When watching older films, it's always interesting to see how the cultural attitudes depicted in them compare with our own. Being one of those perennial themes, love/romance is one that rewards continued examination. Get Your Man is one of countless films that explore and challenge the social conventions around the love relationship and the eventuality of marriage.
Here, Charles 'Buddy' Rogers, playing the heir to a duchy, has been promised to a woman since childhood. While in Paris on an errand in preparation for his impending nuptials, he ends up running into the same woman (Clara Bow) at various places, to the point where it's like Fate is trying to tell him something. He ends up falling her, and she for him. Existing as it does in a post-Romantic world and being a comedy, a happy ending is expected, and is what is delivered, with Rogers' engagement broken and his future with Clara Bow assured.
The central issue at the heart of Get Your Man is marrying for love instead of deferring to one's parents in the ever-so-important choice of life partner. The conclusion the film comes to is one that embraces a broader basis for marriage while still affirming the importance of parental authority/blessing for whatever choice their children make. It all seems a bit passe now but wouldn't necessarily have been when this came out in the 1920's, especially among the upper class who, although having great power and privilege, have always been bound, at least in theory, by stricter social conventions when it comes to the matters of family ties and progeny.
The cultural attitude expressed here does push the boundaries a bit but isn't truly revolutionary. Buddy Rogers is allowed to choose his spouse, but she is still someone close to him in social status, being a socialite. Put another way, the parameters of discussion are adjusted while remaining within a commonly held rules-based moral order. Fidelity is still valued, and promises are kept until/unless relieved of the obligation.
Of secondary importance, but certainly relevant to the 1920's specifically, is increased female agency. The woman's desires regarding her marital future are considered along with the man's, even if true equality within the marriage was still in the future.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on Get Your Man. From a craft perspective, it was decent enough for a late silent film. Clara Bow and Buddy Rogers made a good screen couple, and you get to see her versatility/talent for emoting through several closeups. The source I watched on YouTube didn't have a musical accompaniment, but I'm not going to complain because it allowed me to think about the stuff I elaborated on earlier. There was also a fair amount of print damage in places, but it never interfered with comprehensibility and understandable for a nearly 100-year-old film that (to my limited knowledge) hasn't yet undergone a proper restoration. The people who digitize these priceless artifacts of film history and make them available to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to experience them are heroes in my book.
Here, Charles 'Buddy' Rogers, playing the heir to a duchy, has been promised to a woman since childhood. While in Paris on an errand in preparation for his impending nuptials, he ends up running into the same woman (Clara Bow) at various places, to the point where it's like Fate is trying to tell him something. He ends up falling her, and she for him. Existing as it does in a post-Romantic world and being a comedy, a happy ending is expected, and is what is delivered, with Rogers' engagement broken and his future with Clara Bow assured.
The central issue at the heart of Get Your Man is marrying for love instead of deferring to one's parents in the ever-so-important choice of life partner. The conclusion the film comes to is one that embraces a broader basis for marriage while still affirming the importance of parental authority/blessing for whatever choice their children make. It all seems a bit passe now but wouldn't necessarily have been when this came out in the 1920's, especially among the upper class who, although having great power and privilege, have always been bound, at least in theory, by stricter social conventions when it comes to the matters of family ties and progeny.
The cultural attitude expressed here does push the boundaries a bit but isn't truly revolutionary. Buddy Rogers is allowed to choose his spouse, but she is still someone close to him in social status, being a socialite. Put another way, the parameters of discussion are adjusted while remaining within a commonly held rules-based moral order. Fidelity is still valued, and promises are kept until/unless relieved of the obligation.
Of secondary importance, but certainly relevant to the 1920's specifically, is increased female agency. The woman's desires regarding her marital future are considered along with the man's, even if true equality within the marriage was still in the future.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on Get Your Man. From a craft perspective, it was decent enough for a late silent film. Clara Bow and Buddy Rogers made a good screen couple, and you get to see her versatility/talent for emoting through several closeups. The source I watched on YouTube didn't have a musical accompaniment, but I'm not going to complain because it allowed me to think about the stuff I elaborated on earlier. There was also a fair amount of print damage in places, but it never interfered with comprehensibility and understandable for a nearly 100-year-old film that (to my limited knowledge) hasn't yet undergone a proper restoration. The people who digitize these priceless artifacts of film history and make them available to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to experience them are heroes in my book.