MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Console best movie i've ever seen.

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

mark.waltz While this is a good film in its structure as a whole, it is pretty episodic in its detailing of the struggles a young married couple go through during their first years of marriage and how outsiders can help make or break a couple's happiness. The film opens with newleyweds John Shelton and Lana Turner realizing that they have just taken the most important step of their young adult lives, and after dealing with the fantasy of a one night honeymoon in a posh hotel right in the middle of their own city (New York) face the return to reality with their return to work at the same company. The day after the honeymoon is not so romantic for Turner as she is let go by hard as nails boss Gene Lockhart who objects to married couples working together, repeating the same old cliched line "A rule broken no longer is a rule" over and over, even when he has to fire Shelton later on for paycheck garnishments for unpaid furniture. The reality of Turner's pregnancy and Shelton's place on the unemployment line sets him to become angry and desperate, nearly going to jail and given a chance by given a job by a kindly stranger simply on good faith. Shelton returns to see Lockhart on brief business and tells him off for the monster he is, leading to the hard as nails boss to open up his eyes to other people's struggles considering that he allegedly has never had to go through them. While the film's mood shows the darkness of the harshness of society, it's too paint by the numbers/connect the dots in its style that the conclusions are far too obvious almost immediately. In spite of Lana Turner's top billing here, the film really belongs to John Shelton, a handsome young leading man who never became the name that Turner would be, but delivers an intense performance that shows every dimension a young person can go through as they try to make it in a world that is far beyond their control. The "Passing Parade" style narration starts off shockingly with a dead sparrow falling out of its nest onto the New York concrete, and tries to tie itself together through that "Naked City" style structuring. Turner's character seems too good to be true, perhaps the Louis B. Mayer archetype of what a perfect housewife should be, and thus she is less than memorable. It's a rare chance to see her in a not so glamorous role. While her character is pretty, she wears very little make-up, has darker hair (almost mousy brown), and her wardrobe is far from glamorous. Supporting cast members include Clarence Wilson as the stern office manager, Charles Lane as the furniture company biller who has a moment of frustration with Shelton when he pleads for understanding, and Grant Mitchell as the owner of a car which Shelton steals in a moment of desperation. The scene between Lockhart and Shelton leads to a nice breakdown for Lockhart who questions his secretary on the impact of an unseen clerk who left for a lower paying job. It reminded me of an MGM "Passing Parade" short, "The Boss Didn't Say Good Morning", which in this case, was probably true for the reasons the hero in that short had believed to be the cause. It's a nice attempt for MGM to try to do something that was more in the style of Warner Brothers, that I easily could have seen made by them starring Jeffrey Lynn and Jane Bryan.

MartinHafer 0001During the 1930s and into the 40s, MGM generally tried to paint a very rosy picture during the Depression. Additionally, Louis B. Mayer himself (the head of the studio) worked very hard to defeat the leftist, Upton Sinclair, during his attempt to win an election. Why? Because Mayer was dreadfully afraid of communism and socialism and fought hard to nip it in the bud. In light of this, how could a film like "We Who Are Young" get made? Could Mayer have missed this one? Surely he must, as it's progressive message clearly is NOT what 'Uncle' Louis wanted America to see!The plot of "We Who Are Young" is a lot like "The Crowd" and "Saturday's Children". The films are all about nice young folks who marry and try to grab a part of the American Dream but end up getting royally screwed. Again and again, things in the system seem to conspire against the couple as they try to just get by. At least that is the first 80% of the film--a strong Progressive message from the era...surprisingly strong. Unfortunately for the film, but perhaps fortunate for Mayer and his sentiments, the picture loses its way towards the end and degenerates too much towards sentimentality and lacks the hard edge you find in these other films. Overall, worth seeing but it just misses the mark. And, interestingly, although this is a Lana Turner starring vehicle, her co-star, John Shelton easily outshines her as the beleaguered husband.021

blanche-2 John Shelton and Lana Turner star are "We Who Are Young," a 1940 film also starring Gene Lockhart. Turner and Shelton are newlyweds who work in the same office; she's fired as soon as the boss (Lockhart) finds out. Married women can't work there; it seems they're taking the jobs away from the more deserving men, and after all, a husband should be able to support his wife. I don't know about the work rule, but it was the prevailing attitude that if your wife worked, you couldn't support her. The couple has trouble meeting their furniture payments, so hubby takes a loan. When he can't make those payments, his salary his attached. His boss fires him for that; you can't be an upstanding citizen if your salary is attached. Meanwhile, his out of work wife becomes pregnant, the furniture is gone, his job is gone, and he can't find another one.On one hand, it shows you how times have changed in the workplace for the better at least as far as employment laws; on the other hand, at least the Lockhart character has qualms of conscience, which no employer in this day and age would have. Firing at Christmas doesn't bother them, nor does firing someone without notice and having security escort them out, lest they steal a paper clip, nor does spending $250,000 to have their offices redecorated, only to tell employees there's no money for even a cost of living raise.John Shelton chews up the scenery as the husband. He's not particularly good, and though she doesn't get to emote like Shelton, MGM decided Lana Turner was going to be a star. She's very sweet, beautiful and fragile appearing here. Shelton I guess went into the service and lost what little grooming the studio was giving him. It looks like he quit show business in 1953.Extremely dated, not great, interesting for Turner and a look at the workplace in the 1939-41 era.

jerryuppington I don't agree completely with the other reviewer.I think this movie is a fine social documentary of the times. Although the movie was filmed in 1940, the scene is really the Depression 30s.Movies of that era were either 1) escapist, "fluffy" movies, about escapades among the rich and/or young, 2) musicals, or 3) gangster flicks. Mostly. None of these genres really reflected the tenor of those times.True docu-dramas of the era are rather rare; perhaps the people just didn't want to be reminded of how awful things were.This movie depicts the trouble a young couple has in succeeding (or even surviving) in a capitalist, Depression society. Both boy and girl loses jobs, and the girl is pregnant; one senses homelessness and breadlines around the corner. The angst felt by such couples in those days is poignantly portrayed here.True, some of the dialog is corny and dated, but one must remember that the thinking of the 1930s was vastly different than that of today's.The performances are spot-on, too; every one of the characters is believable.This movie is well worth watching for the social documentary that it is.