Stand-In (1937) ***

Release Date: October 29, 1937

Running Time: 90 Minutes

Starring: Leslie Howard, Joan Blondell, Humphrey Bogart

Directed By: Tay Garnett

Leslie Howard seems perfectly cast as a young up-and-comer banker dispatched to Hollywood to deal with a movie studio that appears to be bleeding money during the depression. It wasn’t based on a true story but the events here were happening to many of the studios on Poverty Row during this time and thus was topical, at least to people in the business. It tackled some serious issues for the time, yet managed to instill a level of humor to the proceedings that keeps it from bogging down in those issues. While the average audience goer of the time may not have related to the Hollywood scene, they could easily relate to the humanity behind it, a delicate balance this film manages to handle well.

Leslie Howard plays Atterbury Dodd, the aforementioned young banker. “Colossal Pictures” is in danger of folding and has an offer to be purchased from the bank and closed down but Atterbury advises against it, stating that he can turn things around by going out to the studio himself, take the human element out of things and make it profitable. What he finds upon arrival is frivolous spending all around and a crash course in what Hollywood is all about. Along the way he meets Stand-In actress Lester Plum (Joan Blondell), a former child star who now works as a stand-in for Thelma Cheri (Marla Shelton), the studio’s star actress. Lester is quirky, and quickly falls for the inexperienced Atterbury who naively misses all the signs of her infatuation. Producer Doug Quintain (Humphrey Bogart), former lover of Cheri, is struggling to bring a film, Sex and Satan, in on time thanks in large part to its actress and is feeling the heat from on top. An advanced screening of Sex and Satan doesn’t go over well and Atterbury has serious reservations over how the motion picture business can ever turn a profit without serious renovations, changes that may hurt the employees but save the studio from the chopping block. 

Stand-In takes shots at a lot of different targets, not just the motion picture industry. It also finds targets in banking, corporate greed, and the callousness of big business. Everybody in the film are painted broadly to the point that no one comes across as a real person. This plagues virtually the entire film only occasionally offering glimpses to real characters behind the facade. Perhaps this was done on purpose as a statement against vain actors and actresses and the people in charge of them. If so, it doesn’t quite work. It is just too broad. That’s not to say it isn’t interesting to watch, just not easy to invest in the plight. It can’t even be considered a farce or a screwball comedy as the subject it is tackling was a real issue that still is valid nearly ninety years later with studios buying out other studios and putting many artists out of work.

The biggest saving grace for this film is the chemistry between Lester and Atterbury. They have a witty repartee that lightens up every scene they share. Her flirtations coupled with his complete lack of understanding make for some very fun moments. Of particular note are the scenes where Lester is trying to teach Atterbury how to dance or when she gives him a demonstration of a Ju-Jitsu  move. Both scenes end with him blissfully unaware he is hurting her feelings as he remains oblivious of her feelings for him. 

A film like this can only end one way and thus has no real surprises to offer. In this case it must survive almost entirely on the journey and not the destination. Fortunately, even with few truly realistic characters in the mix, it manages to entertain enough to get by. If it weren’t for the screen presence of the two leads, specifically Joan Blondell, this film wouldn’t work as is. Humphrey Bogart is game but woefully miscast as the jilted lover of Cheri who finds himself being ousted from his position thanks to a spoiled actress and a stubborn director. He never seems comfortable here and leaves no impression whatsoever. 

Ultimately Stand-In is an awkward juxtaposition of real-life issues and broad comedy. It’s not sharp enough in its assessment of the Hollywood Studio system to qualify as satire and it’s not sincere enough to really be a message movie, either. It lies firmly in the middle and would have become completely forgettable had it not been for Howard and Blondell’s on screen chemistry. This chemistry manages to smooth out some of the rough passages making the film at least palatable.