The Girl in the Show (1928) - A messy but sweet look at theater life

Is this worth watching today? Honestly, only if you have a soft spot for that weird, shaky transition period where movies were half-trying to be talkies and half-clinging to silent tropes. It is perfect for people who love theater history or want to see what a 'Tom show' actually looked like from the inside. If you hate slow pacing and creaky sound, you will probably want to skip this one entirely.

The whole thing centers on this troupe that is basically one bad night away from sleeping in a barn. They are touring with Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which by 1928 was already a bit of a relic. You can really feel the exhaustion in the way they set up the stage.

Bessie Love plays Hattie, and she’s the best part of the movie by a mile. She has these huge, expressive eyes that look like they’ve seen way too many cheap hotel rooms and burnt coffee. She’s trying to hold everything together while everyone else is either complaining or falling in love.

The plot kicks in when the Child Welfare League shows up because they are worried about the kid in the show. The lady from the league is such a buzzkill. She wears this hat that is so big it looks like it has its own zip code. 👒

I kept thinking about Alias Jimmy Valentine while watching this. That movie felt a bit more sure of what it wanted to be, whereas this one feels like it’s tripping over its own feet a little.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of The Girl in the Show (1929) through its definitive frames.

There is this one scene where the 'bloodhounds' for the play show up. They are clearly just regular, very tired dogs who would rather be anywhere else. One of them actually yawns during a 'tense' moment, and I think I laughed for about a minute straight. It is just so real in a way the movie didn't intend.

The dialogue is... well, it’s 1928. It is a bit clunky. Sometimes the characters talk like they are reading off a grocery list, but then Bessie Love will do something small and quiet that makes you care again. It’s high burstiness, I guess you could say—lots of boredom followed by a sudden spike of genuine emotion.

Raymond Hackett plays the love interest, and he’s fine. He mostly just looks handsome and slightly worried about his hair. Their chemistry is okay, but it’s not exactly sparks flying. It’s more like two people who are just glad they aren't the only ones in the room.

The movie gets way more interesting when it stops trying to be a drama and just shows the mechanics of the theater. The way they move the flats and the fake snow—that stuff is fascinating. It’s a bit like Her Actor Friend in that sense, just obsessed with the 'business' of it all.

I noticed the sets look incredibly flimsy. Like, if someone sneezed too hard, the whole 'Southern mansion' would have folded in half. It adds to the charm, though. It makes the struggle of the characters feel more authentic because their world literally looks like it’s made of cardboard.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of The Girl in the Show (1929) through its definitive frames.

One reaction shot of the theater manager lingers for so long it becomes funny. He’s just staring off into space, and you can almost hear him wondering if he left the oven on at home. 🥘

It’s definitely not as polished as something like The IX Olympiad in Amsterdam, but that’s a documentary, so maybe that’s an unfair comparison. Still, the energy here is way more chaotic. It feels like a movie made by people who were actually there on those dusty roads.

There’s a bit of a subplot with a 'villain' who wants to take over the show, but it’s pretty half-baked. I sort of forgot he was in the movie until he popped up again near the end. The movie doesn't really need a villain anyway; the lack of money is a big enough bad guy.

If you’ve seen The Road to Ruin, you’ll recognize that weird 1920s mix of being very moralistic and slightly tawdry. This movie isn't quite as wild as that one, but it has the same DNA. It’s trying to be 'wholesome' while showing people who are essentially carny folk.

The ending is very abrupt. One minute things are falling apart, and the next, everything is mostly fine. It feels like they ran out of money or maybe the actors had a train to catch. 🚂

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of The Girl in the Show (1929) through its definitive frames.

I wish there was more of Ford Sterling. He’s a silent comedy legend, but he feels a bit wasted here. He does a few funny faces, but you can tell the script didn't know what to do with his specific brand of energy.

The sound quality on the version I watched was pretty rough. There’s a lot of hissing and popping, which honestly just makes it feel like you’re watching something you found in an attic. It’s sort of cozy in a weird way.

It’s a bit like Taxi for Two where the plot is basically just a thin excuse to hang out with some characters for an hour. I didn't mind hanging out with Hattie, though. She’s tough.

Overall, its a decent watch for a rainy Tuesday. It won't change your life, but it might make you appreciate your job a little more. At least you aren't being chased by a yawning bloodhound for five dollars a week. 🐕

• The kid playing Little Eva looks like she’s about thirty years old in some shots.
• There is a lot of smoking. Like, a lot of smoking.
• The way the audience in the movie reacts to the play is totally different from how we react to movies now.
• One of the stagehands is wearing a hat that looks suspiciously modern.
• The lighting in the hotel room scene is actually kind of beautiful and moody.

It’s a small, slightly broken film, but it’s got a heart that’s still beating if you listen close enough. Just don't expect a masterpiece and you'll be alright.