I decided I'd watch a little bit of this film on the computer. Knowing me I usually get distracted and stop watching but this film was so very different. My first silent film, and already a favourite. I could literally not stop watching Clara Bow, she was absolutely fascinating. I'd read David Stenn's wonderful biography on her so it was great to see her finally acting. When she's on screen you block out everything else and her acting ability wonderful - she can cry at the drop of a hat! So, instead of getting distracted I watched this movie the whole way through and enjoyed every moment of it... but my favourite parts were definitely with Clara. In fact, you could say I wasn't really interested in anyone else! This movie is HER movie. It's fun, flirty and just a great movie. I recommend it for anyone who loves silent movies, Clara Bow, or flirtatious movies pushing the limit. Age wise, I think I can recommend it for about 15 onwards - I'm 14 and I really enjoyed it - but not all teenagers will appreciate the film. Which is a pity, because it's wonderful!
Add a Review
-
Incalculacable5 February 2006
-
I'm completely smitten with Clara Bow. After having seen Wings, and having just watched It and the TCM documentary Clara Bow: Discovering the It Girl, I have to say that she's just about the most amazing actress of the silent era. Even besides her limitless beauty, it seems like she can accomplish anything with her face. It's far too bad that she was never given a role that fully suited her immense talent. Wings is the closest she ever came to making a great film, it would seem, but, even though she steals the movie away from the other actors, the dogfights and action sequences steal the movie from her. So then It has to stand as her testament, the film that best demonstrates her legacy. And because of this, it's not surprising that Bow is all but forgotten. I mean, It certainly isn't a bad movie. It's a moderately well done romantic comedy where the shopgirl goes after her rich boss. It's fun and entertaining, but not necessarily something you'll remember for that long afterwords. Much like any romantic comedy that would be released today, among which the best is only an average movie. But then those looking to observe Clara Bow's talent don't exactly need another movie. Bow effortlessly raises the level of the project. It would have been rather average without her, but she makes it good. Quite good, in fact. I couldn't take my eyes off her, and I know that I'll visit the film again because of her. The other actors are mostly forgettable, except for William Austin. He plays the boss's best friend, and he's pretty obviously a homosexual. It's one of the more open depictions I've seen. He's quite funny, as well, and it's no mean feat that he wins any attention whatsoever away from Ms. Bow. 8/10.
-
amantsdupontneuf22 February 2002this is a very fast paced and cute comedy starring the beautiful clara bow. the plot is fairly routine for it's era, but clara gives this film a real boost. she's especially appealing in a scene where she is making funny faces at her friends baby. the scenes at coney island are also fun to watch. and check out the subtitles with the 1920's slang. pretty funny stuff.
-
jondaris14 October 2001Two years after "It" came out the silent picture would be a thing of the past. Still, the most striking thing about this movie, after the always beautiful Clara Bow, is how modern it looks. On the Kino DVD the picture is sharp and clear, with excellent contrast. It looks as good as black and white can.
The story itself is fluff. The It of the title, which translates roughly as sex appeal, is irrelevant to the plot. Salesgirl Betty Lou Spence (Bow) falls in love with owner of big department store Cyrus Waltham, Jr. (Antonio Moreno). She chases him, he chases her, misunderstanding separates them. Even though the plot is light, it fulfills its modest goals well, largely due to Bow's energy. William Austin, as Moreno's friend Monty, is also a high point. In one key scene he also shows himself to be a far more caring and sensitive person than Cyrus, and probably a better choice for Betty's affections. Sadly, that's not how this kind of movie works.
The camera work is pretty sophisticated for the time. The scenes of Betty and Cyrus's date at the beach, with quick cuts as the two laugh, play and fall in love, are now a cliche, although one that's still used. The use of panning, different angles during scenes and plenty of close-ups keep the movie moving, without the long shots before a stationary camera that characterized many indoor scenes during the silent era. Were it not for the lack of sound and the title cards, one could easily think this movie was made as late as the start of WWII.
"It" is not an important movie in the development of cinema, either in terms of technique or theme. Instead, it's an entertaining romantic comedy, largely due to Bow's electrifying screen presence and Austin's satisfying performance. Clara Bow was a huge star, who defined the female sex symbol during the 20s. Even today it's hard to imagine anyone watching her and being able to deny that she does indeed have It. -
Mmmavis12 February 2007Before It, Clara Bow was A Hollywood actress. After It, Clara was THE Hollywood actress. The film catapulted her into super stardom, and it's easy to understand why. The film itself is just Hollywood popcorn fare for it's time---but Clara is an absolute sensation.
This film was like so many other Bow films---it was a vehicle specifically to show her off. Clara is unfortunately not remembered by many today, but she was the prototype for women like Harlow, Monroe, and Madonna. In other words, Clara was the very first mass-marketed sex symbol. She was one of the first 'personality' stars, incredibly popular with the average movie-going public because of her vibrant, bubbly, magnetic and photogenic screen persona. Most of her films were rather cheap, shoddily-made affairs put together solely to show her off and make as much money as cheaply as possible. The difference with this one is that it had a competent director, competent script, and competent actors to surround her with. Even so, she still out-shines everything else around her.
The dynamics between the characters in the film are confusing to us now, but were quite obvious and simplistic for the time. A lot of people today see Monty as gay. He wasn't written that way; he was a common stock character of silent comedies, the silly young man. He's interested in Clara, but willingly helps her snag his friend instead, because that's what friends are for. He's there for comic effect and to contrast with the male lead, Cyrus, who to us seems rather stodgy and dull, but needed to be this way in order to be above reproach: the man worthy of Clara's heart had to be a perfect specimen of propriety. Otherwise, he didn't deserve her. Clara's character today can come across as somewhat scheming and manipulative, but to the 1920's audience, she was a refreshing change from the movie heroines that preceded her; no shrinking violet or sexless schoolgirl, but a girl who would go after what she wanted, and get it.
The film is actually a pretty routine Cinderella story, except for one thing: instead of being pursued, Clara becomes the pursuer, chasing her boss and ensnaring him with her 'It'. The movies made during the roaring 20's helped free Western culture from the restrictive Victorian morals of the late 19th Century. For the first time, it was acceptable for women to pursue men, to openly acknowledge their sex appeal, and movies like this helped society grapple with these concepts. In those days, the word 'sex' was considered unsuitable to be uttered in polite company---hence the euphemism 'it'. The Glyn cameo---while serving her decidedly large ego---actually served an important function here: Glyn looks like the ultimate respectable dowager. If it was okay for someone like her to talk about 'it', well, then it must be okay for us as well! This is where the true genius of the film lies: while not a classic, timeless piece of celluloid, it did fundamentally alter American culture, as did Clara herself. Clara did not play exotic, dangerous characters, the way that Theda Bara or Rudolph Valentino did. She played everyday girls---the kind you might run into while spending the day at Coney Island sucking down hot dogs and hanging with your friends. It was this changing of the idea of the sex symbol, from exotic foreigner to everyday American gal, which was one of the real catalysts for the sexual revolution that occurred during the 20th Century.
This is one of the earliest examples of a concept film. The idea behind the marketing was that after watching this film, people would go home, look in the mirror, and wonder if they had 'it'. If they didn't, they'd wonder how they could get 'it'. They would then pay good money for things that would give them 'it': a new hairstyle, snazzy clothes, a nice car, etc. This, of course, has had an incredible effect on our culture in the last 80 years; we now have entire industries that revolve around us trying claim 'it' for ourselves, and a galaxy of people who's sole purpose is to be professionally beautiful: models of 'it' for us to aspire to.
To sum this up, this film has an important place in cultural history, and it's enjoyable to watch. If you like old movies, I recommend you see it. At the very least, Clara's exuberant and coy performance will enchant you. -
jonr-310 June 2003I first saw "It" last year at a mini-festival at the Kemper Museum in Kansas City. The audience was about equally middle-aged (50's, 60's; I'm 63) and young (many 20's and early 30's). Everybody roared with laughter and delight throughout the film.
This is not only a sweet, wacky comedy (with a strong ending--how I wish current filmmakers could learn that lesson!), but also a demonstration, as others have pointed out, of one of the most magnetic personalities ever to face a camera lens. Clara Bow's presence is simply heart-stopping and her basic goodness, at least in this role, is such that it makes me feel maybe there's a little hope for humankind after all.
I watched it again, with a friend, at home this evening and marveled anew at the extraordinary vitality of this wonderful young woman. The extremely silly story doesn't matter in the least. The lesson of the film, as much as there is one, is "where there's a will, there's a way," and to follow the exploits of our heroine's will is pure balm for any weary soul. -
Cyrus (Antonio Moreno) is the heir to a large, successful department store. He falls for counter girl Betty (Clara Bow), a young woman who definitely has "IT", that indefinable quality that makes certain people the center of attention. Cyrus' goofball friend Monty (William Austin) tries to facilitate the "opposite sides of the track" romance between his buddy and Betty, with more than a few hiccups along the way. Also featuring Priscilla Bonner, Jacqueline Gadsdon, Julia Swayne Gordon, and Gary Cooper.
This was based on a story by Elinor Glyn, and if you don't know the name, you sure will by the end of the movie. Her name is featured prominently in the opening credits, then in a title card explaining what "IT" is, then in a copy of the story being read by a character in the movie, and then when Glyn shows up for a cameo, playing herself! Anyway, most people have heard of this movie and the "It Girl" moniker that it gave Clara Bow for the rest of her life..
It's a decent romantic comedy of the period, with many little period details that make modern viewing interesting. The changes in fashions, manner and speech are amusing. I don't think I'd ever seen the exclamation "Hot Socks!" before. Bow is cute, and pushes the boundary for what a woman could do, say and look like on screen (near the end of the film as she climbs soaking wet out of the water with her clothing clinging to her, leaving little to the imagination, comes to mind). In that way It prefigures the coming Pre-Code early sound era. -
stwhite22 January 2004When it comes to IT, Clara Bow was in a league of her own. No other actress I've ever seen has even been close(maybe Jean Harlow). But most actresses since Clara didn't have silent films, which allowed her beautiful expressive eyes, facial expressions, and physical gestures (such as looking between the legs of stuffed toy dog) to do her talking and leave no doubt as to her intent. Her ability to do this made her special. I must admit that even though I loved this film, IT isn't my favorite performance by Clara. I happen to think she displayed as much and possibly more "IT" in some of her other silent movies like MANTRAP, HULA, & THE PLASTIC AGE than in IT. If you don't believe that's possible, then I highly recommend checking out some of her other films and judge for yourself. Even if you disagree, you will enjoy these performances if you enjoyed this film. As a whole, I think IT was the strongest of her silent films (in terms of plot, writing, and character development) that I've seen. Regardless, IT is the film for which Clara is most remembered and the favorite of her modern day fans. From Clara's scheming to reel in her boss as a husband to the hilarious sub-titles ("Sweet Santa, give me him", "Hot socks, the new boss", "I'll take the snap out of your garters", "He couldn't give birth to a suspicion", "On the contrary, I think she's got plenty in reserve"), I enjoyed this 1920s romantic comedy tremendously. Could Elinor Glyn, have been trying to promote her book or herself? IT was only defined 3 times during the movie (in the opening credits, in the first scene where Monty is reading about IT, and when Antonio Moreno asks Elinor Glyn herself in a scene about halfway through the film. I think if modern audiences would give IT a chance, they would be pleasantly surprised with Clara Bow. 9/10
-
bkoganbing18 November 2010The ubiquitous It which back in the Roaring Twenties was another name for sex appeal is apparently what Clara Bow had in abundance. How you could explain It or bottle It for mass consumption is still what people are trying to figure out. But whatever It was it certainly worked on Antonio Moreno.
Clara and friend Priscilla Bonner work in the store that is owned by Antonio Moreno. Both of them would love to marry the boss and be living on easy street. However Bow wangles a date with William Austin and they even meet Elinor Glyn who coined the phrase of "It". More importantly as she hoped Bow accidentally on purpose runs into Moreno.
However later on when a couple of nosy welfare workers get the idea that Bow is an unwed single mother they nearly upset all the plans. But It all eventually is put right.
According to the Citadel Film Series book, The Films Of Gary Cooper, Bow who was just beginning a hot and heavy involvement with Cooper after his breakthrough performance demanded that Cooper be in the film with her, however possible. The cast of the principal players was already set, but Gary agreed to take a small role of a reporter in which he's very noticeable in two scenes. Both of their next film, Children Of Divorce, would pair Cooper and Bow as the leads.
Clara Bow with this and a very few other films became the symbol of silent era sexuality. She did not handle the coming of sound very well. The actress in the sound era I could best compare her too would be Gloria Grahame, both had the same kind of sex appeal. You might say they had It.
Next to Bow the performance I liked best was William Austin as the perpetually partying playboy who has some really great expressions throughout the movie. Austin was quite droll in his role.
It is mighty tame stuff compared to what is seen today on the screen even in some G rated films. Still the indefinable It is a great showcase for the talent and sexuality of the Twenties original wild child, Clara Bow. -
nycritic3 February 2007Before Marilyn and THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH, there was Clara Bow. Even so, both women shared many similarities that places them in a parenthetical position akin to soul-sisters: both came from tragic homes and escaped the wrath and madness of their mothers as well as the abuse from their fathers, both entered Hollywood on a lark and rose to the top of their game playing sexually liberated women who oozed magnetism, and both women's careers -- which never fully used their talent, clearly evident but put aside in lieu of their physical presence -- came to a screeching halt too soon. While an obscure death was the culprit for Marilyn, talkies and Clara's terror of how her voice would sound in this (then) new media was hers.
However, Clara's screen persona has a different approach to the issue of female sensuality, and this is a crucial difference which separates her from Marilyn. In the 1950s, Marilyn suffered from Hollywood's excesses in their quest for the glamorization of women until they were decorative fantasies, hers being the fleshy, dim platinum blond with the breathy whisper of a voice (in strong contrast to the more gamine Audrey Hepburn, who was virtually sexless and fragile). Clara, a woman in the Roaring Twenties, was carnality personified as well, but smart, independent, assertive, a female Bugs Bunny who could turn any situation, no matter how precarious, to her own advantage and walk away with the guy and the entire picture even if it was of mediocre quality.
Plus, she had those eyes, and that capability of expression Marilyn suggested but never truly had. There is a scene in IT -- the movie which defined Clara Bow even if the word's new meaning was "codified" by Elinor Glyn's keen, self-promoting marketing -- when Antonio Moreno, the object of Clara's (rather aggressive) affections, has offered her something less noble than the marriage she wants from him (which is at the heroine's romantic and even conservative core). Her expression changes little, but her eyes are the ones who register so much pain that it literally pours itself out from the screen and into the viewer's lap. (Clara was quoted as saying whenever she needed to emote, she would think of her childhood.) Then again, it was Norma Desmond, the fictional tragic grand dame of SUNSET BLVD. who did say, "We had faces!" How true. The explanatory inter-titles never interfere too much with the action -- many silents suffer from this tendency -- and the actors always seem to be in a natural state of acting rather than a flurry of miming.
Because Clara is in practically every scene in IT, we get the most of her character's Cinderella story from the moment she spies her man (and the camera zooms in on him), concludes he's for her, and then takes us on her own journey from acknowledgment (even when she herself isn't aware how she'll achieve her goal) to the ultimate resolution. Romantic suspense is at its finest here, with the heroine bravely warding off the criticisms of a world apparently beyond her reach, happy in her own mundane yet vibrant existence, going to lengths of self-sacrifice when the "moral women" appear to condemn her house-mate friend (Priscilla Bonner) who is under scrutiny for being a single mother. This is really the essence of a contemporary character who is, while being fictional, an archetype of strength, who eclipses everyone around her just by being there as when late in the film when she attends a boat ride (at a last attempt to set things straight with Moreno), plays the part of a cultural connoisseur to a hilarious level, then stands looking out into the water (still a little hurt; she's not invulnerable) as Moreno looks on and "other woman" Jacqueline Gadsden (remarkably contrasted to Clara) seethes. That is the power of a character and a perfectly cast actor, and Clara, clearly an actress ahead of her time, was "it." If only Hollywood had known this. -
runamokprods21 August 2011An oddly beguiling silent romantic comedy.
It can't be argued to be a great film, with a thin, and (even for it's time) corny story of a salesgirl trying to win the heart of the handsome rich owner of the store.
But the acting is subtle and real for a silent, and if Clara Bow really isn't all that sexy, given that the film proclaims her the 'it' girl, she is charming and likable.
It's one of those films that just made me smile, with it's good humor, high energy, and surprisingly modern camera-work, even though I'd hate to be in an argument defending it's merits as art. -
How sad that so few viewers will be able to experience seeing a silent film accompanied by a masterful artist playing a theatre pipe organ (e.g., Wurlitzer, Kimball, Moller, Barton, Compton, etc.). I recently saw Chris Elliott accompany this delightful movie on the fabulous Dickinson Kimball theatre pipe organ as one of the regular concerts held by the Dickinson Theatre Organ Society (Wilmington, DE). You forget that you are listening to a live accompaniment - the music becomes part of the film as if included in a soundtrack. But it's so much more than a soundtrack played back by a sound system. The organ tells the story just as much as do the facial expressions in these silent movies of the 1920s. The audience's laughter at the looks, antics, and words on the screen create an enjoyment unique to these silent flicks. At the conclusion of the movie, when Clara Bow gets her man, the mighty Kimball roared to a thrilling, full-organ climax at probably near 100 decibels.
-
dzuber3224 January 2012With my attempt to look at this movie from a person in the 1920's I say this is a pretty good film. I was able to get a feel of life in New York in the 1920's and how things were. Clara Bow did a great job acting and allowing connecting with the audience i.e me. I was able to get a feel of her personality and values by the end of the movie. I must say to though that she did have IT. The acting by the rest of the cast was equally as good and kept me into the movie for the most part. Unfortunately though it is a silent film and not only is it a silent film but also a which I would call drama film. My knock on the movie is that unlike comedic silent films which keep you laughing I found myself dosing off here and there as to the fact that no words made some scenes boring and the piano melody in the background was rather soothing. Overall to those who are fans of silent films I say you would enjoy it, but to those who aren't as open or are watching a silent film for the first time I say find one more entertaining with more humor in it. Overall the movie didn't quite have IT.
-
funkyfry11 January 2010There's that tricky word again -- "classic." A word much abused, much misunderstood, for while it denotes timelessness, it says nothing about how or why a film achieved this quality of timelessness. Some films are exceptional, while others are so supremely typical that they remain the standards of their age. Such a film is "It." The entire creaky affair rests on the sexy shoulders of Ms. Clara Bow, more a personality than an actress to judge by this film. Her attempts to project dramatic emotion in this film are blessedly brief. Her natural spontaneity (which must have won her the role) lifts the film ever so slightly out of its rut, making it at the very least superior to many of its imitators such as the "Dancing Daughters" series that MGM kept pumping out long after the "flapper" became passé. Whatever of truth or meaning is to be found in the formula can be found in this fairly stylish Paramount original.
The thing that really jumps out at you here of course is the Bow character's aggressive sexuality -- she sees the man she wants (why she wants this particular many remains a mystery) and she goes after him. It's not a message of "liberation" regardless of what some writers would like you to believe -- after all, our heroine doesn't seek independence or self-empowerment, she simply wants to choose the man she'll tie herself to. But socially speaking, it is a step forward because at least it represents female sexual desire in a way that's not inherently condemnatory like the "vamp" cycle.
But all of this is pretty obvious. What interests me, if anything, is the moment she decides to seek revenge on the man because "he didn't even give me the benefit of doubt." If she had immediately forgiven him when she realized the misunderstanding, this would indeed be a woman for whom one can have little sympathy.
All of this just goes to say that this is a film that today holds mostly sociological interest or at best historical interest, but very little attempt at artistry or even characterization. What the film-makers have done is to take the bare minimum of necessary drama and comedy, added just a touch of spice or naughtiness, and put the thing out there for consumption. They certainly weren't out to make a "classic", and it shows. The reason it's worth watching is that it captures a moment in time when an American woman was just barely and just finally being allowed to experience a little taste of freedom. It subverts our expectations, for the time period, but its weakness is that it relies on this novelty instead of using the new freedom to take its story or characters anywhere interesting.
My feelings on the film are summed up in its most ridiculous sequence, where an aged Victorian figure, the "controversial" writer Eleanor Glynn, sallies forth to expound on the meaning of "It." Hilariously, this antiquated figure is being called upon to endorse the new sexual freedom. It's a bit like Fred Allen gently rocking his head to the "new beat" in that awful artificial film "Sex Kittens Go to College," or Fred Astaire's awful rock and roll routine in "Daddy Longlegs." Never underestimate Hollywood's ability or desire to patronize youth movements while holding firmly to their parents' wallets. Eleanor Glynn, standing stiff as a ramrod with tight pursed lips and steel-combed hair lecturing about "spontaneity" is the dinosaur grandmother of them all, and typifies this movie as well. -
sunlily27 November 2005Nothing earth shattering here, no high art, just pure entertainment! A bit like today's light romantic comedies, but a tad better in a lot of instances! The real star here is Clara Bow who could after all really act and wasn't just another pretty face, although she was that and more! It's not difficult to see why she became a popular personality with her vivacity, energy and contagious charm! The girl just exuded fun! As Antonio Moreno said in the movie, "She has plenty in reserve!" There are some cute lines in the movie, like when Monty says, " I feel so low I'd have to walk on stilts under a dachshund." William Austin is an entertaining secondary character.
The print I saw was in good shape and I enjoyed the high angle shots of the department store at the beginning of the movie with the camera panning down to the street, the amusement park scenes and the scenes on the yacht. Makes me want to see Clara in a serious drama too! Worth watching for Clara to see what It was all about! I don't think It has changed that much even in the present day! -
planktonrules28 June 2005This film is best seen simply because it is a curiosity. Clara Bow, the star of the film, was labeled the "It Girl" because of her role in this movie and because the studio was looking for a publicity stunt. In its day, the film must have been seen as racy and exciting. However, in the 21st century, it just looks terribly dated. Clara's "outrageous" behaviors by today's standards seem very tame and the visit of the welfare snoops to the home of this unfit single mother is silly. If you look closely, though, in this same welfare scene, if you look carefully, you'll get a quick glimpse of a young Gary Cooper. He briefly appears here and in Wings (1927) because there apparently was quite a bit of off-screen chemistry going on between him and Bow at the time according to the extremely interesting biography entitled Clara Bow: Running Wild. it's a fascinating read and gives more insight into the rise and fall of the It Girl. Now, as for the movie, it's competently filmed and mildly interesting but that's about all. If you want a better Bow movie, stick with WING (1927)--it's so much better.
-
ALauff27 August 2004Inspired by Elinor Glyn's novel, which fashioned the eponymous catchphrase for sexual magnetism, the film provides a précis of the piece in short Cosmo excerpts that seem to conclude in no uncertain terms: Clara Bow has "It." And the film earns that dicey claim and then some: by sheer dint of the effervescent charisma and It-ness of its actors, this succeeds as a suitably complicated Love Triangle (in the screwball tradition), a sympathetic exposé of proletarian living, and a lighthearted salute to class subversion. It is also subtler in its physical comedy, craftier in its filmmaking, than one might expect: the exact synchronicity between a raised eyebrow and a peculiar inter-title, for example, can result in the film's funniest and most poignant moments. This witty comedy of errors, misdirection, and misunderstanding is a trifle, but it's rousing in its occasional provocations: there is a subplot about Bow's attempt to hide her distraught co-worker and illegitimate son in her tiny apartment that works as an evocation of the stifling, claustrophobic social mores that ruled the day. Then there's the director's earnest attempt to illustrate Bow's purity in courting her wealthy boss (and would-be benefactor) as anything but a money-move; yet we can guiltlessly cheer her material success in the end, her untainted heart leading her to pleasures on both sides of the fence.
While some might find this a cheap breach of the film's established ethics up to that point, one can imagine Bow's character putting her old friend up in the biggest bedroom in the mansion. This depiction might reek of star worship (and it might be damned condescending to say It depicts the "right" way of escalating the social ladder), but it reflects the irresistible sweetness of a caring, smart person trying her best to persuade others (and, by extension, those who belong to the class of struggling working girls) of her value. -
I included this in my ongoing Josef von Sternberg retrospective because he served as Assistant Director on it (biding his time after a number of projects he was attached to were passed on to other film-makers); actually, the IMDb allots him uncredited co-director status here and, for the record, this and Sternberg's official release from 1927, UNDERWORLD, ranked as Paramount's top-grossing films for that year! This romantic comedy is famous for its title – the inspiration for which came from a book by "Madame" Elinor Glyn, who was also persuaded to appear before the cameras as herself in order to explain it {sic}! Lead actress Clara Bow, then, would forever be associated with this role and, in fact, would be dubbed "The 'It' Girl"!
The plot is slight and, by now, overly familiar: a female department store clerk secretly loves her upper-class boss (bland Antonio Moreno), who not only completely ignores her but is obviously engaged to marry a snobbish woman from his own strata of society. When a buffoonish friend of his takes her out, she contrives to select the same night-spot frequented by the man of her dreams and, of course, now he takes notice and positively becomes intrigued (neglecting his own fiancée into the bargain)!
When the boss gets fresh, however, she spurns him – and complications mount after the girl stands up for her sickly room-mate, when social workers arrive to take away her baby, by saying that the child is hers! This scene features a nice pre-stardom bit by Gary Cooper as a scoop-seeking reporter (he and Bow would also appear together in the Oscar-winning WINGS later in the year)! Her boyfriend tells Moreno about the kid, and he determines to drop the girl definitively and concentrate on his marriage instead.
To this end, he goes on a cruise but, when he invites his pal, the latter brings Bow along and the stage is set for a re-union and the dissolution of Moreno's high-society wedding plans. This occurs by having the buffoon take control of the boat, only to have it collide with a smaller vessel and the two women both fall overboard – when Moreno goes to save Bow (initially resisting him but gradually relenting), the other lady realizes the truth but all is not lost for the jilted lovers as they seem to find comfort in one another!
In the end, the film is mildly enjoyable but hardly inspired – much less a classic; suffice to say that the lesser-known HANDS UP! (1926), a semi-Western effort I watched over Christmas by the same director and featuring forgotten comic Raymond Griffith, is superior (thus worthier of attention)... -
clarafan-28 July 1999The youthful beauty, energy and unique charm of the "it" girl were never more evident than in this, her signature film. The plot may be simplistic and the dialog dated, but those are, after all, endearing qualities for most silent film buffs. The rest of the cast [including Gary Cooper in a brief scene] are serviceable and amusing, but everyone else is merely window dressing for Miss Bow's star turn.
If you're not already a fan of silent films, viewing the lighthearted "IT" may introduce you to a new form of enjoyment. For ardent fans of Clara Bow, "IT" is a classic -
Marcyph3r10 March 2020This movie is all about Clara Bow. Although I did laugh at William Austin's performance as "Monty". So very silly.
But back to Clara! What charisma did she have - innocent but mischieveous at the same time. Funny, but sexy.
The moodswings in the story and her character are a bit strange, they sometimes seem to kind of come from nowhere. It is a fun movie, but not necessarily a classic. The story is what it is. But worth it for Miss Bow alone, which is I'm sure the reason most people will want to see this more than 90 years after it was released. -
avery-2125 February 2007So what is "It"? "It that strange magnetism which attracts both sexes entirely unself-conscious full of self-confidence indifferent to the effect she is producing and uninfluenced by others." The film begins with a Cosmo extract of a novella by Elinor Glyn, and picks up speed with a newspaper story by an uncredited, luminous Gary Cooper. So it is about writing, but ultimately about the stunning comedic talent of Clara Bow and the anthropologic eye of Clarence Badger, Josef von Sternberg (uncredited) and H. Kinley Martin. Macy's (Waltham's), Coney Island & a 1920's steam-powered yacht.
Clara Bow acts with subtlety, light élan and small, powerful gestures that would set the choreography for women in film for the next century. Don't miss the original. Her final scene on the yacht's anchor with Antonio Moreno is the funniest, sexiest, most artful thing I've seen since I don't know when.
Pity the people who won't hear Maud Nelissen's piano composition behind this brilliant film. -
s-striar28 February 2012Although the movie is silent I believe that Betty Lou (Clara Bow) is the reason why I liked this movie. She is a stunning talent and works amazingly with the plot of this film. She is extremely talented at having a personality despite not having any lines to say to the viewer. She is a very flirtatious young woman who seems to have "it". The film goes on to prove that not all people who are attractive have "it". I noticed that the editing seems a bit choppy and unpolished at times which occasionally would confuse me. I found that a few times during the movie the director used very good camera movement which seemed ahead of its time in the late 20's. Overall good movie, funny in many ways.
-
sleopold20 August 2002This is easily one of my favorite films from the silent era. The story itself is a fun, little, romantic tale. What's great about the movie, though, is watching Clara Bow's performance. She's fantastic to watch, and truly lights up the screen any time she's shown. Also fun to watch for is Gary Cooper in a very early cameo as a reporter. This movie looks great on the DVD, which also features the enjoyable documentary, "Clara Bow: Discovering the It Girl". Highly recommended.
-
gavin69422 September 2016A salesgirl (Clara Bow) with plenty of "it" (sex appeal) pursues a handsome playboy.
This is one of the first examples of a "concept film", as well as one of the earlier examples of product placement. The concept of "It" is referred to throughout the film, including the scene where Elinor Glyn appears as herself and defines "It" for Mr. Waltham. Cosmopolitan magazine is featured prominently in a scene where the character Monty reads Glyn's story and introduces it to the audience.
Whether or not this is a great film, it did introduce the concept of "it", which has had surprising longevity. And it made Clara Bow famous. And, further still, it is probably one of the earliest examples of a romantic comedy, a genre we typical don't think of being so old. -
thinbeach21 December 2015To be swept away by 'It' you must firstly agree with the premise - that some people possess a mysterious quality of attraction others lack - and secondly agree with their casting choices of those who posses it - Clara Bow and Antonio Moreno.
In my case, I only partially agree with both. I do believe some people possess a mysterious quality of attraction, but the casting and scripting choices of the film don't suit my definition. The films definition is mostly concerned with sex appeal, whereas my definition would include not just beauty but character, and in that sense, I found myself more attracted to Jacqueline Gadsdon than Clara Bow, the scorned woman who at the end is described in a title card as 'It- less'. Where Bow is wild, she is reserved; and where Bow plays silly little games, she is modest and graceful. In my opinion she, as with most of the women who appear in this film, is also very beautiful, which means they all tick the first box in the law of attraction. Bow however, for mine, does not tick the second, so I find myself agreeing with the films premise that 'It' exists, but not believing I truly experienced it while watching the film. So annoying were they that I could have cared less whether Bow and Moreno ended up together or not, though I certainly felt sympathy for Gadsdon. Maybe if Gadsdon had cut off half her top to reveal her bra the way Bow did more people might think the way I do.
I can see most people in the comments are smitten with Bow however, and if that's so you'll likely enjoy this as much as them. In terms of its pacing, variety of shots and various camera moves, the film feels modern and is easy to watch. And while it feels like a light piece of trivial fluff, the shallowest of romantic comedies, it is actually quite poignant in highlighting how relationships can be based on such stuff: Once a physical attraction applies, reason and the need for depth can fly out the window. Unfortunately however the various twists and turns of the plot slowly become ridiculous, and it feels much more like a studio ploy for profit than anything worthy of the tag 'classic' as some have given it. The amusement park scenes were fun though and the highlight of the film for mine.
I will leave it to the female reviewers to decide whether Antonio Moreno also had 'It'. Given no one ever seems to comment on the male side of things, I can only imagine the appeal of this film rests solely on Clara Bow, meaning it is one for die hard fans of hers only.