User reviews

If I had one piece of advice for people wanting to try out films of the 1930s, it would be to check out any movie with Walter Huston in it. From Gabriel Over the White House to Kongo to The Beast of the City and more, the man was in some of the weirdest and most interesting films of the period. Here we have a film about the dangers of alcohol, made a year before prohibition ended. The film seems to be both anti-alcohol and anti-prohibition, which makes for some fascinating think-work about what the movie is really trying to advocate.

The film starts with Lewis Stone's Colonel Sanders-looking Southern patriarch, whose daughter (Dorothy Jordan) is trying to get him to quit drinking. After a short while we move North to a fresh-faced Robert Young and his lush of a father Walter Huston. The two stories eventually intersect as Young falls in love with the daughter. Prohibition passes which leads to a tragedy for Young, who decides to become a treasury agent and is partnered with Jimmy Durante (!). From here the movie hits a bit of a lull as we get a fairly typical T-man story until the final minutes, which are exciting.

The film offers some great moments such as the haunting image of Lewis Stone's final fate or the powerful scene where Walter Huston's wife confronts him about his bootleg liquor. The cast is excellent. The performances are melodramatic but in the best way. In addition to the stars already mentioned, we also have Neil Hamilton, Myrna Loy, and Wallace Ford. Not a bad lineup.

As an entertainment piece, I think it's solid. But it has added value as a historical curio, allowing modern audiences to get perspective on the thoughts and feelings at the time regarding an important period in our history.

Wet Parade (1932)

A heavy social message movie but really well made, with some touching, in fact moving scenes. There is the first layer of drinking and the damage heavy drinking does (with some dramatic examples!). Then there is a political level, with electioneering and a kind of lobbying by the characters—and the movie—regarding drinking.

The year it begins is 1916, more or less, and it's the cusp of the beginning of Prohibition, just a year before the U.S. enters WWI. (The war is a side issue—one character wisely says, "War has no good side.") The acting is quite realistic—this is a truly serious and large drama—and so the events take on poignant significance. Even if it might, sometimes, seem to preach (barely), it always puts it in human terms, and human costs.

"I never did take it up," says one main character, to explain his not drinking. It makes it seem like a drug ("I never did take up pot") and that's really the underlying attitude on both sides. Of course, there are lots of scenes of drunks and parties leading to good old drunkenness. One of the reasons for voting for Prohibitions is shown as economic—50 million bushels of wheat and rye were going to making drink, and in war time this was wrong.

Remember that the movie was made in 1932 just as Prohibition was being repealed. I don't think it was simply a reminder to the audience of the history of the whole 14 year experiment in teetotaling. Progressive (Democratic) President Wilson did not approve the idea, but the states went ahead and ratified the amendment (not including some notable hold outs like Kentucky, home of great Bourbon).

So, as a movie, there is a lot going on. Before the first hour is up we have one plot transform into another and then yet another. In a way it's quite remarkable. Director Victor Fleming is seven years away from his glory year (1939) and yet is showing a sustained intelligence and narrative savvy. And the camera keeps moving with engaging fluidity, the light varies greatly from night to day to night, and the editing is fast and intelligent. This is, technically, a superb movie.

Now you might object to a certain level of moralizing—the drinkers are often cads or losers—but there is enough complexity of message to make this work overall. There is a sense that everyone (nearly) admits that Prohibition is a hopeless, and maybe senseless cause. As the plot moves toward its dramatic mobster climax, it feels more about pure crime than a moral issue, which got lost along the way.

But that's perhaps what happened to the country, too, back in the long dry years of the 1920s. Which were not so dry after all, for many. Hypocrisy and irony abound. A truly interesting movie.

One of my favorite movies mostly because I'm a Jimmy Durante fan and he plays, of all things, a treasury agent during prohibition! True, that doesn't stop him from being somewhat funny, cracking jokes and displaying his comedic talents, so anyone who likes Durante will enjoy his participation in this movie. There is also some fine ensemble acting from the large cast as we see some of the evils of liquor both before and during prohibition. And there's a great scene showing bootleggers making phony whiskey using wood alcohol and printing labels saying it was pre-prohibition liquor or from Canada.

I noticed two onscreen credit errors: Frederick Burton is listed as playing Major Randolph, and Reginald Barlow is listed as playing Judge Brandon. The character names were erroneously interchanged.

Upton Sinclair for once wrote a novel with a balanced look at the social problem of chronic alcoholism and the discredited law meant to address it - Prohibition.

It deals with two families - a rural southern family, the Chilcotes, who live on a large plantation with the patriarch being a hopeless lifelong alcoholic (Lewis Stone). here not exactly Judge Hardy. In the north there is the Tarleton family, who run a New York City boarding house while dad is always tipsy.

The two families come together when Roger Chilcote Jr (Neil Hamilton) travels to New York to finish his book and takes a room in the Tarleton boarding house. But he gets involved in heavy drinking and he, too, becomes a hopeless drunk. His sister goes to New York to try and sober up her brother where country mouse (Persimmon Chilcote) meets city mouse (Kip Tarleton). They both think Prohibition will solve all of their familial problems, but in fact it just makes matters worse to the point of tragedy. And there have never been more speak easys in New York until the sale of alcohol was against the law.

So Kip marries Persimmon and joins up with the government forces meant to bring down all of speak easys. But the government is only half heartedly fighting, and Kip and his colleagues are underfunded. This is probably one of John Miljan's best roles as Kip's boss who does his job because it is the law, but he is extremely verbally cynical about how useless he thinks it all is. It was good to see Miljan, who had a problem with the bottle himself, playing a normal person rather than some kind of uber villain for a change.

The worst part of the film? L.B. Mayer really liked Jimmy Durante so he basically manufactures a role that is completely unsuited for him as Kip's partner in busting up saloons. Durante even gets an introduction and an "entrance" in the grand comedic style of vaudeville. I just don't think Durante's schtick worked in this picture. He was put to much better use in "Hollywood Party", one of the last precodes.

With Myrna Loy as a saloon keeper who doesn't exactly stand by her man in times of trouble, and with Wallace Ford in a supporting role as a rambling reporter, this one does a good job explaining the attitudes surrounding the lead up to prohibition and the complete failure that the law was after it was enacted with tons of unintended consequences.

The Wet Parade has a very powerful message, and at a full two hours, it's one of the longest movies to ever come out of the 1930s. The film chronicles the use of alcohol in the United States before Prohibition, and the effects of the law in its early years.

Starting out in the South, the film shows how alcoholism can devastate a family and ruin lives. Lewis Stone is the patriarch, and he gives a rare performance full of emotional turmoil. This pre-Code film shows what other films wouldn't be able to show for decades. Lewis is taking a buggy ride with his daughter, Dorothy Jordan, and he's so drunk, he has to pull over and vomit in the bushes.

With an unhappy end to that part of the story, we the see the attitudes of Lewis's children, Dorothy and Neil Hamilton. Dorothy vows to never touch a drop and wishes alcohol would be taken away from the entire country, but Neil discovers the euphoric feeling and develops a habit of his own. Up in the North, Neil is living in a hotel run by Robert Young and his parents, Walter Huston and Clara Blandick. Walter is also a drunkard, and much to his horror, the newspapers announce the possibility of Prohibition. Robert, Clara, and Dorothy are ecstatic at the prospect of no one being able to drink alcohol anymore, but it doesn't occur to them that people will break the law and continue to drink.

This movie is such a heavy drama, I must caution you before you rent it. Regardless of your views on alcohol, it's pretty upsetting to watch. If you think alcohol is the root of all evil, or if you think it's the men who abuse it who are the villains, or if you think Prohibition was a terrible mistake-there's a message in this movie for everyone. It flows beautifully from one person's story to the next, connecting them but still keeping them separate so the audience can see how the problem permeates different families. Robert Young isn't even in the start of the film, but he ends up being the lead of the story. Fans of his television career need to rent this movie to see him give a once-in-a-lifetime dramatic performance. He's different in this film from any others he made, and he pours his heart out scene after scene.

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to violence and adult themes, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

Probably Upton Sinclair's novel was ambiguous so the MGM film version had to be equally so. But The Wet Parade was made and released before the public's verdict on Prohibition was in. At the end of 1933 the 21st amendment to our Constitution was passed repealing the 18th amendment banning liquor. The cure was worse than the disease.

The Wet Parade deals with two families headed by Lewis Stone and Walter Huston. Stone is a southern colonel who likes his branchwater and bourbon and Huston a New York hotelier who also is a drinker. The culture of drink is inculcated in both families.

Two who missed it are Stone's daughter Dorothy Jordan and Huston's son Robert Young. Alcohol claims family and friend all around them. And Prohibition just seemed to make it worse.

Among the rest of the cast look for outstanding performances from Neil Hamilton as Jordan's brother, Jimmy Durante as a Prohibition agent , and Myrna Loy as a flapper who abandons Hamilton in a crisis. In the case of Hamilton he did in real life develop a serious drinking problem.

A good film that was made before it's time.

THE WET PARADE is the sort of old fashioned film that looked old and out of date even when it came out in 1932. In so many ways, this film is a carryover from the early silent anti-drinking melodramas of the first decade of the twentieth century--complete with ridiculously one-dimensional characters and a very heavy-handed message. In fact, the message is so heavy-handed that I seriously doubt if the anti-alcohol message had much effect on audiences--other than to elicit laughter! This is all very sad because very few films have ever addressed the impact of alcohol on its many victims (most of which aren't even the drinkers themselves)--too bad this was handled so poorly.

Why do I say it was handled poorly? Well, many of the drunks portrayed in the film are totally one-dimensional and the actors overact so much as they portray them. This was pretty apparent with Lewis Stone's character, but compared to the ridiculous guy played by Walter Huston, he was downright subtle. As for Huston, he seemed more like a Tourette's sufferer than anything else, as he REPEATEDLY twirled his handlebar mustache and grunted (some actual symptoms of the disorder--seriously). However, most in the audience today may not recognize him, but this character acts almost exactly like those from melodramas of 30 years earlier--widely exaggerating EVERYTHING and chewing the scenery! In many ways, he seemed like a drunk version of Snidely Whiplash! Now when it comes to the impact on those around these ridiculous drunks, the film did a much better job. The co-dependent family members and enabling friends were excellent touches--but still weren't enough to make up for the awful characters played by Stone and Huston.

Other than these silly drunks, the film also chronicled the history of the prohibition movement--and this was mildly interesting from a historical point of view. What I learned from the movie is that what really helped this anti-liquor crusade was WWI and moves to stop the production of intoxicants in order to feed our troops and starving Europeans. An interesting tidbit amongst the "sledgehammer symbolism" throughout this entire film.

If anyone knows of a movie to SERIOUSLY address alcoholism from this era, let me know--as for THE WET PARADE, it's practically cartoon-like in its generalizations and bad characterizations. It's good for a laugh and maybe a brief history lesson buried within, but that's about all.

FYI--The director of this film, Victor Fleming, was himself an extremely heavy drinker according to several biographies I've read (including CLARA BOW: RUNNING WILD). And, ironically, if you read the biography for Huston on IMDb, he apparently was the master of ceremonies at a brewery party the night Prohibition expired!!

It's difficult to find old movies that I haven't already seen, so it was with great anticipation that I watched The Wet Parade, 1932, for the first time. It was like taking a vicarious time machine journey that landed smack in the middle of one of America's less memorable self-righteous escapades: The Prohibition. The best part is that this intensely dramatic flick was made a full year before prohibition ended, so the full flavor of the alcohol-soaked theme really hits home. It includes some historically accurate details, which were still very fresh in everyone's minds when the movie was produced. It also depicts some of the darker details of desolation and desperation the general public wrestled with after losing complete access to drinkable alcohol. Walter Huston, one of Hollywood's most convincing actors of his era, outdoes himself in this movie. Young Robert Young is quite dashing in his role, although the sight of him paired up with the gregarious Jimmy Durante might prompt a quick reality check if you're not prepared for this early "odd couple" concept.

Author and environmentalist Edward Abbey once said "Democracy - rule by the people - sounds like a fine thing; we should try it sometime in America." At least the internet says he did. The makers of this film felt the same way about Prohibition. They must have felt pretty strongly since the film ran for two hours back when the average was about 1h 10m.

Did you that know that during Prohibition the US government put poison in industrial alcohol so it couldn't be converted to drinking alcohol? The result of this policy was that criminals converted it anyway and thousands of people were poisoned to death. Yes, it's in the movie and can be verified on reputable websites. Just one of the historical facts you can pick up from this film, not to mention a sampling of the spectrum of public opinion at the time.

For instance, imagine you were an ordinary social drinker at the time. The film captures such people's incredulity as they watched the laborious process involved in passing a Constitutional amendment, one they never dreamed possible, that would make their recreational drug of choice illegal.

Despite such nuances the film makes no bones about its anti-alcohol feelings. It differs from laughable anti-drug films like "Reefer Madness" in that its makers actually knew about the real effects of the drug in question. Its point is that Prohibition as it existed was not working and was only funneling money into organized crime while increasing disrespect for law and order. It was made during the tail end of Prohibition, when it must have been clear that its repeal was imminent. Its message is a pious hope that somehow Prohibition can be made to work, but it doesn't quite specify how.

By the way, there is a plot with stars like Robert Young and Myrna Loy buried in all of this, which generally moves at the snappy pace of other pre-code films. Its excessive length is due to its repetitious hammering home of the evils of alcoholism. They did try to liven it up a little by having comedian Jimmy Durante playing an unlikely Prohibition agent who performs bits of Durante's nightclub act. Still it may impress you as overlong, melodramatic and even depressing at points, but those interested in American history and culture in the 1920s and 30s will find it fascinating.

A film that shows both the evils of alcohol abuse as well as the evils of Prohibition, making it an attempt at a balanced account of the 15 years (1916-1931) before it was made, at least as seen through the eyes of author Upton Sinclair and director Victor Fleming. Unfortunately, the plot is a melodramatic mess, taking forever to get going (about an hour to when Prohibition goes into effect), and lacking any real interest or pre-Code sizzle. It's too long at two hours and it doesn't come across as particularly insightful about alcohol during this period either, the aspects of which are shown rather cartoonishly. There are repeated instances of stereotypical black characters in the first half which also makes it less enjoyable to watch.

It's too bad because the cast had such promise - Walter Huston, Wallace Ford, Robert Young, Lewis Stone, Neil Hamilton, Jimmy Durante, and Myrna Loy. Durante is badly miscast and plays his usual comedy routine in a part where it doesn't belong, and don't get excited about Loy either, as her part is small. The best scene is when Huston violently brandishes a two by four in the basement, which is seriously dark. Otherwise, somewhat weirdly, for a film about alcohol, the most interesting bit was instead about America entering WW1. First we see Woodrow Wilson the anti-war candidate elected, and then there is a cut to America going off to war. We then get these brilliant lines between characters played by Neil Hamilton and Wallace Ford:

Hamilton: "You're all hopped up with that patriotic hypodermic like the rest of 'em. They've told you about the poor Belgian girls and blown a bugle in your ear and said 'Sic 'em!'" Ford: "But you know they're only doing their duty." Hamilton: "Like a glorified street fight - that's what war is. Somebody throws a brick and everybody starts taking sides. And when it's all over, do they know what they've been fighting for? No! Ten years from now, no one will be able to tell you what this war was all about. Except the guys that made money out of it, and they're not gonna bring up the subject." Ford: "But you know we're on the right side." Hamilton: "Listen! War has no right side. All war does is fertilize the ground and supply the surfaces with armless and legless wonders. Well, I don't propose to be either!"

Victor Fleming's "The Wet Parade" (1932) would be an appropriate double feature companion to "Reefer Madness". But while it shares that film's exaggerated (insert hysteria here) style, it is a much higher budget production and ultimately delivers a balanced and well- reasoned message.

It also has an all-star cast, although many of them are very early in their careers. The story centers around an old southern family, the Chilcotes; Lewis Stone, Dorothy Jordan, and Neil Hamilton (Commissioner Gordon on television's "Batman" series). Other name actors included Walter Huston, Robert Young, and Myrna Loy, Wallace Ford, and Jimmy Durante.

The film is almost an epic as it covers a 15-year span from 1916 to 1931. During WWI Congress expands federal regulation with a wartime measure called the Food Control Act (regulating grain among other things). This leads to the ill-advised Volsted Act and the 18th Amendment outlawing liquor (insert nationwide "Prohibition"). But prohibition curtails only legal drinking, and gives criminal elements a huge base of potential customers. Although much of the demand is met by smuggling (especially from Canada) and domestic distillation, there is quick money to be made with bogus product. Criminals simply take bulk denaturated (meaning unfit to drink) cleaning fluid ( a mix of ethyl alcohol and methanol) and package it as a name brand product. The film shows an excellent sequence of this process.

The film also shows the consequences of consuming this product; blindness or death.

The intention of the film is not to promote drinking but to illustrate a bigger evil, the unintended consequences of the government's ill-advised attempt to prohibit the activity. "The Wet Parade" was a rare example of mainstream Hollywood's willingness to openly take a side in a political issue. In doing so they risked alienating a huge potential audience (the President had vetoed the original legislation and it took legions of pietistic voters to pass the 18th Amendment). The effectiveness of the "The Wet Parade" message no doubt contributed to the passage of the 21st Amendment the following year (1933), which repealed nationwide prohibition. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

A Very Special After School Special about the Demon Drink. Yawn.

The cast over-acts to the point of distractiong. As if nobody told them they were making a talkie. The exception was Myrna Loy, whose quiet dignity steals the movie.

At least the movie points out that war-monger and Klan-sympathizer Woodrow Wilson played a key role in enacting Prohibition. Anything that knocks that all-time nutjob president off his pedestal is fine by me.

Overall, this movie is way too full of itself. There's no way most people will be able to sit through the entire two hours.

Produced at a time when America was having second thoughts about the 18th Amednment, this is an interesting period piece that shows the effects of alcohol on two families as well as the unintended consequences of Prohibition. Unfortunately, the movie runs too long as the plot tries to develop the eventual interconnection of the two families. However, it does treat the effects of Prohibition in an evenhanded manner. Neil Hamilton has the best roll as the upright son of the Southern family who descends into alcoholism, despite having seen the effects of booze on his father. Robert Young, who has the corresponding position in the city family, remains "dry", but comes across as somewhat of a prude. Jimmy Durante is totally miscast as a Treasury Agent.

This Hollywood production takes a staunch (if peculiar) anti-alcohol, pro-Prohibition stance. It condemns the exaggeratedly tragic effects of alcohol consumption, as lives are torn apart by the mere existence of the Demon Drink. The film was released while Prohibition was still law, and it preached its Dry message directly at the 1932 audience.

In a sense, THE WET PARADE (1932) does for alcohol what TELL YOUR CHILDREN (1936) does for marijuana. What sets this film apart is its compelling story and excellent cast.

The film chronicles the rise of Prohibition out of World War I and the effects of its enforcement. It's an interesting take on the subject, showing the political and moral motivations behind the Dry movement, the last-minute hoarding of booze before the Eighteenth Amendment went into effect, the rise of speakeasies and bootlegging, and the government crackdown on liquor. The government men are portrayed like secret agents in enemy territory, infiltrating speakeasies undercover and gathering evidence before a raid. Saving the public from themselves.

The movie even touches upon some of the negative consequences of Prohibition (poisonous bootleg liquor, organized crime, etc.), placing the blame not on the law, but the insatiable appetite for alcohol among deviant Americans.

The cast assembled for this Prohibition epic is impressive. The leads are second-rate (Robert Young and Dorothy Jordan), but they are joined by some A-list supporting actors like Lewis Stone, Walter Huston, Wallace Ford, Jimmy Durante, John Miljan, Neil Hamilton, and even Myrna Loy.

In hindsight, decades after the repeal of Prohibition in the U.S., it seems the filmmakers may have been a bit misguided in their didacticism, although, to be fair, the movie is based on a book. And the film was only discouraging activities which were illegal at the time.

Still, the movie's crusading stance goes a little over-the-top. There's one scene near the end where John Miljan speaks right into the camera, directing his anti-booze rant at the viewers in the theatre. A noble gesture by MGM, supporting law and order, but it's a bit silly nowadays.

This cinematic account of America's biggest failure to date of social engineering should be required viewing for all the religious, Republican creeps out there who are considering a national abortion ban. For the vast majority of us, however, this is a stiff, humorless, messagey drone of a film with a too caricatured screenplay by the usually good John Mahin...not that the reformist, socialist frump Upton Sinclair, upon whose novel this film is based, gives the scenarist much to work with!...and slow, undistinguished direction by Victor Fleming including something one hardly ever sees, namely a hammy performance by Walter Houston for which, since it is so rare, I hold Fleming responsible. Much better, by contrast, because it is relatively restrained, is Lewis Stone's study in Southern gentlemanly, alcoholic self abasement. Unfortunately, Stone, by far the movie's most interesting character, dies twenty five minutes in. Guess you're obliged to finger Mahin for that poor story decision, huh? Give it a C.

The reason I enjoyed this film would first be the background history on the Volstead Act; the acting of veteran performer Walter Huston; a new face to the screen Robert Young and lastly to watch Jimmy Durante do some splendid acting that I did not know he was able to do. Perhaps when he was placed in comedies and musicals he was rarely given material to expand his abilities in other genres. In any event there is a little of everything in this film that will prove not to be a waste of one's time.

The Volstead Act, the 18th Amendment, the National Prohibition Act--they all mean the same thing: the illegalization of alcohol for consumption. "The Wet Parade" is a two hour Cliff notes version of how it came to pass and some of the ramifications of its passing.

The movie started in the South somewhere where an old racist man died from alcoholism. No, I'm not calling him racist for having a home full of Black servants, I'm calling him racist for treating the Black children like trained animals. Instead of handing them the money he wanted to give them for entertaining him, he threw it to make them sift through the dirt for it on hands and knees.

I digress, because the movie wasn't about him. He was just an impetus for his teetotaling daughter Maggie May aka Persimmon (Dorothy Jordan) to want alcohol to be banned.

The movie then moved to New York where a man named Pow Tarleton (Walter Huston) was addicted to alcohol. He was the impetus for his teetotaling son Kip (Robert Young) to join the Prohibition Act Enforcement Agency.

I don't think I have to tell you that the two teetotalers fell in love. Together they were representative of the portion of the American public that wanted alcohol banned.

I'm not a drinker at all. I've never touched alcohol a day in my life and I'm morally opposed to it, but I hate when Hollywood gets preachy. This was a really lousy attempt to illustrate the ills of alcohol. It was overly simplistic, but then maybe that's all they could handle in the '30's. Don't present them with anything complex or morally ambiguous because they'll riot. I don't know

Free on YouTube.

Rare is the film that this reviewer can only watch until the half way mark, but this is one of them. Thankfully, that meant the performance of the obnoxious Jimmy Durante, who helped end the feature film career of Buster Keaton, was missed, since he appears in the second half. Even Walter Huston could not save this film, it was that bad.

One reviewer writes incorrectly that Huston "seemed more like a Tourette's sufferer than anything else, as he REPEATEDLY twirled his handlebar mustache and grunted (some actual symptoms of the disorder--seriously)." Huston did stroke his mustache, but he did not twirl it. The reviewer goes on to write that "if you read the biography for Huston on IMDb, he apparently was the master of ceremonies at a brewery party the night Prohibition expired!!" In the Walter Huston trivia section it mentions that he gave a short speech the morning that Prohibition expired, but the was not the master of ceremonies.

I loved The Wet Parade and gave it a 10. I loved it because it clearly depicts the pain and suffering caused by the loss of free will, whether through addiction or government imposed sanctions. I found the film to be as relevant today as it was when it was released in 1932, just months before the repeal of Prohibition. There is no attempt to provide a solution, just a vivid picture of the problem. A problem which continues to grow in magnitude.