Comments on She Blogged By Night: Bette Davis Project #8: "Dark Horse" (1932)

I think you're taking the film a bit too serio...

2011-12-05T18:15:42.611-06:00

I think you're taking the film a bit too seriously since it's a farce. I love Warren William and he was at his peak here, though I think Lee Tracy might have worked 1% better in this role.

Blake's ex wife isn't painted as a villainess due to wanting alimony, though she's certainly irritating in the scenes demanding it. I thought that she would end up with Hicks as the state's first lady, thus getting rid of Blake's alimony and paving the way for his marriage to Bette's character. Then the film took the ex in the weird direction of having her try to frame Hicks for money, even though Blake was set to get 50,000 if Hicks won (which in theory should would get a piece of).

Or, you know, I could be a total spazz and forget ...

2010-03-01T01:23:41.689-06:00

Or, you know, I could be a total spazz and forget that it was William Powell in "Fashions" and not Warren. D'oh.

Fashions of 1934 was great fun!

2010-03-01T01:21:22.732-06:00

Fashions of 1934 was great fun!

Of the 4 collaborations between Bette and Warren, ...

2010-03-01T01:19:45.847-06:00

Of the 4 collaborations between Bette and Warren, this is by far the worst. "Fashions of 1934" is much better as is "Satan Met a Lady", even though lots of people seem to hate the latter. Of course, "Three on a Match" is good, but I don't recall if they had scenes together. It's been easily 17 years since I've seen it.

Bette Davis and Warren William! T...

2010-03-01T00:39:14.141-06:00

Bette Davis and Warren William! That definitely sounds tempting.

Also, thanks for pointing out the Warren William b...

2010-02-28T18:53:42.663-06:00

Also, thanks for pointing out the Warren William blog.

Thanks for a nice long post! I saw this back in No...

2010-02-28T18:51:52.812-06:00

Thanks for a nice long post!
I saw this back in November because I never miss a Warren William movie. And he plays the patented Williams scoundrel here - he was also very busy in 1932! I do think your analysis is a bit harsh, because you are right - it's a spoof on elections and Populism vs Progressive politics. Despite rhetoric about serving the public, it's really about obtaining and maintaining power.
Proof that things don't change! The film is a bit dated, just think about and enjoy it in the context of 1932.