Exclusive“State Fair” (1933): Family, Romance, and the Simple Joys of Americana

Sure is hot. Sure is. Wait, what does that say? What? The headline. Let me see. The fair is opening tomorrow. A whole week of fun. Who wants to walk around a fair in this heat? Are you kidding? Fairs are loads of fun. You never know what's going to happen to you there. What's so great about a bunch of livestock and preserves at some dusty old fairground? Oh, there's a lot more than that. There are roller coasters, games, and maybe some handsome strangers. You really think you can find all that at this thing? Certainly. You can find anything at the state fair. I'm Tiffany Brannan. I'm Rebecca Brannan. Welcome to Real Thoughts on Cinema. It's funny how, throughout film history, there have been certain stories that Hollywood just really latches onto. It's interesting to see the differences between several versions reflecting changing film styles. I always think it's especially fascinating to see the earliest version, because there are often elements and author's intentions included which are lost in later adaptations. A good example of this is the first of three movie adaptations of the same controversial novel, State Fair from 1933. The Frick family, Father Abel, Mother Melissa, and children Margie and Wayne are very excited to go to the Iowa State Fair. They all have something for which they're looking. The father wants to win a blue ribbon for his prize Hampshire-bore blue boy. The mother wants to win prizes for her mincemeat and pickles. Wayne and Margie are both looking for something more exciting than their simple lives at home. A storekeeper tells Abel that while they might win prizes, something bad will happen to them in return, because for every good there's bad in this world. At the fair, Wayne falls in love with a glamorous trapeze artist, thinking she wants to marry him and engages in an affair with her. While Margie meets an exciting newspaper man who has something of a bad reputation with women but finds himself changed by this young woman. However, as the fair draws to a close, will anything they found there last? This movie was a Fox film. It was produced by William Sheehan and directed by Henry King. It starred Will Rogers, Janet Gaynor, and Lou Ayers. Anyone who hasn't really watched classic films but just has sort of preconceived notions about the good old days or about how all movies were light then or whatever you might think, if you watch a movie made between 1930 and 1934, it's going to be quite an eye-opening experience for you, because this was what is called the pre-code era. It was a bit of a misnomer, because during those four years, Hollywood had officially adopted the Motion Picture Production Code, which is commonly but inaccurately called the Hays Code. So really, it wasn't before the code, as the term pre-code would indicate. You should call it pre-code enforcement, because the code wasn't effectively enforced until 1934, when Joseph Breen became head of the new Production Code Administration. So it should be called pre-Breen, or pre-PCA. Yes. But there were these rules which, rather than a set of guidelines for what shouldn't be included in movies, I think Hollywood used as a good set of examples of some fun things to put in movies. And the one thing that kept Hollywood from just running completely wild was... Like it's doing now. Like it's doing now was, firstly, public sensibilities, but more powerfully, there were censor boards throughout the nation. State censor boards, city censor boards, county censor boards, and they would rather randomly cut things out of films. And when you say cut, you mean they would literally cut the film. That's why there's a lot of lost scenes or even lost films now, I would say. That's true. And the arbitrary nature of this censorship is one of the things that led to the whole reason for the code in the first place. Because Hollywood really didn't know what the censor boards wanted. So the idea was, if we make films the right way in the first place, they're much less likely to be censored. And that was definitely the case under the code. Now, many pre-code films are sort of cult classics now because people enjoy how risque they are. And it's kind of interesting to see that, on the one hand, they're so old. They're now over 90 years old. But on the other hand, they're surprisingly modern. Some of the movies are really just throwaway. They're just very silly and risque. But some pre-code films were actually well-made and artistically excellent films. And State Fair is an example of that kind of film. Yes, it's at the same time very much a product of its era. There's something about it. It's just so pre-code, but not in a way necessarily because it has that much in it that's objectionable. It's just kind of the feel. The 1930s, in general, has a very definite style. But that early portion of the 30s, there's just a different feel to it. And I think you really see that in this film. But also, you get a chance to see a filmmaker in the pre-code era really trying to make a good film, which they weren't always doing. And Henry King was a brilliant director who made some excellent films during the Breen era. One reason why this movie was more intelligent and deep than many pre-code films was that it wasn't just some silly fluff invented by Hollywood screenplay writers. It came from a best-selling novel which was published the year before, State Fair, by Philip Stong. And as wasn't always the case, Stong collaborated with the filmmakers to make this adaptation. Many people considered that book almost autobiographical because Stong grew up in Iowa. His grandfather was a livestock raiser. He raised boars. And so throughout his childhood, Philip had gone to many Iowa state fairs, although he himself lived in New York by the time he wrote the book. It was based on his real experiences. Interestingly, the book was set in 1928, before the crash, because there are political references and a prediction of the Great Depression. Yet the movie is very much a Depression-era story. Yes, it was definitely, I'd say, updated to the current time. The fashion, the sensibilities, the commentary. Now, the book was controversial, is that true? It was. He didn't expect it to be as popular as it was. He thought it would sell maybe 10,000 copies, and it became a huge hit. But it was also controversial, especially in Iowa, because of the loose morals of the two farmers' children, particularly Margie. The people of Iowa were deeply offended that a good Iowa farm girl would be depicted as being so loose. And it was banned in many Iowa libraries for decades. So, even though it is a pre-code film, they did sort of Hollywoodize it in a way that they made it more romantic by having, instead of it's just being these two children both just, I mean, they're not children. Yeah, when we say children, they are the children of this farm couple, but they're probably like 20 and 18 or something. These young people just run amok at the state fair. But in the film, I haven't read the book, but I feel like it's more powerful to have this juxtaposition. Wayne is very much led astray by this woman. It's very clearly shown that they are engaging in an immoral affair. But Margie actually kind of changes Pat, and so they get a happy ending as they're going to get married. So he is kind of made to be more moral. He has this sort of character transformation by meeting this girl who's not loose. She's a good girl. Yeah, it's true. And that was a trend which was followed in later film adaptations. The movie was remade twice, both in musical adaptations, and there's a lot you can say about them. But just looking at this film by itself, it's definitely, I almost want to say it's the least known of the three, although really that honor or dishonor belongs to the third one from the 60s, which is considered to be the worst of the three. But with each subsequent release, they kind of tried to get rid of the earlier versions. But each film is very different. The main thing I would say is noticeable about State Fares, it doesn't seem like it's been really well remastered. I was able to find a slightly better copy from TCM, Turner Classic Movies, but most copies you can find of it are very grainy. There are skips in places. There are actually places where you miss some of the dialogue. Not to the point that it doesn't make sense. Just one or two tiny ones. Yeah, little blips. But I think it has sort of fallen into disrepair in a way. I don't think somebody really took it and said, let's really lovingly remaster it. As some pre-code films have been. This movie was clearly a vehicle for two of the biggest stars at Fox in those days. Janet Gaynor, who was a very successful actress, who's not as well known now as some other 30s actresses because she retired in 1937. So she didn't make as many movies later, but she was excellent and very well respected. Just a really good actress. Was she not the first actress to win an Academy Award? Yes, she was. She was in the late 20s. She got her start in silent films and she was actually a good actress, not just the sort of girl who was there for being risque. Right. And that the film is strong because of that. The other person around whom it was based was Will Rogers, a very popular comedian at the time. He had his sort of cowboy style, the way he would just have this rambling. I could be wrong. I feel like that's still a recognizable name to some people. It is. But again, he died the next year in a tragic plane accident. So again, he's not as well known as he might have been because he wasn't that old. He could have lived many decades more because her career was cut short by early retirement and his was cut short by early death. They both sort of, this was toward the end of their careers. Like I said, he died the very next year. But as in both later film adaptations, the father is more of a side character. I think the father himself is more important here because Will Rogers is playing the role. And then we have Lou Ayers in a rather unusual part for him. Again, big star in his day, basically forgotten now. Probably best known either for being Dr. Kildare in not the TV series, but the 1930s and 40s MGM movie series. And he was in All Quiet on the Western Front in 1930. One of his first movies, but it's still remembered as a very successful and stirring film. And the interesting thing, I always felt, I mean, Lou Ayers was actually the reason we watched this movie, but I didn't always feel like for how young he is, just right off the bat, this character is a bit unusual for him. He was under 25 here. And he's supposed to be a very worldly character. It works very well. He plays it brilliantly. But I always thought this is kind of an unusual role for him. And it turns out the role was actually intended for Spencer Tracy, who was also young, but seemed much, much older, much more mature. Knowing that, I can kind of see it in the character. And in this part of his film career, Spencer Tracy was playing gangsters. He was playing tough characters. And I think it's more believable that the character played by Lou Ayers would want to transform, that there's still this innocence in him. And their whole relationship seems more wholesome because he's this really youthful looking, sweet boyish character. And indeed, their relationship is really endearing and really charming. I love how realistic this movie is. That's something you can see in the 30s. And it's partly realistic because they filmed a lot of establishing footage at the 1932 Iowa State Fair. So many times when you see, it's like, look at those people. They really look like they actually are. Not extras. That's right. So you see, they look hot. They look tired. They look hungry. You see, these are people in the Great Depression who aren't doing too well as the Dust Bowl was beginning to happen. And that sort of philosophical, but not particularly hopeful attitude is very present in the dialogue, particularly the dialogue said by Pat. There are some philosophical conversations which he has with Margie, which you wouldn't see in a movie from the 40s and the 60s. And it's a little depressing, honestly, some of the things they say. But I think they called it the Great Depression for a reason. It wasn't just an economic depression. There was a spiritual depression too, after World War I, after the Roaring 20s, as society was casting off the traditional Christian values. And then it was fun for a while, but at some point, Marxism or Nietzscheism can leave you feeling a bit empty. What I think is interesting about the film is this one, more than the later adaptations, I think retains a lot more spirit from the book. That's what we were talking about earlier with the author's intention. And even though it's given this happy ending, which is very satisfying as a I'm very glad it ends that way. You still have that feeling of like, this is fleeting, none of this is going to last. This is just a fun time at the fair. That mood remains. Yes, it does. Even though you get the relief at the end that that's not true, this actually could last. But with what he says and things she says, there's mainly this one conversation after their first night seeing the fair together that she says, it's been such fun seeing the fair with you. She's sort of sad. And he says, we can see the fair again tomorrow. And she says, there's a first time for everything. You can never get it back the same way again. It's like, it's true. So it shows the thought provoking nature of movies like this. So I appreciate that it's provoking thinking, which a lot of prequel films didn't. Thinking is always good. You have the more lurid aspect from the relationship with Emily and Wayne. They changed her character completely from the book. In the book, she's this sort of rootless young lady whose father is a womanizer and a gambler. And they just kind of go around from fair to fair, betting on the horses. And she loves Wayne, but she doesn't want to give up her cosmopolitan lifestyle. Instead, she becomes just basically a chorus girl. Yeah, she's a trapeze artist, but she's the very typical 1930s designing woman. It's already a bit long. A lot of movies from this era were only an hour long. This is an hour and a half. So they did allow, with so many plot lines going on, I could see how something had to kind of get cut down. And since Margie's romance is more important, and even the father character is more important, Wayne's is mainly just there as kind of a moral tale, I would say. Yeah, and also to put in some of the more risque elements. And something else which you wouldn't even consider, there are a couple of plot lines involving alcohol, and this was toward the end of Prohibition. So bear in mind, anytime someone's drinking, it's against the law. It's Prohibition. From the apple brandy that they're putting in the mincemeat to her giving him his first drink. It adds a controversial nature to it, which wasn't really present in later versions. You don't necessarily think about that. Yeah, but it's always interesting to note that in almost all pre-code films, all the drinking is illegal. And speaking of censor boards, as we were earlier, there actually was an even more controversial scene with Emily and Wayne, which got cut, I believe, actually for the 1935 re-release, because they had to get a seal of approval. So it was like, we have to take this out. I'm sure they made some other cuts too. Unfortunately, when it came to re-releases, the PCA did have to basically resort to censorship, because what else are you going to do? And that scene is actually lost. So I guess it was just like hearing the character speaking off screen, and you saw her nightgown lying on the bed. I understand. I don't know how that information is out there, but... Yeah, I don't know. Maybe a script or some kind of storyboard, possibly even the PCA letters. Not screenshot, like publicity shot. Yeah, there can be publicity shots. I've seen that from other pre-code films. This is either just a really basic publicity shot, or that was a scene that at some point got censored out and has been lost. You fully get what's happening without that. It's uncomfortably pointed. The interesting thing about pre-code films, I think when you compare them to, say, modern films, or even films from the late 50s or 60s, is Hollywood has become more show and less tell. And in pre-code films, they would talk about it. And there's something that's very striking about that. It's like, I don't want to say it's more uncomfortable, it's not more uncomfortable, but it's just like, wow, you're just talking about it. And sometimes in sort of a... An offhanded way? Offhanded or just kind of sly way. One of the most uncomfortable moments in the film is when Wayne has been telling his parents that he's been seeing this fellow, this other guy. Oh, I made this pal, you know. And he's like, oh, I thought I would spend the night with him. And they think he's talking about another man. So there's just this line of dialogue between the three of them, and just the audience knowing it's a woman, it's just like, this is really uncomfortable. And obviously, it was intentionally written that way. And it also was purposely put in the middle of this conversation that's otherwise pretty unobjectionable. So it would be harder to cut out that one line. It's easy to cut out the scene with the negligee on the bed. It's harder to cut out Will Rogers just kind of saying this line in the middle, which I'm sure some boards did, and there was an abrupt skip and they didn't care. Another aspect of realism, which was added to the film, was the kind of playful subplot of Blue Boy, this beloved boar. There's some funny comedy, it's funny how much Abel loves his beloved hog. But you could take a more, I don't know, dark look at it and say he cares more about that hog than he does about Wayne. He doesn't really know what his son is doing, but he's obsessed with taking care of his hog, only to then be talking about his becoming ham after he's won. That's what life was on a farm. But he seems to care about Margie, he cares about Blue Boy, but Wayne is almost an afterthought. Is that why Wayne is sort of looking for love in the wrong places? Maybe. The hog used for Blue Boy actually was the Blue Prize winner at the Iowa State Fair in 1932. The producers bought that hog so that they could use him in the movie. They filmed a lot of the scenes on the Frake family farm at a real farm in Corona, which is a small town in California. And in return for letting them use the farm, they painted the barn, put up a picket fence, repaired the chicken coop. So it's sort of nice to say they helped that real farmer. And it added, it does look very realistic rather than just a soundstage. I think it just adds to this film being such a product of the 1930s that, like you mentioned, these two main actors didn't continue acting after that decade of the 30s. And when I think of an actress who just kind of exemplifies the 30s style in every way, I think of Janet Gaynor. She's one of the first actresses I think of. And I think because she often played more of the average girl, so not like the Jean Harlow kind of glamour girl. She was often the nice girl, someone who just seems more like somebody you would have met on the street in the 1930s. And it's also reflected in the clothes. My outfit is inspired by the many simple dresses worn by Margie with the early 30s silhouette with the loose ruffled neckline. She only wears one hat going to and coming back from the farm. It's a black hat quite tightly fitted to the head and her one pair of good shoes appear to be quite light and have a decoration on them. So my outfit is based on one of the costumes worn by Emily, the bad girl whom Wayne meets at the fair, played by actress Sally Eilers. She wears a style more exemplified by the standard pre-code actress like Jean Harlow or Joan Blondel with a more form-fitting outfit, a lower neckline, lots of jewellery, including a big necklace and far too many bracelets on one arm. She wore heavier makeup and painted nails to show that she's a worldly woman. And she wore several cute little hats. I think it's important for anyone who really wants to understand the golden era of Hollywood to watch an occasional pre-code film. You can't appreciate the code without seeing what came before it. It's inevitable to see what has come after it. We see it every day. But what came before? Was it just a better time? Of course it was. But why was it a better time? And how was that expressed in films? And how were code films really a moral victory? Yes, we always use this example of saying, like, people say, oh, those are the good old days. And I like to say that because that was what I thought. Yes. We would generally watch, you know, we grew up watching classic films. We didn't watch modern films. We watched some that were going into the 60s. And of course, like, I don't know, the like renaissance Disney films. But I would see when I was getting into the 60s is like, oh, now there starts to be some swearing in movies. Yes. Somewhat mild. But, you know, it's starting now. It's just like, oh, you know, times are changing. I just didn't really think about it that much. So just like, you know, the world was getting bad. I don't know. But then when we found out about this, it's like, that's really interesting. Now, I wouldn't say there's a lot of swearing in pre-code films, much less. They were more likely to say, like you said, suggestive things, forbidden expressions, and just to deal with some more problematic themes and subject matter. There was quite a bit of at least partial nudity. There was, yeah. Risqué costumes was a big deal. And you see that in like a couple of costumes worn by Emily and you see chorus girls. Yeah. Advertised before this show wearing pretty scanty costumes. They basically. Something about 30s chorus girls. Yeah. They basically were wearing the underwear of the day. They look like more covering bathing suits now. But consider how scandalous that was at the time. That's an interesting thing. You kind of want to look at it and lens like, I know we're so desensitized now. It's not that bad. But for the time, because it's so old, I think it could still even shock anymore. And you're like, wow, I didn't think they did things like that back then. And it's just kind of, that's what makes it so interesting. But in every way, both seeing the kind of looser standards of the pre-code era, and like you said, that real depression era message, or getting to see some of these either actors who were just in the 30s or like Loewe, assuming he was very, very young at the beginning of his career. It's just really a fascinating film to see, not only just to watch a movie, but to study. Yes. If you're any kind of a film historian, it's interesting to see, or if you want to really find out about the 30s, this is really like jumping in with both feet. Indeed it is. And I love this movie because it does have depth. It does have some meaning to it. And it's not just a frivolous little pre-code escapade. It really is an excellent film and a good way to start your journey exploring the story of State Fair. You can find this movie to stream on YouTube. You can rent or purchase it on Amazon Prime Video. And if you want to find an even clearer copy, you may have to look around a little more on the internet, such as on the Russian website ok.ru. That's actually the web address. And you can also, I believe it's now available on DVD from Warner Archive, but it's still not the best copy. You're more likely to find a good copy streaming it online or on Amazon Prime Video. In the 1940s, it became popular to remake earlier films as musicals, often lightening the tone in the process. Such was the case with the 1945 remake of this film, whose legacy has far eclipsed its predecessor. Join us next time as we talk about this, Hollywood's second trip to the fair. Thank you for watching. Goodbye.