What's to Do? Is a Weirdly Specific Time Capsule

Is it worth your time?

Honestly, only if you have a thing for black-and-white curiosities or you’re a completionist for Shirley Temple’s earliest appearances. If you’re looking for a sharp, modern-feeling comedy, you’ll probably find this thing dryer than a saltine cracker left in the sun.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of What's to Do? (1933) through its definitive frames.

But there’s something oddly hypnotic about how low the stakes feel. It’s not exactly Better Than Gold in terms of ambition, that's for sure.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of What's to Do? (1933) through its definitive frames.

The vibe

Everything in What's to Do? happens at this weirdly frantic, stage-play pace. Everyone is constantly shouting their lines like they're trying to reach the back row of a theater that isn't there. It’s not exactly subtle.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of What's to Do? (1933) through its definitive frames.

Sonny Rogers is supposedly the guy everyone loves. He’s the class president and the baseball hero. It’s all very 1930s wholesome, but the way he talks to his family? Yikes. There's a scene where he’s panicking about the move, and he just stares into the middle distance while his sister, Mary Lou, starts doing this weird little dance of chaos around him.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of What's to Do? (1933) through its definitive frames.

The weird bits

• The dialogue feels like it was written by someone who had only ever heard teenagers talk through a thick wall.
• The rival, Harry Vanderpool, is such a cartoonish villain that I half-expected him to twirl a mustache.
• The pacing is erratic. One minute they’re planning a grand scheme, the next they’re just standing around in a living room looking confused.

There’s this one bit with the baseball equipment that goes on for way too long. The camera just sits there. It’s like the director decided to go grab a sandwich and forgot to tell the actors to stop posing. It’s the kind of imperfection that makes me think, 'Yeah, a human actually filmed this.'

A strange comparison

It’s not quite as bleak as The Snarl, which is a relief. But it lacks the charm of the stuff you'd see in something like Subway Sadie. It’s just... there. It exists. It’s a snapshot of a time where 'going to Seattle' was considered the ultimate tragedy for a high schooler.

If you watch it, pay attention to the background extras. Half of them look like they’re trying to remember if they left the stove on back home. It’s distractingly funny if you watch the wrong person in the frame. 🙃

It’s not a masterpiece. It’s not even a particularly good movie. But it’s a weirdly specific time capsule that doesn’t try to be anything else. Maybe that’s enough.