English

العربية

Filipino

Français

हिन्दी

Indonesia

বাংলা

اردو

中文

123movies search icon

muted

Kept Husbands

5.9

/10

742 تقييم

1931•1 h 16 m•United States

Daughter of a wealthy family decides to marry a poor working man.

Drama

Romance

ممثلون (12)

Clara Kimball Young

Mrs. Henrietta Post

Richard 'Dick' Brunton

Dorothy Mackaill

Dorothea 'Dot' Parker Brunton

Hughie Hanready

Bryant Washburn

Florence Roberts

Mrs. Henrietta Parker

مقترح

تقييمات

Not Charli d'Amelio

23/11/2024 16:00

The whole idea of this movie disgusted me. It reminded me of the Richard Pryor movie "The Toy" where a young rich kid says, "I want to buy that Black man." "Kept Husbands" doesn't have the racist overtones of "The Toy," but it has the same sentiment of rich people getting what they want. The leading lady, Dorthea 'Dot' Parker (Dorothy Mackaill), wanted Richard 'Dick' Brunton (Joel McCrea) for her husband and you would've thought she was talking about wanting a new fur coat. This movie wanted to drive home two messages: 1.) Ambitious men who marry rich women will become emasculated pets. 2.) A "working" class person would never fit in with a high society crowd. It could be said that the point of this movie was that these axioms are not true, but I'd proffer that the movie wanted to show an exception not a rule. In either case we got to see rich aristocrats in all their glory. Sidebar. It seems the 30's were all about showing wealthy people. I've watched many movies from that decade and many of them feature rich people partying and attending one social engagement after the other. They're all pretentious people that don't behave like they're from this universe. It was as though Hollywood wanted to provide a means of escapism for the millions of poor people out there. Back to "Kept Husbands." Along with the rich cardboard cutout people we got to see a couple of kept husbands. They were "yes dear" automatons with no gall, gumption, or life. Richard became such a husband though he put up a weak front. Dot told her father, "I'm going to marry him... that boy was made for me, and what's more, I'm gonna have him." Her father, Arthur Parker (Robert McWade), replied, "Now I'm a pretty good judge of men. I tell you this boy has real character and he'll never propose to you." "Now see here dad, listen," Dorothy retorted. "There isn't a man in this world a woman can't win if she really wants to land him." And with that she told her father that she'd have Dick in four weeks tops. And four weeks it was. Dick didn't propose to her, she proposed to him, but he accepted. Then, by and by, he became a trophy husband. He was given a cushy job he didn't earn where he didn't do any work, yet was paid handsomely--all to take care of daddy's little girl. Did Richard lack integrity or did he love his wife so much he only wanted to please her, even if that meant living off of daddy and being available for all of her social engagements? I'll say this: it was hard to tell if Richard was being a pet out of love, it looked more like obsequiousness. He'd take a stand only to relent after his "Kitten" pouted. It was enough to make a grown man cry. So, whether it was a lack of integrity or genuine love, where I'm from we call a guy like that a simp, a stooge, or a sucka.

Nati21

08/06/2023 09:58

Moviecut—Kept Husbands

Cedric Kouassi

29/05/2023 14:01

source: Kept Husbands

🌸Marie Omega🌸

23/05/2023 06:35

KEPT HUSBANDS (1931) tells the story of Dot Parker (Dorothy Mackaill), a wealthy young socialite who sets her sights on the hard working Dick Brunton (Joel McCrea), a supervisor at her father's steel plant. She bets with her father that she can get him to agree to marry her within four weeks. When she does, she uses her father's wealth to treat Dick to a life of luxury. Dick, however, begins to feel unfulfilled and trapped by luxury, longing for a simpler life, and tensions arise between the two. Directed by Lloyd Bacon. This pre-Code film shows an assertive young woman who isn't content to wait for the man to propose to her; she takes the initiative in the relationship. While this may seem rather tame now, it was revelatory to audiences in the 1920s and 1930s. It sends a mixed message about this, though, since Dot's character is eventually shown as a spoiled girl who will resort to manipulative and dramatic behavior to get her way. The title refers to Dick and another character, who both come to feel useless and unfulfilled because they live off of the wealth of their wives and family rather than the sweat of their brow, and are helpless victims of controlling women. So what are we supposed to take away from this, exactly? It seems to extol assertive women as modern while villainizing them as controlling at the same time. It also touches on the clash between the idle wealthy and the working class, with the rich portrayed as elegant yet superficial, and the working class as rustic yet wise and loving (via Dick's parents). The characters aren't really defined that well. The script gets really silly in the last act, settling for a pat, forced conclusion Dorothy Mackaill and Joel McCrea both do fine work in their respective portrayals. Mackaill shows intelligence and humor in her portrayal, and McCrea is refreshingly low-key and naturalistic. The supporting players also do effective work here, although I found Dick's dad a little on the stiff side. The sets are appropriately well furnished and luxurious. The cinematography and editing are well executed, not really outstanding but quite professional. It's somewhat entertaining as a pre-Code look at gender roles, but it sends a mixed message and is rather simplistic. SCORE: 6/10

henvi_darji

23/05/2023 06:35

A dinner party with a wealthy family leads steel plant supervisor Joel McCrea into the arms of socialite Dorothy Mackaill, a spoiled young lady who at first dismisses him for being of "working class" but is obviously sexually attracted to him. Even her society friends begin to accept him when they discover he's a big college football hero who once lead his team to a big victory that has become legendary. While Mackaill's father (Robert McWade) likes McCrea very much, her snooty mother (Florence Roberts) is against their attraction and appears to have a breakdown every time Mackaill mentions him. McCrea, for his part, instantly notices one of her society friends (Clara Kimball Young) verbally abusing her husband (Freeman Wood) who came from the working class too, and when Mackaill's affections begin to distract him from work, he fears he too might become a "kept husband". As their marriage seems to be a happy occasion with McCrea's loving mother (Mary Carr) taking an instant liking to his new daughter-in-law but McCrea's cynical friend (sour-pussed Ned Sparks) not so sure, Mackaill's real personality comes out. Having agreed prior to marriage to living off of his salary, she can't help but take him on an extended honeymoon in Europe (with McWade's money of course) and buying furs which McCrea can't afford. Returning to the states makes her motivations all the more clear when she takes up with her old society cronies, including the lecherous Bryant Washburn whom she's known all her life. She even goes as far as to try and block his taking a business trip her own father arranged, and this leads to McCrea questioning his own masculinity, leading to McWade stepping up to wake his daughter up and make her realize her selfishness is destroying her one chance for happiness. Mackaill pulls out all the stops in showing her character's personality from her spoiled selfishness to her vulnerability and need for love from a real man to her manipulation which makes her potentially as vile as pal Kimball-Young. At times, you want McCrea to smack her, but then with Carr offering warm motherly advice, it seems other roots are necessary in order to keep this marriage intact and for Mackaill to see her husband as something other than the brawny sexpot he is and not turn him into the dog-walking husband that Wood has turned out to be. There's a very funny drunken sequence between Washburn and Mackaill (referencing "The Villain Still Pursued Her") where they play a chasing game that ultimately wakes Mackaill up to what she really wants. In the end, this isn't about the man being the breadwinner and the wife being the homebody, but ultimately, about each of them accepting the values of what brought them together in the first place and putting the other partner in their thoughts before themselves.

BRINJU🎭

23/05/2023 06:35

The leading lady is physically rather graceless and her performance is forced. The saintly mother character is a bit sickening. But otherwise I enjoyed Kept Husbands. Joel McCrea is attractive. His performance in the beginning of the film is believable and natural. Unfortunately, towards the end of the film he becomes wooden and could be any run-of-the-mill leading man of the era. I agree with the earlier commenters who note that the makeup in Kept Husbands is enjoyably natural, with the exception of a few of the "rich" ladies who wear the heavy pancake, frizzed hair and shoulder-showing dresses of that film era, and so are indistinguishable from one another. The sound quality is excellent.

Djubi carimo

23/05/2023 06:35

Yet another in the seemingly endless slew of Depression-era Cinderella stories with a lead character gender switch as its sole source of inspiration. A principled young working man (Joel McCrea), poor and content to be so, captures the heart and libido of a spoiled and flighty heiress (Dorothy Mackaill). Despite his reservations, they tie the knot, a decision he quickly (and predictably) lives to regret as he discovers that being rich isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially when you feel like a neutered house cat. Unlike the kept husband of Frank Capra's similarly themed "Platinum Blonde," who retained a jaundiced sense of humor about his fairy tale predicament, McCrea's Cinderella Man is a sulking dolt. Wearing a perpetual scowl, our blue collar hero takes every opportunity to rain on his new bride's parade. He gripes about extending their European honeymoon, grouses about her spending sprees, beats himself up for taking hand-outs from his father-in-law, and spends an uncomfortable amount of time nestled in the arms of his gray-haired mama (and kissing her flush on the mouth to boot). The witless, by-the-numbers writing seems all the more leaden under Lloyd Bacon's stodgy, snail-paced direction. Worse yet is the horrendous miscasting of the leads. As if McCrea's wet-blanket turn wasn't tough enough to bear, the usually reliable Mackaill is forced to play the thankless role of an empty-headed ditz, a stretch for (and insult to) this intelligent and sophisticated Ziegfeld beauty. With Clara Kimball Young, Ned Sparks.

Kins

23/05/2023 06:35

Although it's part of the Roan Group's "Pre-code Hollywood - the Risque Years" DVD series, this RKO second feature is bereft of any racy material or dialogue. It's just a simpleminded, routine morality play championing humility and hard work, with the occasional funny line at the expense of the idle rich. The primary benefit is seeing the ever-wry Ned Sparks rather unusually cast as a steelworker, the platitude-spouting "jiminy cricket" of the lead character. When he tests a cigar left behind in a posh business office, he comments "Connecticut wrapper -- asafetida filling". As all Indian food buffs know, asafetida (aka devil's dung) is a foul-smelling resin that must be stored in isolation lest it contaminate other foodstuffs with its rancor. Apparently, in the 30s, it was used as a folk medicine among the lower classes. Never underestimate the educational value of old movies!

Emy Shahine

23/05/2023 06:35

This is being sold as a pre-code movie, but it has little of what you'd expect. Its a simple redemption story of a spoiled rich girl who "buys" a lower class but swell guy as a husband. At the very end, and only in the last few seconds, does she come around. Its more leveraged around class than sex. But there is a really interesting scene: our rich girl is miffed at her husband so goes off with an old friend, almost certainly a former sexual partner. He locks the door and they work through a few role games, him chasing her, and she being coy in order to increase the charm of being caught. All the while they are taking archetypal roles from movies. Now, remember that this is 1931, so the roles are relatively new and unsettled. What's so amazing about this scene is that you do not know, you are never allowed to see what side she is on, whether she really is running away so as not have sex, or playing the role to enhance the game of seduction. It seems that the actress is carefully in a scintillating state, showing and denying. Its masterful, and very engaging. Its only two minutes or so, but fabulous. Sexy stuff in the story and of the story. Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Anjali Adhikari

23/05/2023 06:35

Last week I watched Joel McCrea turn in an absolutely stunning performance in Merian Cooper and Earnest Schoedsack's brilliant 1932 thriller, "THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME" and again he reminds me here of just what an underrated actor he was during the Golden Age of Hollywood. His natural blond good looks (he pioneered surfing during the sport's early days in Los Angeles) and extremely competent acting on the heels of his residency at the nearby Pasadena Playhouse stand out in stark contrast to other leading men in an era when Billy Haines, George Arliss and Ramon Navarro were still representing America's young marrieds getting into jams as they get on their feet in the early days of The Great Depression. Dorothy Mackaill has the tricky job of playing a spoiled brat who is also in many ways by 2004 standards a modern woman whose doting industrialist father isn't making her emancipation any easier--but she pulls it off, and we wind up liking her! Sounding a little at first like one of the most outlandish stars of the day, Paramount's Mae West knock-off Peggy Hopkins Joyce, Mackaill proceeds to give a spot-on performance that represents some of the most natural acting I have seen out of anyone from the early talkies era; her knows-what-she-wants character Dot is effected flawlessly. I forgot that I was watching an actress perform, so finely tuned is her sense of timing. An Ex-Follies girl who came to the US from England at the age of 18, she is at ease before the camera, apparently aware of the fine line she is walking in a part which few other performers from that shaky time in the industry would have been able to master with such seamless grace. I am surprised and disappointed that her film career was in its twilight and that soon thereafter she would be serving full-time as a caregiver to her disabled mother. The writing and direction are both deserving of praise here, as well. The intelligent dialogue (including the contemporary slang, which I find fascinating whenever I can find it) stands the test of time remarkably well: it is real, never banal or contrived despite the familiar conflicted Depression-era highbrow-working class storyline aspect. When Dot asks her father to pay her new husband $50,000 a year, the kindly industrialist explains that he cannot comply, reasoning quite correctly that "it would hurt the organization"--having served a hitch in B-school, I liked that wise old man and contemporary manager right off the bat! Motherhood receives a tender treatment and ever so effectively. The lighting has a definite early Warners'-First National look to it. Sound recording, almost always a liability in those days, is accomplished neatly, as is the makeup: lips appear to be real rather than painted on and during the proposal scene McCrea's wholesome tan face appears not only untouched but luminescent. Rarely have the actors of 1931 looked quite so good. Helpful Trivia: At the time of production, Miss Mackaill was 28; cowpuncher McCrea, 25.