Little Man, What Now?

source: Little Man, What Now?

Little Man, What Now (1934) : Brief Review - Frank Borzage's hope during the Depression Era, just before Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times. Borzage was one of those directors from old Hollywood who liked to stick to the basics and old traditions. He rarely used any modern theories, and so he chose the films accordingly. Little Man, What Now is not just a film, it's encouragement, a boost to the people who have lost hope in life, and not to forget that it came in the early 30s, i.e. The depression era. It was just before Charlie Chaplin's silent classic, "Modern Times" (1936). "Never say die, we'll get along," - remember this quote from the film? Well, Borzage's Little Man, What Now tells you the same story from a different point of view. But the motive remains the same. I remember two old classic films fondly, which focused on the same issue of poverty and ended with a hope of ray. The first one is King Vidor's "The Crowd" (1928) and the second one is the John Ford directorial "The Grapes Of Wrath" (1940). Based on Hans Fallada's novel, Borzage's film is about a married couple struggling against the poverty caused by unemployment. The film is not depressing, nor is it too intense, yet it explains the issue very well. The couple seems relatable because they don't go through any highly dramatic conflicts, while the supporting characters keep adding humour. The screenplay is well adapted by William Anthony McGuire and it never feels boring. It's just a sweet little film with a little message that may bring a big change in perspective on looking at tough times. Douglass Montgomery and Margaret Sullivan are as cute as they could get, and you'll love watching them on screen. Frank Borzage is at his typical best when that typical term wasn't established for him. So, it's a worthwhile one to look at if you love watching films with contemporary importance. RATING - 7/10*

Margaret Sullavan is remembered for the work she did later at MGM, especially the romantic films she made with James Stewart. But she began her Hollywood career under contract at Universal. In the mid-1930s she appeared in several noteworthy pictures for the studio that merit attention. One such gem is LITTLE MAN WHAT NOW? (1934) which pairs her with two very different men- Douglass Montgomery and Alan Hale (Sr.). Talk about a contrast! The story is about a young couple struggling to survive, and it is a remake of a German melodrama from a year earlier which itself was based on a popular novel. Universal executive Carl Laemmle would act as if he had conceived the idea for this production, when in reality he was just borrowing the template of what had been a hit in Germany. Laemmle and his team who endeavored to adapt the material don't seem to Americanize it very much. But that doesn't matter. What does matter- the stars at the center of the drama. Douglass Montgomery, who had played the object of Katharine Hepburn's affections in RKO's version of LITTLE WOMEN (1933), is an actor who's always drawn me in with his performances. How come nobody ever cast him to play Romeo? I think it's the unique combination of masculinity and femininity that he projects on camera. There is a soft quality in him that works when he has to play a vulnerable guy on the brink of failure. Alan Hale is the total opposite. Older and a "man's man" all the way, he brings experience and assuredness to his part. In the story, he is a paternal benefactor who would like to cross the line with young bride Sullavan. But things remain platonic. Hale's character doesn't have a huge amount of screen time. He usually appears when there is a turning point in the narrative, trying to help solve some of the couple's problems which sometimes creates new problems. Adding a layer of complexity is Hale's open relationship with Montgomery's mother (the much underrated Catherine Doucet). She is basically running a brothel. As for Miss Sullavan herself, she brings every bit of noble suffering and triumph that she can possibly muster to the screen. We know things will only get better as long as she remains by her husband's side. This includes periods when he is unemployed and they are barely scraping by. After she becomes pregnant, their situation is even more delicate. Watching the film I kept wondering what the title meant- but that all becomes clear in the last few shots. The little man is not the underachieving husband in a world of business giants. It is their newborn son who has a world of opportunity and life decisions ahead of him.

Frank Borzage was one of the prize directors at the Fox Studio in the late 1920s; he became the first director to win the Academy Award for SEVENTH HEAVEN in 1927, one of the essential romances of the silent cinema. But by 1932, William Fox was running into trouble, and the finances of Fox were shaky. Borzage had won his second Oscar for Best Director in 1931 for the Fox production of BAD GIRL; two years later, he was working for Mary Pickford's own production company (SECRETS), Paramount (A FAREWELL TO ARMS), Columbia (MAN'S CASTLE and NO GREATER GLORY) and Universal (LITTLE MAN, WHAT NOW?). LITTLE MAN, WHAT NOW? was based on a German novel by Hans Falleda, which had been made into a movie in Germany in 1933. (I haven't seen the German movie.) But LITTLE MAN, WHAT NOW? would be the follow-up film for Universal's new star, Margaret Sullavan, who had made an impressive debut in ONLY YESTERDAY, directed by John M. Stahl. She was known for being temperamental, and she refused several projects before she agreed to star in LITTLE MAN, WHAT NOW? In some ways, LITTLE MAN, WHAT NOW? is the quintessential Frank Borzage movie, with many scenes and themes which echo his earlier films. There is the young couple, struggling to survive severe economic hardship; there are the effects of the Great War, leaving many with few opportunities. There is even the scene where the heroine appears in a shimmering gown, a radiant moment that is a respite from the general squalor and/or misery (this scene can be found in SEVENTH HEAVEN, in MAN'S CASTLE, in THREE COMRADES). LITTLE MAN, WHAT NOW? takes its young couple (Sullavan and Douglass Montgomery) through various strata of the struggling working class in Germany during the worldwide economic downturn of the early 1930s. Along the way, they encounter a variety of characters, including Muriel Kirkland as the hideously overprivileged daughter of an employer, Catherine Doucet as Montgomery's giddy stepmother, and Alan Hale as her hearty, possibly shady friend. Through it all, Sullavan's empathetic, luminous performance provides the film with its beacon of hope in the midst of turmoil and strife. This would be the first of four collaborations between Margaret Sullavan and Frank Borzage. (Just for the record, it should be stressed that this film was made at Universal Studios, NOT MGM, where Borzage would start working in 1937; Universal has been one of the studios which has been notoriously problematic in terms of getting their films on various home-video formats, so it's no wonder that LITTLE MAN, WHAT NOW? is unavailable, but asking for MGM to release a Universal film on DVD is an object lesson in futility.)

Margaret Sullavan was never more beautiful in this mega tearjerker. Even if she has to act opposite the unappealing Douglass Montgomery, the films works. Wonderfully photographed, and superb acting by all makes this movie a must see.

I see that the German cinema did a version of Little Man What Now a year before this Universal Picture came out. Depending on exactly when Dr. Goebbels took over their movie industry the message would have been far more polemic than here. I could see this as good material for either a Nazi inspired film or a left wing one. But Frank Borzage as director always seems to concern himself with the plight of young lovers, the truly innocent of the world and how forces around them are buffeting their chances at happiness. Which seems to be a capital sin in Borzage films. A lot similarity between this one and later Borzage works like Three Comrades and The Mortal Storm which also starred Margaret Sullavan. In Little Man What Now Douglass Montgomery and Margaret Sullavan are a pair of young marrieds who just can't seem to get traction enough for Montgomery to earn a living and support Sullavan and the baby coming. As things go from bad to worse Montgomery is tempted to seek radical politics of some kind. My favorite scene in the film concerns poor Montgomery waiting on a self centered cinema star in the department store where he is currently employed. Alan Mowbray is unforgettable in that one scene. Interesting showing a the indulgences of a selfish man can have such an effect as Montgomery's job is on the line. Even now too many of us live two paychecks from the gutter and too many of us are tempted by demagogues as a result. In that way Little Man What Now is still a very relevant film.

"Little Man, What Now?" is a miserable story. Now I am NOT saying it's bad...but it is hard to watch and even painful to watch at times. It's the story of a young married couple who are struggling just to survive the economic malaise in post-war Germany...where their Depression was far worse than that which hit the States. Jobs were very hard to come by and life was a serious struggle. When the film begins, Hans and Emma (Douglass Montgomery and Margaret Sullavan) marry. However, Hans works at a peculiar place...where they ONLY employ bachelors and will fire him if he marries! And, there's a constant push to make the company meaner and leaner--and the employees are warned that one could easily be fired! Well, eventually he is exposed and loses the job and they are poor and hungry. He accepts an offer from his mother to move into her place. Yet, when they arrive, you see his mother is a shallow bi...um...not nice person. She wants to charge them rent and only things about herself and her live-in lover (Alan Hale)...and life is STILL a struggle. Fortunately, Hans gets a job...but ends up losing it and they are miserable once again...a pattern that continues throughout the film. And, oddly, despite their financial problems, the couple seem to occasionally plan and spend very poorly. If you are looking for a feel-good film, this is NOT it!! It's a portrait of the Depression and Depressions are, by their very nature, depressing!! The film is well made and an interesting historical portrait...but how many folks wanna see something this unappealing and awful?! Yes, post-war Germany (1919-1932) REALLY sucked...and here is sucks in spades!! By the way, you can tell this is a Pre-code movie when the film begins (it came out a few months before the new Production Code was put into effect). Douglass Montgomery's character is standing outside a gynecologist's office...and it says 'Gynecology' on the sign! You'd never see this in Post-Code films of the 30s, 40s or 50s. Well made but dreadful.

Peace and tolerance are the hero's favorite words."Little man what now" was the first part of the trilogy which encompassed "three comrades" and would culminate in "the mortal storm" .The three movies featured the same star (Margaret Sullavan) and depicted life in Germany before WW2. "Little man" -although Hitler came to power in January 1933- ,like "Three comrades" ,remains vague as far politics are concerned.But we feel while the heroes pace up up and down the street that there's something in the air (the first pictures).In "three comrades" ,the ending in the graveyard tells us that "they" are in town.And "the mortal storm" connects all the links and is the absolute masterpiece Borzage always threatened to make. "Little man" is an overwhelming movie.Lammchen and Hans believe in love ,tolerance and peace and the world they live in is harshness ,selfishness, corruption and contempt.Hans's longing for human warmth is harrowing in the scene with the nurse.With an exception, when Hans is looking for a job,he meets people who enjoy humiliating and demeaning their fellow men. "Little man" is full of strong scenes : the stroll in the country where the outside world (the hateful Kleinholz) will not leave the heroes alone; the actor who wants to play the part of a guy who "lives on the wrong side of the town" but who does not show any compassion when he meets one of those guys.Margaret Sullavan on the carousel,confessing she ate all the salmon she bought; on a bench in the park feeding the pigeons .Both Hans and Lammchen display the same naiveté : she really did know that near the pigeons ,there was a man and his wife who were starving.Hans did not know either that his stepmother's parties were very bad things. When the movie ends,there's another little man who,says Lammchen, will be by your side and help you cope with your struggle . Watching "little man" (or any of Borzage's movies) helps you be a better human being.

This is a typical Frank Borzage film, dealing only with ordinary people but telling a very moving story about a young family with a father out of work, who happen to all kinds of social mishaps in their desperate effort to survive and find a livelihood. It is based on Hans Fallada's most famous novel, which was a bestseller in its day, as too many recognized themselves in the fate of the unemployed father, as it deals with the difficult years of the depression. Like so many of Borzage's films, it all happens in Germany, and the mood is that of the general desperation and unrest after the First World War in the 20s. Douglass Montgomery as the father makes a very touching figure of a helpless father who can't handle money properly and considers it more important to satisfy his wife's irresponsible fancies than to keep a job that inflicts on his pride. Margaret Sullavan as the wife is perfect for the role, irresistibly pretty and charming and at the same time outrageously naïve in her lack of character, while she manages to keep spirits up nevertheless. Alan Mowbray plays a short part accentuating the social tensions and differences of that society, while their final old host (Christian Rub) makes an adorable character. The whole story is actually about a baby, who is expected throughout the film, and the mishaps of the young parents to be keep you anxiously worried all the way about what will happen to this poor family, while Borzage as usual and the baby actually save the show.

This is the story of a young German couple, Emma (Margaret Sullavan) and Hans (Douglas Montgomery), struggling to get by in Weimar Germany with a Depression going on. It reminds me of "Made for Each Other" starring James Stewart and Carole Lombard made in 1939. Hans and Emma are unmarried and facing an accidental pregnancy. They get an appointment with a doctor where it is implied that they can get an abortion. But the doctor refuses, and having no other "references" of doctors who are trustworthy in this matter, they get married and decide to have the baby. They face a multitude of problems, the first being that Hans is one of three men his employer has hired with the strict rule that none of the men be married. The reason is that said employer has a homely daughter of marriageable age and he is trying to foist her off on one of them. And said homely daughter has decided that Hans is the man she wants. That leads to unemployment for Hans, but not the way you think. Then they decide to move in with Hans' well off stepmother, but she sees Emma as her personal servant, and then it is discovered that dear old stepmom is running a brothel from her house when Hans is away during the day. The two just encounter a raft of cold heartless employers that use the hard times to make ridiculous demands on their employees. It's not like any of this has any parallels in today's world right? But along the way the couple does meet some kind people or else this story would just be too depressing. The turbulent political times are mentioned too, as Hans and Emma keep running into a penniless Marxist couple that is homeless and often hungry. Frank Borzage spent his entire life in the United States, but his parents were both from Central Europe. I guess it is from the tales they told him that he learned enough about the place that his films set in post WWI Europe ring so true. As for the romantic angle in this film, Borzage was in a marriage in which the love was strictly one way. His wife did not care for him at all. Maybe some of the optimism and romanticism found in his films is rooted in his hope that somehow his own marriage would eventually work out.