and her team clearly knew the vaudeville world. But sometimes the lines feel like they were pulled out of a hat. Characters say things like 'The show must go on!' without any irony at all. It’s charming if you’re in the right mood. It’s exhausting if you aren't.

I kept thinking about Little Mary Sunshine while watching the family stuff. There is a similar vibe of trying to protect a kid from a world that wants to use them. Song of Love isn't as polished, though. It feels like it was filmed in a bit of a rush to catch the 'talkie' craze.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of Song of Love (1929) through its definitive frames.

The songs are catchy in a 'I'll be humming this for ten minutes then forget it forever' kind of way. 'I'm Walking with My Sweetness' is the big one. It’s very 1920s. You can almost see the flappers dancing in the background of your mind. Belle Baker really sells it, though.

The technical side of the movie is a bit of a disaster, honestly. The sound cuts in and out sometimes. The lighting is very flat. But that’s why I like it. It feels like a relic. It feels like something that was made by people who were still figureing out how to use the equipment.

There is a lot of crying in the second half. Anna gets very emotional about Buddy’s future. It goes on a bit too long. Like, we get it, you’re worried. The movie could have used a bit more of the comedy that Eddie Kane is usually good at.

I wondered if Ralph Graves or Eve Arden felt out of place. They are in the credits but the movie is so focused on the Gibson family that everyone else just kind of blurs together. It’s a very heavy focus. It makes the world feel small, like the theater is the only place that exists.

If you’ve seen Forgive and Forget, you know how these dramas usually go. Someone makes a mistake, someone cries, and then there is a big finale. Song of Love follows the map perfectly. It doesn't take any risks. But it has a lot of heart.

One shot that was actually quite beautiful was near the end. It’s just a close up of Anna’s face while she hears Buddy singing from off-stage. The lighting finally does something interesting there. It’s soft and actually feels like a movie for a second, not just a recorded play. It’s the best moment in the whole thing.

Is it a masterpiece? No way. Is it better than Wine, Women and Sauerkraut? Probably. It has more soul. It feels like a real story about real people, even if those people are wearing too much stage makeup.

So yeah. Watch it for Belle Baker. Watch it if you like seeing kids from 1929 play baseball in knickerbockers. Don't watch it if you need a plot that makes sense every second. It’s a bit of a shambles, but it’s a sweet one.

Random Notes from my notebook:

• The piano player in the pit looks like he wants to go home.
• Buddy’s stage costume is incredibly shiny. Like, distractingly shiny.
• Belle Baker’s hat in the opening scene is a work of art.
• Why does everyone in 1929 stand so close together when they talk?

Anyway, it's worth a look if you find it on a rainy Sunday. It’s a nice little time capsule. Just don't expect it to change your life or anything. It's just a song of love, like the title says. Nothing more, nothing less.