Sporting Life

... and that's why I'd recommend you skip it, even if you're an early sound film buff, as I am. Neither the script nor the acting are particularly bad for an early talkie, it's just that everything and everyone in this paint-by-numbers film about the boxing world is so completely conventional and forgettable. Bad films I'd recommend from the early sound era would be "Golden Dawn" or "Lights of New York" because they are so horrid in places that they wind up being fun for the early talkie fan.

There are, however, a few interesting facts involving this early talkie film:

1. There is no parade in this film, although a good portion of the action does take place at night. The film was renamed "Night Parade" to capitalize on the success of some other films of the time that had the word "Parade" in the title.

2. Aileen Pringle, who plays Paula Vernoff, the bad girl that tries to lure the boxer down the wrong path, actually had a pretty good range as an actress, although she shows none of that here. She had some good roles in the silent era, but approaching 40, she got increasingly smaller parts as the 1930's wore on.

3. Famed dancer Ann Pennington actually shows up as herself and dances one number. The film is well-preserved enough that we get a good look at her talents and those famous knees of hers. This is a rare thing to have on film.

4. Male lead Hugh Trevor, who plays wayward boxer Bobby Martin, died in 1933 at only the age of 30 due to complications after an appendectomy. This is one thing I notice over and over in these old films - relatively young people dying of infections and car accidents that they most likely would have survived had they lived today. It really puts the passage of time in perspective.

5. Finally, for this to be such an old and a mediocre film it really is in excellent shape. The sound and video are largely unscathed from the passage of time, which is rare for the RKO film library in general.

Somewhat interesting curio from the early sound days, about a naive boxing champ who falls for a flashy "flapper" just before the big championship fight, not knowing that she's a gangster's moll setting him up to throw the fight so her real boyfriend can make a fortune betting against him. As another reviewer has mentioned, this film is actually in much better shape than a lot of surviving films from that era, which makes it not quite as frustrating to watch (no hisses on the soundtrack, no irritating jump cuts because footage is missing, no tinny sound, etc.) as many of its contemporaries. The script--co-written by the legendary George Abbott, who came a cropper on this one--is simplistic to the point of laugh-inducing, the acting by all involved leaves a lot to be desired, the camera-work is of the "bolt-the-camera-to-the-floor- and-crank-away" school. Director Mal St. Clair was much more at home turning out the light comedies at which he excelled and shows none of the flair and sense of humor he was noted for. Actors step on each others' lines, there are awkward pauses where, apparently, actors missed their cues and a few other technical shortcomings and gaffes, but it's still worth a watch just for its historical value. Another thing it's worth watching for is a minor actress named Marie Astaire, who has a small part as Florence, one of the "wild" girls in the party scene that takes place the night before the big fight. She's beautiful, sexy and makes more of an impression than the two female leads. She didn't have much of a career (her IMDb page lists 24 roles, most uncredited) and I have no idea if she's related to the famed Fred Astaire (her IMDb page makes no mention of it), but she's worth paying attention to, as is the famous Broadway star Ann Pennington, who makes an appearance at the party scene and does a very racy dance that shows off her spectacular legs, which is something else she was famous for.

Overall this film actually has more minuses than pluses, but it's still worth a watch. You could do worse.

Please understand that my score of 7 is based on when it was made. Had this film appeared just a few years later, I would not have been as charitable. It's just that for an early silent is IS pretty good.

There were several reviews that complained about the sound, but actually compared to so many films from 1929, this was was excellent and the acting was actually pretty good. First, you could actually hear them talking without much straining--and this CAN'T be said of films like COQUETTE (also 1929). Second, while there isn't the incidental music, this is true of just about every film in 1929. Also, while a few of the actors were dreadful (particularly "the champ"), the film was far less static than most of the early sound era. The characters in some films made at that time stood almost wood-like and shouted up towards the microphones--this one never is that bad. Had you not known how bad most 1929 and even 1930 films were, then I could see you complaining about the sound. Believe me, though, the sound in this is excellent.

As for the film itself, many will find themselves laughing at the plot--after all, just about every boxing film cliché is present. However, please understand that most of the films featuring these clichés borrowed them from NIGHT PARADE. When it appeared in 1929, the clichés weren't yet clichés and this style of sports film was the rage. Today, though, it will seem pretty old fashioned and predictable.

If I would rate this film for historical purposes, it deserves an 8. If I write it for watchability today, then it probably deserves a 5. While predictable, there still was some charm and I liked the locker room fight scene with Pops. However, I will admit that as a true cinephile and lover of silents and early talkies, I am a bit biased and tend to overlook many of the problems with these transitional films. To see more technically competent films, you really won't see too many until 1931 or 1932. Heck, in Europe and Japan they were STILL making silents until the early to mid-30s.

Known all over the boxing world as a "straight shooter," boyish middleweight champion Hugh Trevor (as Bobby Murray) has become involved with sophisticated Aileen Pringle (as Paula Vernoff), an older woman with a secret agenda. She's working with racketeer Robert Ellis (as John Zelli) in an effort to get Mr. Trevor to throw his upcoming big fight. His pretty childhood friend Dorothy Gulliver (as Doris O'Connell) is in love with Trevor, but he treats her like a "kid sister." With alcohol helping, it looks like Trevor is going to fall for quick sex and easy money. Hopefully, manager father Lloyd Ingraham (as Tom Murray) and Ms. Gulliver can save Trevor from temptation...

"Night Parade" was also seen in a "silent" version (with synchronized sound effects) starring Trevor, with all or most of the cast. That film's whereabouts is presently unknown, according to the "Silent Era" website. Too bad, because it very likely the superior version...

There are major "talking" performance concerns here, along with some questionable direction from Malcolm St. Clair. Still, Trevor is an appealing leading man and there are some good set-ups and sets. The final championship bout is inter-cut with an off stage fight and takes place outside, under a sudden rainstorm. Neither the inter-cutting nor the drenching could have been done in George Abbott's original Broadway play, "Ringside" (1928), which ended in a presumably less wet Madison Square Garden. It looks like producer William LeBaron and RKO had something good going with "Night Parade" which was lost in the "silent" to "talking" motion picture translation.

***** Night Parade (10/27/29) Malcolm St. Clair ~ Hugh Trevor, Aileen Pringle, Dorothy Gulliver, Lloyd Ingraham

I came in expecting to get some pleasure out of this picture; between the Mal St. Clair direction, the George Abbott script and some interesting talent in front of the camera, it looked pretty good on paper.

However, although the script still looks good -- the corruption of an honest boxer -- there are far too many issues to make it enjoyable.

Stagey Acting: a frequent problem of 1929 an issue of the relatively primitive sound equipment and non-naturalistic stage technique, this would be corrected in a couple of years. None of which excuses the fact that people at a party just stand around doing nothing.

Leaden Camera: It's about ten minutes into the film before the camera moves at all, and then it's moved very slightly to maintain composition, but in an incredibly clumsy fashion, like one man trying to move a sofa. Otherwise it's just cut and cut and cut, two shot, reaction shot, two shot, reaction shot. Compare the vast majority of these shots with the boxing sequence, which is shot MOS with very mobile camera and a lot of undercranking.

Mal St. Clair, after working with Chaplin, developed a reputation as a great director with a light touch -- certainly his Rin-Tin-Tin features are good. But he shows absolutely nothing here. Still it's an interesting story and that stops it from being unwatchable. It's just that you have a lot better things do with your time.