DbcultAccessing Vault...
5/10
Senior Film Conservator
A definitive 5/10 rating for a film that redefined the boundaries of cult cinema. What Price Innocence? remains a cornerstone of transgressive art.
So, I finally sat down with What Price Innocence? from 1933. Is it worth watching today? Probably not unless you are a completist for early 30s talkies or you just really like seeing how awkward people used to be about "the talk."
If you want a fast-paced thriller, stay away. But if you are into those weird morality plays that feel like a dusty pamphlet found in a basement, maybe give it a go. 🎞️
Jean Parker plays Ruth, this teenage girl who is basically just curious about life. Her parents are... well, they are kind of the worst.
Willard Mack plays the dad, and he also wrote the thing. That explains why he gives himself all the "wise" speeches while everyone else just listens. He is a doctor in the movie!
You would think a doctor would know how to explain biology to his daughter. Instead, he just mopes around looking worried while his wife, played by Minna Gombell, acts like any mention of boys is a total sin.
There is this one scene where Ruth is just trying to ask a simple question. The mom shuts her down so fast it is almost funny.
The movie really wants you to think Ruth is "fooling around," but she mostly just looks confused. She gets involved with this guy, and because nobody told her how anything works, things go south fast.
It has that classic Pre-Code vibe where they want to be edgy but also want to wag their finger at you. ☝️
I noticed Betty Grable is in this, looking super young. She is barely there, but you can see that spark she had before she became a massive star later on.
It reminded me a bit of how some actors started out in things like Peck's Bad Boy or even Huddle. They were just filling out the frame before they got famous.
The movie feels very "stagey." People walk into a room, stand in a line, say their lines, and then walk out.
There is a lot of talking. So much talking.
Sometimes the camera just stays on a face while they drone on about "the price of a mistake." It is not exactly high art.
I kept thinking about how much of this could have been avoided if the parents were not so repressed. The movie tries to blame the kids, but the real villains are the adults who won't say the word "sex."
It is a bit like watching a car crash in slow motion where everyone is wearing fancy hats. 🎩
One thing that bugged me was the lighting in the bedroom scenes. It is so dark you can barely see who is talking.
Maybe they did not have the budget for more lamps that day? Or maybe it was supposed to be "moody." It just felt like they forgot to turn the lights on.
The ending is... heavy. It is not a happy-go-lucky 1930s musical at all.
It is trying to be a tragedy, but it feels more like a lecture from a very grumpy uncle. If you have seen things like X Marks the Spot, you know this era loved a good "crime and punishment" theme.
Is it a good movie? Not really. Is it an interesting look at 1933? Yeah, definitely.
It is a time capsule of what people were scared of back then. Mainly, they were scared of teenagers having an honest conversation.
The pacing is all over the place. One minute nothing is happening, then suddenly everything is a total disaster.
It is messy. But Jean Parker is actually pretty good, considering what she had to work with.
She has this wide-eyed look that makes the whole "innocence" thing actually believable. You really feel bad for her because her parents are such stuffed shirts.
Anyway, if you are looking for a double feature, maybe pair it with something like Winner Take All if you want more of that old-school drama. Just do not expect to feel "enlightened" by the message.
It is just a weird, slightly sad little film that probably worked better in 1933 than it does now. I am glad I saw it once, but I do not think I will be revisiting it anytime soon.
IMDb —
1923
Community
Log in to comment.
