Viewers drawn to this film by its title and who are looking for something racy may be disappointed. But, for everyone else, "They Call it Sin" should be an entertaining film. Other reviewers have noted its air of melodrama. But, I don't think it quite fits to call it soap opera. It's a tale of a small town girl leaving home for the big city and opportunities. And, of a young man who falls for her, and a friend who also falls for her. And, of a villain who would compromise her innocence.
But, this young woman has promise as a musician and composer. And her departure is on the heels of learning that she was raised by people who were not her parents and who despised her. The young man was a visitor to her small town – on business. He is engaged to be married, but doesn't tell the young woman. After she learns the bitter truth from her foster parents, she follows him to the big city.
The story unfolds from there as a type of love triangle with the two male friends, and a would-be Svengali as a stage producer who takes her under his wing with lustful plans in his mind and heart. How this plays out is a nice story and picture, and somewhat different than the usual movie scenario. The young woman doesn't sacrifice her virtue to get somewhere, and the story has a fitting ending.
The cast is loaded with stars and talent of the time. Loretta Young is the young woman, Marion Cullen. David Manners is Jimmy Decker, the young man Marion follows to the city. George Brent is Jimmy's friend, Dr. Travers. Louis Calhern is very good as the Svengali character, Ford Humphries. But look for a change of his character toward the end. Others of the cast are very good. Una Merkel is Dixie Dare and Helen Vinson is Enid Hollister.
I enjoyed some other reviews in which one person said the sin parts of the film must have been left on the cutting room floor, and another who thought the script might have been changed. Still, a closer look might show some sin. For instance, Jimmy's affection (lusting?) for Marion, even after he's married. And, clearly, the spiteful, bitter attitude of the two people whom Marion had thought were her mother and father all her life. But obviously, the title for this film doesn't fit the finished product. Maybe it was just a ploy by Warner Brothers (First National Picture) in the hopes of drawing a big box office.
This film came out during the roughly four-year span before Hollywood's Hays Office began strictly enforcing its own Motion Picture Production Code in 1934. In that time, Tinseltown made a rash of racy films that only pushed the studios more to police themselves. It seems popular today to refer to the films of this period as "pre-code," and usually as though having some better quality, or being more entertaining. And, implying that the films that followed were the worst because of that. If anything, the opposite seems to be true, especially in comedy. Hollywood discovered that innuendo, suggestion and satire were powerful tools for entertaining, especially in comedy. Screwball comedy came to fore.
So, we have many great comedies of the 1930s since the code that may never have been such had it not been for the code. If anything, the code seemed to force writers and directors to be more creative, to write more clever scripts and dialog, and to make films funnier – all to get around roadblocks imposed by the code. Each year through the decade had several superb comedies, topped by such films as "It Happened One Night" of 1934, "A Night at the Opera" of 1935, "My Man Godfry" of 1936, "The Awful Truth" of 1937, "Bringing Up Baby" of 1938, and "Ninotchka" of 1939.
Many dramas, mysteries and other films were affected by the Hays Code as well. I think movie audiences benefited from the code while it was in effect. And Hollywood learned the power of innuendo and suggestion to entertain and tell a story with racy aspects. This film is a good drama that, although made during the "pre-code" days, is devoid of any raciness that would warrant its censure as intimated by its title.
But, this young woman has promise as a musician and composer. And her departure is on the heels of learning that she was raised by people who were not her parents and who despised her. The young man was a visitor to her small town – on business. He is engaged to be married, but doesn't tell the young woman. After she learns the bitter truth from her foster parents, she follows him to the big city.
The story unfolds from there as a type of love triangle with the two male friends, and a would-be Svengali as a stage producer who takes her under his wing with lustful plans in his mind and heart. How this plays out is a nice story and picture, and somewhat different than the usual movie scenario. The young woman doesn't sacrifice her virtue to get somewhere, and the story has a fitting ending.
The cast is loaded with stars and talent of the time. Loretta Young is the young woman, Marion Cullen. David Manners is Jimmy Decker, the young man Marion follows to the city. George Brent is Jimmy's friend, Dr. Travers. Louis Calhern is very good as the Svengali character, Ford Humphries. But look for a change of his character toward the end. Others of the cast are very good. Una Merkel is Dixie Dare and Helen Vinson is Enid Hollister.
I enjoyed some other reviews in which one person said the sin parts of the film must have been left on the cutting room floor, and another who thought the script might have been changed. Still, a closer look might show some sin. For instance, Jimmy's affection (lusting?) for Marion, even after he's married. And, clearly, the spiteful, bitter attitude of the two people whom Marion had thought were her mother and father all her life. But obviously, the title for this film doesn't fit the finished product. Maybe it was just a ploy by Warner Brothers (First National Picture) in the hopes of drawing a big box office.
This film came out during the roughly four-year span before Hollywood's Hays Office began strictly enforcing its own Motion Picture Production Code in 1934. In that time, Tinseltown made a rash of racy films that only pushed the studios more to police themselves. It seems popular today to refer to the films of this period as "pre-code," and usually as though having some better quality, or being more entertaining. And, implying that the films that followed were the worst because of that. If anything, the opposite seems to be true, especially in comedy. Hollywood discovered that innuendo, suggestion and satire were powerful tools for entertaining, especially in comedy. Screwball comedy came to fore.
So, we have many great comedies of the 1930s since the code that may never have been such had it not been for the code. If anything, the code seemed to force writers and directors to be more creative, to write more clever scripts and dialog, and to make films funnier – all to get around roadblocks imposed by the code. Each year through the decade had several superb comedies, topped by such films as "It Happened One Night" of 1934, "A Night at the Opera" of 1935, "My Man Godfry" of 1936, "The Awful Truth" of 1937, "Bringing Up Baby" of 1938, and "Ninotchka" of 1939.
Many dramas, mysteries and other films were affected by the Hays Code as well. I think movie audiences benefited from the code while it was in effect. And Hollywood learned the power of innuendo and suggestion to entertain and tell a story with racy aspects. This film is a good drama that, although made during the "pre-code" days, is devoid of any raciness that would warrant its censure as intimated by its title.