Before getting into my thoughts, darlings, let me say this was made before the implementation of the Hays Production Code; otherwise, this picture could not have been made.
Let me make it absolutely clear this film has nothing to do with the Kaufman and Hart play "Merrily We Roll Along," or the 1981 Sondheim musical of the same name. Though there are a few show biz and party scenes suggestive of it. But the play was not even produced until 1934!
Lastly, while I urge those never having seen it to do so, there are some spoilers necessary for discussion. If you want to remain surprised, stop when you hit the word "pregnant."
The film stars two of the era's most underrated actors, Frederic March and Sylvia Sydney. The film was an adaptation of a 1931 novel by Cleo Lucas called "I, Jerry, Take Thee Joan." The plot is simple. It is about two people who never should have gotten married in the first place. The film wants to suggest that this is the way of the world, and in some cases, it is, but there are marriages that do work out, including yours truly.
The problem is the viewers can see what the characters cannot. From the first five minutes, it becomes apparent that Jerry Corbett (March) a newspaper reporter and struggling playwright, is also a definitive alcoholic. A chance meeting with Joan Prentice (Sydney) at a party reveals her to be a naive but loving heiress who has never faced the harshness of the world, and whose father (George Irving) has done his loving best to protect her.
You know the trajectory, girls. Things are wonderful, until they are not. When Jerry has a string of hits he resumes partying and drinking again, two timing Joan with the play's lead actress. Joan finally decides two can play at this game and steps out on the town with Charles Baxter, played by a young Cary Grant. Sylvia Sydney especially demonstrates quite an acting range, especially when she goes from the mousy Joan to the wild one!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Girls, we all want to be wild Joan!!!!!!!!!! Or maybe we have been, in youth!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But codependent need keeps drawing them back, and when Joan walks out for good, Jerry makes every effort there is to win her back, but her father tells her no dice. Months later, he reads that Joan, home in Chicago is in the hospital, having given birth to a baby boy. Ecstatic, he goes there but is told by Mr. Prentice that the baby is dead.
Which brings up a lot of questions. Is the baby actually dead? Because when Jerry forces his way into Joan, they hold each other aa if to cling forever, and the film closes with them clenched, and she is muttering, "My baby, my baby."
Who even knew Joan was pregnant? I don't think the film was allowed to acknowledge or show it. She could have made the discovery while home in Chicago, but the viewer will never know. Again, as for the baby being dead, is it actually? And the final words--whom are they directed to--the allegedly lost infant son, or Jerry himself? My guess is the latter.
Dorothy Arzner's direction and the script of Edwin Justus Mayer lays out a troubled marriage in spite of the couple genuinely loving each other. The answers to the questions I have asked I think they intentionally leave to the individual viewer to make up.
I was once told by someone wise that making the wrong decision about marriage can turn into a nightmare. This film illustrates that. I do think they will get back together, child or no child, and the cycle will begin all over again.
I wonder if a young William Inge saw this? Maybe it inspired him to write "Come Back, Little Sheba!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"






