Rebellious Daughters (1938) User Reviews (5)

Jean Yarborough's First Feature

[boblipton · 5/10 · 24 July 2019]

Friends Marjorie Reynolds and Verna Hillie leave their small town homes because of problems with parents; Miss Reynolds' widowed father is too oppressive, while Miss Hillie's parents don't give a hoot. They go to work as models in George Douglas' dress shop. Douglas' real profits come from framing men in compromising positions with his models in Jean Yarborough's first feature as a director.

There are some plot holes here, but it struck me that even Gower Gulch features had tightened up immeasurably since the early 1930s. Time is not spent watching people simply cross the room; in westerns, they still show shots of men riding horses at a fast clip, but now it's only about five or ten seconds at a time, instead of twice that long. Dialogue is faster, too. Actors don't talk over each other's lines, but they do answer immediately. Compared to a 1934 film, movies like this crackle right along.

There's a tendency in answering questions like 'why' to settle on a singular answer. I think there are several reasons. First, editing improved. Budgets improved. With the consolidation of many of the smallest producers into Republic, and the rise of the singing cowboys, smaller producers had to raise more money for a production that offered as much as a Gene Autry western or go out of business. They had to give the audience more, and that meant that if a movie like this was still going to come in under 70 minutes, it had to move faster. The audiences were becoming more sophisticated in the language of cinema. It might be another quarter of a century before a plane, then a map with a dotted line could be replaced by Peter O'Toole blowing out a match in Cairo and then striding over a sand dune in Arabia, but it was on its way.

If these tendencies were visible in B westerns, the most conservative and tight-fisted of film genres, how could they not appear in films meant for larger audiences?

There are undoubtedly other reasons that contributed to this trend. Certainly, the fact that movies were a lot more profitable than in 1933 meant that producers were willing to spend more, and new directors, like Jean Yarborough, were comfortable in pushing dialogue at stage speeds. Sound equipment was better, which meant that actors did not have to SPEAK THEIR LINES SLOW, LOUD, AND DIS-TINC-TIVE-LY!

What other things do you think contributed to the speeding-up of movies?

Despite the film's MANY shortcomings, I did actually enjoy it.

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 30 September 2014]

This is a silly little exploitation film from Progressive Pictures-- a microscopic little studio of the day. However, unlike a typical exploitation film, this one has pretty good acting and the writing, while very hot stuff for the time, it actually pretty tame. And, oddly, it's actually pretty entertaining and well made for the genre.

Marjorie Reynolds and Verna Hillie star as two walking, talking caricatures. While you are supposed to believe they are real, but represent archetypes of 'problem children' from the day--though both look way too old to be children. One is a spoiled brat whose parents are just too busy to be bothered by taking time out of their self-absorbed lives to a parents. Their child, who I'll refer to as Spoiled Tramp*, is out of control and thinks she knows everything about life. Her friend, Naive Sheltered Idiot*, is incredibly dumb and easily misled. While her father has been very strict, he's been too strict--resulting in a young lady who longs to see the world.

Towards the beginning of the film, Spoiled Tramp convinces her easily convinced pal to go out to a nightclub with her. There, they meet some really annoying young men who are intent on getting drunk and fighting. Not surprisingly, the cops are soon called and the girls find themselves under arrest. The parents' reactions are typical for the archetypes. Spoiled Tramp's mom talks all about how all this affects her and the father, always working, is nowhere to be seen. Naive Sheltered Idiot's father responds by imposing even more rules and less freedom on his daughter (he is a widower). Not at all surprisingly, the pair soon disappear and go to the big city to become fashion models...or so they think.

The modeling jobs they were offered near the beginning of the film do exist. However, the fashionable dress shop is actually a cover for a blackmail business and the girls do not realize that this is actually why they were hired. First Spoiled Tramp is offered an extra job--to set up a young man with some incriminating photos. She is all for this illegal scheme but her trouble is that she is very greedy and way underestimates the people she is working for and soon regrets it...but not for long. Later, Naive Sheltered Idiot is also offered a 'special job'. What happens to her? See the film and find out for yourself.

As I mentioned already, the writing and look of this film is actually very good for this sort of trashy film. Also, while it sure looked like the girls would be forced into prostitution, the racket was clearly blackmail--and with relatively tame set-ups. However, the film also manages to be pretty entertaining for such a cheap B-movie and the finale is quite good. Sleazy late 30s trash with a bit extra when it comes to the look and feel of the movie.

*I couldn't remember the young ladies' names. However, they chose pet names based on their personalities. I couldn't remember them either, so I made up the best ones I could think of.

I'm just crazy about that white fluffy stuff

[sol-kay · 5/10 · 30 May 2009]

**SPOILERS** Another youth in trouble movie out of the Depression Era 1930's involving these two teenage girls who try to make it big in the Big Apple-NYC-as top flight fashion models.

Both Barbara "Babe" Webster and Clair Elliott already were on the outs with their very strict parents by going with their boyfriends Eddie & Bill to the anything goes Samoa Club. It's there, as the club's motto says, where the drinks are free-after you get too drunk to order them-and the women-looking to have a good time with the big spending customers- are easy. Getting into a minor fender bender in the club's parking lot Eddie got into a nasty and sissy-like slapping contest with the other drunk as a skunk driver who, being too drunk to see what he's doing, ended up slapping a policeman. This had Eddie together with Bill Babe & Clair be hauled into the police station on a charge of disorderly conduct.

Released from jail and Just about having it with her father's overbearing criticism of her care free lifestyle Babe together with the more then eager, who's parents are never home anyway, Clair check out of town-Glenhaven Ma-for the big city-New York. It's there where they expect to make in big in the world of high class fashion. It was at the Samoa Club where the girls met womens fashion bigwig Joe Gilman who offered them a job, as fashion models, at his NYC establishment.

It doesn't take long for Clair to realize that she's being use by Gilman as bate to get rich and famous man to be caught, on film, in compromising positions with her. It's after Clair tricked All-American collage football hero Jerry Girard to get his arms around her, after she faked having a fainting spell, that the jock is forced to pay up some $10,000.00 by Gilman. This is in order not to have the photo, secretly taken by one of Gilman's hoods, of Girard holding an out on her feet Clair printed in the newspapers. With him expecting to wed oil heiress Patricia Loring Girard can't afford to be caught with his pants down, in the arms of another woman, that would have his marriage to Pat called off and him end up playing semi-pro-football barley making enough money to pay his food and board! It's when Clair wanted a 50% cut in the Jerry Girard payoff money, a cool $5,000.00, that Gilman had her knocked off. Gilman did that by faking a car accident with Clair, getting hit from behind, helplessly behind the wheel!

Trying to pull the same blackmail stunt on rich Texas cattle baron Clint Houston Gilman had the totally innocent, of what he was planning to do with her, Babe trap and have photograph the befuddled Texan holding Babe in his arms. This if ever made public would not only have Clint's overfly jealous wife Rita not only divorce him but blow, with the ivory handle handgun Clint bought her as a wedding present, his brains out!

***SPOILERS*** Luckily for Babe her boyfriend newspaperman Jimmie Adams had Gilmans number all along. Jimmie together with Babe's dad, whom he contacted back in Mass, had Gilman set up in a way that even he never expected. With the help of NYPD Bunko Squad setting up the elaborate trap and catching Gilman with the goods,Clint's $10,000.00 payoff check, on his person!

Daughters Gone Wild

[Michael_Elliott · 23 August 2015]

Rebellious Daughters (1938)

** (out of 4)

Claire (Marjorie Reynolds) and Barbara (Verna Hillie) are at a nightclub with their boyfriends when a fight breaks out and both are arrested. Each girl gets sent home to their parents who just don't understand the problems of teen girls. The two decide to take a modeling job that they were offered and they run away for greener grass. Soon they both realize that they're just being used by a no-good con man who likes to set up married men to make them pay to keep their secrets from their wives.

REBELLIOUS DAUGHTERS is another social drama from the 30s that is pretty boring all around. The "naughty" title is more suggestive than anything else because the truth is that this certainly isn't much of an exploitation movie and in fact it's rather tame even by 1930s standards. The main point of the film is to show young girls that their parents might ignore them or might force too many rules on them but that's a lot better than some of the creeps they might run into out on the streets.

At 70 minutes the film is pretty predictable from start to finish as you just know that the "tough" friend is going to cross too many lines while the "good" and "naive" one isn't going to realize how much danger she's really in. Then you've got the father who wants his daughter back, the newspaper reporter who likes her and of course a few other twists and turns. The performances are pretty much what you'd expect here and for the most part the film is slightly entertaining. The exploitation matters are extremely clear and a little naughtier storyline might have helped the entertainment value.

Very simply, this is not something that particularly deserves anyone's time.

[I_Ailurophile · 4/10 · 29 August 2023]

Parents! Keep your daughters under lock and key - literally! Keep them locked up until you pick their husband for them (none of this "gal pal" business, dontcha know), whether they like it or not, and then their husband can keep them under lock and key, too! And whatever you do, don't ever let your daughters act or even think for themselves! Between producer Ben Judell, writer John W. Krafft, and director Jean Yarbrough this 1938 film is clearly built to scare parents into believing that allowing their daughters to step outside their door will lead them to a life of crime, debauchery, and immorality, with a close second priority being to scare young women into believing that stepping outside their parents' home will invariably lead to them being exploited and thrust into undesirable circumstances with unsavory people. True, the concept is actually suitable for an earnest drama, but any discerning viewer can surely tell when genuine value is pointedly set against a slant of less than forthright intentions. In the same way that 'Reefer madness' of two years before wanted us to know that "drugs are bad, mm-kay," and that Luc Besson's 2008 thrill ride wanted us to know that "foreigners are bad, mm-kay," 'Rebellious daughters' wants parents to know that "giving any leeway whatsoever to young women is bad, mm-kay." What worth the production could feasibly claim is far outweighed by how irrefutably schlocky and witless it is.

To wit: To whatever extent this looks and feels like any sincere contemporary fare, I don't think there's any disputing that Yarbrough's direction is bent toward an approach that consistently feels insincere. There are few exchanges of dialogue, or instances of acting, that don't come off as decidedly exaggerated and inauthentic; the women stop just shy of speaking in a sing-song voice, and the men are generally missing only an "and how!" exclamation from each of their lines. Suffice to say that the cast don't come off well, forced into such corners. While the narrative is complete and coherent, some connective threads feel thin and strained, as though Krafft was rushing at the eleventh hour to cobble together a sensible plot that gets resolved. While young women in the story are given some choice lines early in the length that eighty-five years later are cheer-worthy in their forward-thinking, independent-minded sagacity, the filmmakers obviously mean for these lines to come across as harbingers of doom for their contemporary audience as every turn in the tale, subsequent scene, and piece of dialogue goes on to show how deeply mistaken such thinking is for these fictional characters. Never is this emphasized more than in a major beat at the 50-minute mark that is supposed to be heavily dramatic, the worst possible outcome of a daughter's rebellion - except it's so plainly hokey that I laughed heartily. Never emphasized more, I should say, except in the last few moments, when the veil is dropped entirely and the patriarchal underpinnings are fully brought to bear. Yuck.

Truth be told, this isn't altogether rotten. No matter how you slice it, I've seen far, far worse; this is nowhere near the bottom of the barrel. Why, on the surface it looks just fine and dandy, as the crew behind the scenes turned in good work, including the sets, costume design, hair and makeup, stunts and effects, and even the cinematography and editing. If one were to passively attend to this without any heed for its content, nothing seems amiss. Pay attention to the slightest degree, however, and the tawdry, old-fashioned boogeyman that the producer, writer, and director have served up is as plain as day. In whatever measure one might appreciate this for the work that was put into it, when it comes to the direction and especially the writing there is almost no value left in this whatsoever in 2023, and I don't know if it's better or worse that audiences in 1938 may have been successfully suckered in by the picture's messaging. Mark this as a curiosity to be observed only by the curious cinephile who will watch anything at all; for anyone else, you can safely sidestep 'Rebellious daughters' without missing anything. Now please excuse me while I find a palate cleanser.