User Reviews (20)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    Irene Dunne and John Boles classically pull off what easily could have been a smarmy pre-code movie with the usual clichés about extra-marital affairs.

    Rae (Irene) misses the chance to marry the man she loves, due to helping another woman, her step-sister, who is in trouble. Years later Rae meets Walter (handsome John Boles) again in New York City; he's a rich banker-stockbroker now, married, with two children, yet the old sparks are still there and she agrees to be his mistress. The affair lasts years and there is genuine affection there. At one point Rae almost marries a childhood friend to escape her back street romance, but Walter begs her to return to him, and she does.

    Now twenty years go by, his children are grown and learn about the long-term affair, though we are to believe the wife is clueless. Walter has a stroke and his last thoughts are of Rae, and Rae gives up the ghost shortly thereafter, unable to continue living without her lifelong love.

    It's nice to see the transition between the Gilded Age through the 1930's; it's nice to see two pros give touching performances in this film. As per the style of that time, there was no background musical soundtrack, except for a few brief scenes, and this is not a distraction; in fact I think it helps keep one's concentration going on the actual storyline not to be interrupted by Max Steiner-like musical notes soaring over the action.

    This film has never been released on video or DVD and is never played on TCM or Fox Movie Channel. Very unfortunate; it needs to be readily available for precode fans.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Irene Dunne stars as Ray Smith, the mistress of a well-off married man (John Boles) who lives her life selflessly for him, relegating her forever to the "Back Street" of the title. This film and Dunne's performance were the ultimate in "soap opera" entertainment for the early 1930's and audiences loved it. Boles, a wooden actor if there ever was one, is actually quite good in this movie as Walter Saxel, the man Dunne just can't seem to get enough of. Unfortunately, since he's married and raising a family, there isn't too much of him to go around. The tear-jerking ending is worth sticking around for, however, and it's a good idea to keep a box of tissues handy.

    Despite the year (1932), the film tackles an issue that was somewhat taboo for the times (i.e. extra-marital sex and its consequences). It's all done tastefully and relatively true to the original novel by Fannie Hurst. For those unfamiliar with her work, Ms. Hurst was the Danielle Steele of her day, although she's largely forgotten now. So is this film, but it's worth seeing if only for a view of an early performance by the incredible Irene Dunne. Of course, the talented Ms. Dunne went on to star in more famous movies than this one, but she gives a worthy effort to the proceedings here and raises the film far above the norm.
  • Three of the best actresses around, Irene Dunne, Margaret Sullavan, and Susan Hayward all played the lead role of Rae Schmidt in three different versions of Back Street. It's a timeless tale and can be adapted to any time and place in history. The novel by Fannie Hurst was written in 1931 and most of the action takes place in the pre-World War I years and then jumps to the present day of 1932 reflecting the time she's been a Back Street woman.

    Back Street the story is once again an affirmation of the heart having its own reasons. In this first film version Irene Dunne meets John Boles who is an upwardly mobile young man in the banking business. That's it for her she's in love. But Boles is about to get married to Doris Lloyd. Still when Boles goes to New York where he becomes successful he sets Dunne up in an apartment there and she's his kept woman for over 20 years.

    Reading the Wikipedia article on Back Street one crucial component is missing from this adaption. The fact that Boles is Jewish and much under his mother's thumb to marry within the faith. Maude Turner Gordon plays the mother and she's formidable. But Boles is the weakest thing in this adaption. Without the religious component he comes across like a Mama's boy.

    Like it or not Dunne is stuck on him. She even passes up an opportunity to marry boy next door George Meeker who makes it big with those new fangled contraptions, the horseless carriage.

    Back Street both book and film version and take your choice set a standard for tales of romance on the side and sly. This one set the mark for the other two to follow.
  • BACK STREET (Universal, 1932), directed by John M. Stahl, from the popular novel by Fannie Hurst, is not so much a story about a certain street in a certain town, but a love story of two people who have each other but are unable to unite as husband and wife. While such a theme might have been a product for a Ruth Chatterton or Kay Francis, the heroine in question was awarded to Irene Dunne, on loan from RKO Radio, based on the strength of her Academy Award nominated performance in 1931's Best Picture winner, CIMARRON. John Boles, a likable actor and fine singer of screen musicals who made his way through dramas, assumes the sort of role suited for prospects as Ronald Colman or Ricardo Cortez. Under Stahl's direction, BACK STREET turned out to be a money maker for the studio, career advancement for Dunne, and further roles in the "soap opera school" for Boles, including another opposite Dunne in THE AGE OF INNOCENCE (RKO, 1934).

    The story begins at the turn of the century, "Cincinnati, in the good old days before the Eighteenth Amendment." Ray Schmidt (Irene Dunne) is introduced as a carefree girl living at home with her father (Paul Weigel), whom she works at his store; stepmother (Jane Darwell); and half-sister, Freda (June Clyde). Popular with the men, she's loved by the ambitious Kurt Shendler (George Meeker), who hopes to marry her after investing in the profitable automobile business. Fate steps in when Ray's friend, Mr. Bakeless (Walter Catlett), a traveling salesman, introduces her to visiting businessman, Walter D. Saxel (John Boles), at the train station. Their one day courtship turns to love. Although engaged to marry his childhood sweetheart, Walter hopes to change all that by arranging Ray to meet with him and his mother (Maude Turner Gordon)the following afternoon at Eden Park by the band stand. Delayed due to Freda's personal troubles, Ray's late arrival finds her watching the crowd gathering away. Five years later, Walter, a junior partner in the banking business, and Ray, employed at a Wall Street firm, meet again on the streets of New York. In spite of Walter's marriage to Corinne (Doris Lloyd) and father of two, he finds he cannot live without Ray. Leaving both her job and apartment, Walter arranges for Ray to take up residence elsewhere so they can meet secretly and resume their relationship. Posing as a married woman, Ray keeps very much to herself during Walter's business or family trips, corresponding only with her friendly landlady, Mrs. Dole (ZaSu Pitts). As Ray befriends a troubled girl named Francine (Shirley Grey), whose life parallels hers, advising her to break off her relationship with a married man, Ray continues living her "back street" existence with Walter for the next 25 years, leading to complications when confronted by Walter's now grown children (William Bakewell and Arletta Duncan).

    The success of BACK STREET produced many imitations, along with two remakes for Universal: 1941 starring Charles Boyer and Margaret Sullavan (the best and most revived version), and 1961 featuring Susan Hayward and John Gavin (the least inspired in spite of Technicolor and up-to-date story). While remakes usually fail to compare with the original, the 1941 version is an exception to the rule. Boyer and Sullavan's enactment of Walter and Ray improve over Boles and Dunne, each more satisfying playing loyal or long suffering spouses than unfaithful husband and his mistress. Boyer's acting is more direct, especially during a scene when confronted by his son about his illicit affair, to then order him to "mind his own business" as compared to Boles' more polite manner in the same situation. The only time Boles breaks away from his gentle manner is when Ray asks him to "give her a baby," but even his outrage as to how this could ruin him is more controlled than forceful. Dunne's handling of Ray, too, is gentle and soft-spoken throughout, except during the opening in a couple of unrelated scenes where she speaks and acts in the manner of actress Barbara Stanwyck. The underscore that sets the tone for plot and characters, used to great advantage in the remakes, is sadly lacking in this "back street" of classic love stories. For Irene Dunne, greater movie roles, I REMEMBER MAMA (RKO, 1948) included, were ahead of her.

    Out of circulation possibly due to the latter remake(s), the original BACK STREET sufficed again at revival movie houses in the 1970s, public television by 1982, American Movie Classics (1991) usually on a double bill with the 1941 version, and finally Turner Classic Movies (TCM premiere: September 9, 2023). Of the three adaptations, only the 1961 carnation had further exposure with its distribution on home video in the 1990s. (**1/2)
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Mel Brooks once wrote a song for "The Twelve Chairs" which included the lyric, "It could be real, or Fannie Hurst". The queen of depression era sob stories wrote many potboilers of suffering women, none sadder than "Back Street", filmed three times by Universal, and each time getting more and more outlandish.

    The heroine here is Irene Dunne who shows up for a date with handsome and wealthy John Boles but can't find him. When she runs into him again (on Wall Street of all places), he's married with children, yet still very much in love with her. Setting her up in an apartment and keeping their relationship alive but very private, Boles thinks he's got what it takes to make her happy. But she's not content being on this "Back Street" and takes off back home where he follows her and convinces her to return. Years go by and they end up in Paris (after a voyage on a luxury cruise ship with his wife and children also in attendance) where even in a Back Street hotel, she's loyal to him in spite of a visit from his non-understanding son (William Bakewell).

    For the first 3/4 of the film, nothing really much happens except a parade of fashion of the eras which the film covers. But once they get aboard the cruise ship and head to the city of lights, the film really takes off. Dunne is certainly lovely, more wifely than mistress material, so that's where the sadness of this film comes in that a missed opportunity for happiness set him to a new life. Boles, playing a likable if somewhat selfish character, tries to insert an understanding of what this unhappy husband is going through, although his wife (Doris Lloyd) is barely seen and not at all defined as a character. Bakewell's angry young man manages to insert a bit of humanity and understanding. Wasted in pointless roles are Jane Darwell, Zasu Pitts and Walter Catlett, although Shirley Grey gets a few opportunities to shine as Dunne's half sister who goes through her own scandalous situation.

    Directed with style by John Stahl (a veteran of 30's tearjerkers), this version remains the best of the three, although the 1941 version was pretty much done in the same mold. The soapiest version was the 1961 Susan Hayward film which seemed ridiculous trying to get tears out of its audience since its heroine was a lot harder than either Dunne or 1941's Margaret Sullavan and got to suffer living in the lap of luxury.
  • This Stahl weeper stars Irene Dunne as John Boles' kept woman, whom George Meeker wants to marry, although I thought that Meeker might be the 6th Marx Brother, judging by his look and voice.

    It's from a Fanny Hurst opus, but even though the script is not as intelligent as yesterday's Seed, it's a much better movie. It's tighter -- ten minutes shorter -- with a beautiful set-piece opening which purports to be Cincinnati in 1907, complete with band shell, no automobiles and plenty of horses -- spotless streets, despite the horses. Was you ever in Cincinnati, Charlie?

    I still don't like soapers, but Irene's oh-well-it-is-what-it-is attitude when she can't help lovin' dat man o' someone else's is far more affecting than the typical overwrought attitude.
  • berengeria31 October 2001
    I have seen the later versions that were done of this movie, and none compare to this one. Irene Dunne is superb, and brings a lot of depth to her role...you really get to care about her character, and sympathize with her plight.

    Only saw this movie once on television years ago, and have not seen it aired since. As far as I can tell, this 1932 movie is not available on tape or dvd at the present time...a real shame, for it certainly needs to be!
  • marcslope31 May 2016
    Straightforward adaptation of the Fannie Hurst novel that dates rather badly. Irene Dunne, understated and excellent, is the unfortunate good-time (but not that good-time; as she quite explicitly states to George Meeker, she doesn't put out) gal of Cincinnati circa 1900, she has the misfortune to meet an up-and-coming, and already engaged, John Boles, and ends up being his back-street mistress. It's refreshingly pre-Code frank about such things, and some good character actors--Walter Catlett, Jane Darwell--turn up in small roles. I also liked Meeker as the nice guy who loves Dunne, but just isn't interesting enough to make her want him back. The trouble is, and it mustn't have been as evident in 1932, is that Boles's character is such a jerk. Time and again he'll say something insensitive, or do something insensitive, to her, then beg for an apology, and get it. He's not worth wasting a life over, and her motives are somewhat unclear. Still, it's a solid '30s soap. I like the 1941 Margaret Sullavan version better, but this one's miles ahead of the Susan Hayward, and less susceptible to unintentional laughter.
  • At our recent film society screening of this film (we very luckily have a 16mm print in The National Film and Sound Archive here in Australia) it was very apparent of the skill of director and his star in what is an subtle and underplayed telling of this Fannie Hurst tearjerker. There is an absence of musical underscore very typical for the period prior to 1934, and this added to the potency of the effect of Dunne's absorbing and masterful performance, illustrating her as not just a star but an actress as well. Overall this film has a very gentle feel with slow fade-outs used frequently in giving this effect. Dunne is wonderful in her playing earlier in a lighter fashion and makes a skillful transformation into the section of the film where she is older and more serious. I had sympathy for her character in spite of the sacrifices she makes for John Boles, remaining in the "back street" of his life. I see director Stahl as a sort of predecessor to Sirk in his handling of solid fare such as this and "Leave her to Heaven" (1945).
  • mossgrymk29 September 2023
    They should title this film "Doormat" since at no point does the heroine, Rae Schmidt, ever grow a spine and call out her stuffy, banker boyfriend on the callous way he treats her. Harlow sure as hell would have. And Babs would have carved the smug bore a new one. But not Rae. Instead, she hypocritically makes a stirring speech warning her friend against the very abject behavior in which she wallows. That I cared even a little bit about this weak, foolish woman, and stayed with this schmatz fest until the end, is due more to Irene Dunne's excellent performance than to any compelling interest in the story. Even in mediocre material like this it is always worthwhile to spend time with Ms. Dunne, the paragon of less is more acting in an era that canonized the opposite, especially with the femmes. Of all the 1930s leading ladies she is the one who you could plunk down in a "Madmen" episode and she'd fit right in.

    Bottom line: See it for Irene and forget the rest. C plus.
  • This is one of Irene Dunne's finest performances and proves that even a soapbox opera can be engaging when a performance is so real it's uncanny. Her performance is almost overshadowed by the humaness and irony of the plot. I highly recommend this movie.
  • gbill-748772 February 2024
    "Your memory has followed me day and night, like a shadow."

    As sympathetic a portrayal of adultery as I think you're going to see, obviously only possible pre-Code, and with a fine performance from Irene Dunne. She plays a character who helps tend to an emergency with her sister one day, and is thus too late to meet a man (John Boles) and his mother in the park, losing her chance to become his fiancée. They've met each other too late, you see, and he continues on with his plan to marry the woman he's engaged to. Flash forward five years and they meet again, becoming lifelong lovers despite his marriage. She gives up her career to be set up in an apartment close to him, a "kept woman," frustrated at times by only getting a slice of his time, but so deeply in love that she stays with him, despite the attentions of a decent, kind guy who's always been crazy about her (George Meeker).

    It's a little tough to see just how much Dunne's character sublimates her own life for her lover, as devoted as a puppy dog, but it was refreshing to see the affair not portrayed moralistically, and the two of them as protagonists we empathize with (well, her more than him, but still). Of course, it's an overly idealistic scenario for such an affair: the two are genuinely in love and not doing it because of some damage in their lives, the wife never finds out, and Dunne's character, while sad at times, is content to be the mistress and doesn't create trouble for him. She's certainly not in it for the money, accepting only what's needed to get by. Later in life, we get moral outrage from his adult son directed at both of them, but when the chips are down, he's incredibly kind to her. In the years of the Production Code his moral outrage would have been that of Joseph Breen, and he would never have extended such sympathy. There is tragedy in the story, but it's the natural tragedy of life, not moral comeuppance for having sinned.

    At the same time, the film is a cautionary tale about the emotional toll of such an arrangement, and the message seems to be directed more at women than men. In an odd bit of drama, a neighbor has an explosion in her kitchen and is set on fire. As Dunne's character tends to her and consoles her with the fact that her husband will surely nurse her back to health, the other woman confides in her that the man she's seen around isn't really her husband - he's married and carrying on an affair with her, just as in the main storyline. The point is to show that in such an emergency, such a relationship is a disaster, and she will lie there, lonely.

    The early voice of wisdom in the film is her father (Paul Weigel), who tells her "I wouldn't fiddle around waiting for something better than Kurt, when it's just like life to hand you something worse. Kurt is a fine, steady boy. He won't ever surprise you maybe, but don't you care. The trouble with most marriages is they've got too many surprises."

    We also have the subplot with her sister Freda (June Clyde), who has come into sexual maturity and thinks it's a pathway to marriage. "Say, mama, Katie Shendler says you can make a man marry you if you..." she says, before getting slapped in the face. Later, it's clear she's had some kind of physical relations with a guy named Hugo and he plans to leave town, making her suicidal. This is the emergency that Dunne's sister sticks around for, to force Hugo into staying, causing her to miss the meeting in the park. We do find out later that Freda did indeed marry Hugo and is now raising a family, clearly the "right path" in the eyes of the film.

    Irene Dunne is marvelous here, as we see her strength in fending off unwanted advances from men early on, her flirtation and joy ("Paris always brings out the beast in you"), and her sadness, like those tears in her eyes when her lover goes off to Europe, played with perfect restraint. Director John M. Stahl is mostly workmanlike in telling the story, but does get in a fantastic zoom out shot when she's standing there at the pavilion while the crowd disperses, and he's not there. Also, look for that funny little bit in the beginning, where before Prohibition, the family, including three kids, are all drinking beer.

    Lastly, another nice quote from the father: "Ever since I can remember, the younger generation has been 'going to the dogs,' yet somehow it always manages to come out on top."
  • Ha...I thought my summary would get your attention! While "Back Street" is clearly a pre-code film in its sensibilities, it's not THAT open-minded. You see, Ray is a lady (Irene Dunne)--an oddly named on at that! But, she does fall in love with a married man...and that definitely gives the film pre-code sensibilities.

    The film begins in Cincinnati around the turn of the 20th century and much of it takes place around Over the Rhine--a neighborhood in the northern portion of the city and which was known for its German community and beer gardens (now...it's a far more unsavory area...but improving). Because I lived in Cincinnati for 14 years, I enjoyed hearing about the area--such as her lover, Walter (John Boles) who lived in nearby Hamilton as well as their meeting in Eden Park. In fact, for that reason, the film is a must-see for Cincinnatians. But should other folks watch "Back Street"? Read on.

    When the film begins, Ray is a popular lady with many suitors. However, she inexplicably falls for Walter and falls hard. However, the night they are supposed to meet, they somehow miss each other and only meet up again five years later--after he's married and has a family. Despite this, the pair begin seeing each other and Ray throws caution and morality to the wind. He soon rents her an apartment and she's a kept woman...Walter's mistress while he pretends to be a good husband.

    For me, "Back Street" is a very hard sell...even with its Cincinnati connection. After all, it's hardly a romance since the plot is all about adultery. The film does seem to paint it in romantic terms and there is a speech by Walter later in the film where he justifies having this mistress for decades. Romantic...certainly not. Plus, so often Ray just comes of as pathetic...especially when she lectures another kept woman about the sanctity of marriage and then, literally, Walter walks in the door and she drops everything to run to him! As for Walter, he's just a selfish jerk despite his lovely speech glorfying the joys of adultery! Well acted and interesting...but also a sad film that is easy to dislike. Perhaps too 'modern' in its sensibilities for an old fashioned guy like me. Slickly made but not a film I enjoyed.
  • The first of the thrice filmed Fanny Hurst novel under the tasteful direction of John Stahl features a superb performance from Irene Dunne. From carefree youth to dying day Dunne gives an incredibly restrained yet powerfully emotional effort of a woman who signs her own death warrant to the American ideal.

    Ray Schmidt is one elusive chick to the men chasing her. On to the traveling salesman con she also rejects the well intentioned local boy with promise Kurt Schlender who nevertheless remains persistent. One day at the train depot she's introduced to Walter Saxel (John Boles). The two hit it off and embark on an on off affair until the day they die.

    Dunne endures the highs and lows of the relationship with a low key melancholy, much of it reflected in her eyes and long silences that reaches the audience and speaks volumes. The tragic chemistry between the two is evident in many of their scenes as they knowingly play out the doomed affair that will never attain respectability with a wan despair.

    Stahl along with cameraman Karl Freund provide one fine background after the next with some beautiful set pieces as well some tender two shot close-ups of the star crossed lovers conflicted by their desperate passion for each other and the "proper " thing to do. A top rate tearjerker.
  • Being a mistress to a married man is a thankless position to be in, according to one of early 1900's more popular novelists, Fanny Hurst. Her 1931 'Back Street was an enormously popular best-selling novel about a confident young woman in Cincinnati who's swept off her feet by a man about to get married. Universal Pictures took the bold step to bring Hurst's book onto the screen in August 1932's "Back Street." Irene Dunne plays the independent Ray Schmidt, whom in modern times was a cinch to be a highly successful business woman. Walter Saxel (John Boles), while stepping off a train a week before he conjoins with a rich socialite in the city, has the temerity to ask the strolling Ms. Schmidt out on a date. So begins Ray's slippery slope down a frustrating rat hole.

    Before divorce laws determined that either spouse could cite reasons to split, couples had to BOTH agree for the separation before the courts' ruled the marriage over. If one refused, then no divorce was granted. Many prominent figures, such as William Randolph Hearst and Spencer Tracy, failed to get their spouses to agree on a separation, and would, if the mistresses were lucky, shack up with them. According to "Back Street," playing second fiddle to a married man was a delusory, lonely life. In fact, the term "back streets" derives from Hurst's book. Ms. Schmidt informs her friend, who finds herself in a similar situation with a married man, that "there is no happiness on a back street in anyone's life." Ray Schmidt finds herself in this relationship because, to use a Blaise Pascal phrase, "the heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of."

    John Stahl's adroit direction is aided by, as film reviewer Antti Alanen notes, "Irene Dunne's extraordinary performance. Her film career had started but two years earlier, her performance here reflects she has already a mature approach of great charm, sophistication, and complexity." The American Film Institute nominated Stahl's work as one of 400 to be considered for the top 100 America's Greatest Love Stories.
  • This is a typical Irene Dunne film. Like no one else, she had the ability to move hearts and set them crying, if not in tears, then at least the more emotionally. Her performances are always warm and tender and very deep in sincerity. This story was filmed several times, but Irene Dunne makes the first version, which outshines the others, even if they are more up to date. She falls in love with a married man, excellently played also here by John Bole, and it's difficult to imagine anyone doing the part better than he. He is Jewish and married properly with children, it's impossible for him to step out of the frame of impeccability, but it is as impossible for him to do without her as it is for her to live without him. He is a banker, so he makes the arrangement of having her available whenever in an apartment of her own, as a mistress always at hand. She agreed voluntarily to this, although she did have an option, a very regular childhood friend and well to do having proposed to her, but still she chose a very precarious Back Street existence, which would last for the rest of both lives. The film is heart-warmingly beautiful, you cannot resist it, and she would make many more roles like this, each one a great lesson of humanity.
  • A vivacious young woman passes up herself chance of happiness with a reliable but unexciting man to live in the shadow of her lover, a successful but thoughtless businessman. A weepy melodrama that fails to work on our emotions due to a lack of chemistry between the two leads. Dunne's character doesn't seem the type to throw away her life on a man whose position (unconvincingly) means he is unable to declare his love for her, while Boles seems to be enjoying the best of both worlds rather than enduring the life of emotional frustration that he's supposed to be
  • This film has nothing at all to do with love but all to do with "Don't p... on me and tell me it's raining". In a society where there is no rich and poor, a society of real love and not the present swinery, this story would be totally impossibe. That a woman can love as selfless as the heroine of this film might be quite possible but in a decent society without rich and poor it would never have to turn out in this sinister way. Instead we are left with a piece of propaganda directed to the poor woman who Believes herself to be hopelessly in love with a swine. This is exactly where the rich want the poor - totally dependant and happy for every Little Crumb that tricles down the rich man's table.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I have been a Hollywood guinea pig for a long time now, and while I'm sure they've programmed me to some degree, they will never get me to accept their idea of romance. Their idea that love is all that matters will always remain foreign to me. So, if a guy has a mistress, it doesn't matter so long as they love each other. Heck, if he has a dozen mistresses, it doesn't matter so long as he loves them and they all love him and are willing to be shoved to the back of his closet until he visits them. Such was the theme of quite a few pre-code romances.

    That's the message of "Back Street."

    Ray Schmidt (Irene Dunne) was a playful flirtatious girl in pre-prohibition Cincinnati who would dance with the traveling salesmen, but give her heart to none; until Walter Saxel (John Boles) arrived. He swept her off her feet, BUT... DUN DUN DUNNNN! He was engaged.

    Say it ain't so! I did not see that coming.

    What do you know, a guy sweeps into town, sweeps a girl off her feet, and he's already engaged (see "They Call it Sin" 1932). And just like "They Call it Sin" he went to New York and so did the girl. Also like "They Call it Sin" Walter was depicted as the good guy, the hopeless romantic, the man in love, and not the POS he really was.

    Walter got married and he kept up a relationship with Ray while he was married. And the one time Ray made up her mind to cut it off Walter sweet talked her into remaining his mistress. After all, they did love each other, and what's more important than that.

    Twenty-five years passed and Ray dutifully remained in the shadows the entire time not daring to interrupt Walter's pristine public life (see "Forbidden" (1932)). Everyone knew about her except Walter's wife. Apparently, he gamed her so well she'd never think anything ill of her husband.

    Eventually Walter's son Richard (William Bakewell) confronted the two of them. He called them every allowable name for that era (he called them rotten and contemptible).

    Do you think that stopped Walter and Ray? Nope. In fact, Walter told Ray that he would give up "everything" for her, even his own life. And that's when I knew the script writer was punking me.

    You expect me to believe that he'd give up his wife, his family, and his reputation for Ray now!? He's kept her hiding for twenty-five years in order to protect himself from losing those very things and NOW he'd give them all up for her?!

    GTFOH.

    Once a player always a player. Dude was still running game to Ray even though they were both old. "Walter, my man. You've got her already. You don't need to lie anymore."

    And one of Hollywood's dirty tricks they play when they want the audience to feel unencumbered by their own sense of right and wrong is that they keep the other woman hidden. So long as we never see Walter's wife Corinne (Doris Lloyd) we don't have to concern ourselves with the other woman who may be devastated by all this.

    No, this was all about poor Walter who had to keep up this charade and poor poor Ray who couldn't help but love this man and as a result had to live a servant's life making herself available whenever Walter could visit her and having no family of her own. I suppose our hearts were supposed to bleed for her, except I had no f's to give. You made your bed now lie in it.

    "Back Street" was such bile. They mixed perfume with it as though it would make it less noxious. This was a perfect movie for a man to take his mistress to so they could see a movie about them, but definitely don't take the wife.

    Free on YouTube.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A story like this, which will have us root for a couple carrying on an extramarital affair, would not get past the censors once the production code was fully enforced in 1934. Interestingly, Universal thought it struck gold with this formula and remade the tale two more times...in 1941 with Margaret Sullavan and in 1961 with Susan Hayward. In this first screen adaptation of Fannie Hurst's novel, Irene Dunne plays the 'back street' gal and handsome John Boles is her paramour who's marred to someone else.

    I think part of the problem I had with the story is how transparent it was in manipulating the audience to feel sympathy for Dunne's character. At one point, late in the film, Boles' grown son (William Bakewell) confronts dear old dad's mistress and gives her a tongue-lashing which a short time later causes him to feel remorse...well that and his father's sudden death...so that he goes back to see the woman, makes amends with her and offers to support her financially for the rest of her life. Totally unbelievable.

    Personally I felt that both Boles' children would never accept this woman. Out of loyalty to their mother, they would barely tolerate the role Dunne played in their father's life. They would never forgive her and certainly would not agree to give her money. They would have stuck to their resolve that the woman was no good, and if they did pay her anything, it would be through a lawyer, with a signed agreement that she'd never talk to anyone about the affair, in order to protect the family's name.

    Not only was the son's quick reversal unbelievable, it was also quite implausible that Dunne would have stuck with such a man for over twenty years with hardly anything to show for it. Would she really have been so naive and stupid?

    At nearly every turn, we see how grand this love affair is and how she is making a supposedly noble sacrifice choosing to be a woman on the side. But I think any self-respecting female would have decided at some point she needed to do much better for herself.

    Another thing that disappointed me in watching BACK STREET was how the drama was so overly fixated on Dunne and Boles, we had very little development with the supporting characters. I wanted to know more about Boles' wife (Doris Lloyd), and I wanted to see Dunne break things off with the automotive tycoon (George Meeker) who offered to marry her. All we know is that she is briefly engaged, but when Boles shows up to talk to her, she has abruptly ended the engagement and goes back to shacking up again with Boles. We really needed to see the consequences play out with the supporting characters.

    Despite the flaws, it's an engrossing melodrama. And Dunne certainly pulls out all the stops, especially in the picture's final moments when her character must deal with Boles' death and then soon experiences her own death. It feels a bit ambiguous how she dies. I guess in the great lachrymose tradition she dies of a broken heart, but it seems more logical that she would have committed suicide realizing how futile her life had been loving a man she could never fully have. The reality of her choices would have been devastating to her once the scales had fallen from her eyes.