BABY FACE is one of the better of the "forgotten" films before the code. It was shown last night after the 1931 version of WATERLOO BRIDGE on the TURNER CLASSIC NETWORK, so I was able to watch the film as it is now with four plus minutes of it restored.
Stanwyck is living in East St. Louis (where she may have known the drunken parents of "Myra" - Mae Clarke - in WATERLOO BRIDGE). Her father is Robert Barrett. She has lived with him since the death of her mother, and (in the restored dialog) he has been pimping her since she was 14 years old. Now she is resident waitress and part-time whore in his speakeasy, her closest friend being Chico (Theresa Harris), the African-American servant who Barrett keeps bullying. It is one of the two good points of Stanwyck's personality that she keeps standing up to her father about Harris, threatening to leave if Harris is fired (and since it is the grubby workers like Nat Pendleton, who enjoy seeing Stanwyck serve them, rather than the flavor of the hooch he serves that brings them in, Barrett has to obey her).
The one guy who comes to the speakeasy regularly whom Stanwyck likes is the shoemaker and intellectual Adolf Cragg (Alphonse Ethier), who sees great potential in the spirited girl if she will just leave her forsaken home. He is also pushing the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzche, and the idea of the will to power. More about this later.
After she knocks out the local political bigwig (Arthur Hohl), and has an argument with Barrett about this, a still explosion kills Barrett, and enables Stanwyck to leave her home town. She and Harris head to New York City, managing to get free transport by a railroad freight car by sleeping with a brakeman (James Murray). They reach New York, and after walking about they see the Gotham Trust Company (established 1873), and the friendly guard tells her where the personnel office is.
We slowly watch Stanwyck ascend the corporate ladder to the top, similar (but sleazier) than Robert Morse dared in HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING. But Morse was a man in a man dominated company. Stanwyck knows her sexual allure is her weapon. She goes through John Wayne, Douglas Dumbrille (a section of the film that I always felt was the most shocking - curiously enough - when I watched it), Douglas Wood, Henry Kolker, and finally George Brent. Each ends up falling for her, and either being pushed aside when no longer useful, or destroyed by her. Brent, the new President of the Bank his grandfather founded, eventually marries her - and the crisis of the film is when the bank's economic situation is shaken (especially after Brent buys her a fortune in jewels and gives her valuable bonds). Brent is indicted. Will she stick up for him?
SPOILER COMING UP:
The one thing about these films that is not admitted is that the theatrical and moral conventions of the time still dictated endings. The original ending had Stanwyck boarding a ship for Europe abandoning Brent to his fate, but realizing she can't do it to him, returning to their apartment house, and finding he's shot himself. She is riding with him to the hospital as it ends. Now before the rediscovered footage was found, the film ended with them apparently giving up all their money to the bank to save it, and retiring back to East St. Louis, to live happily if poor.
Neither of these are good endings. Stanwyck should continue on her destructive course, with Brent the last of her victims. But even without the Breen office the script writers (one is Darryl Zanuck, by the way) saw fit to have her find a moral center. She has none - at least none for powerful men (whom she hates). I don't think that a depression audience would have tolerated that type of conclusion.
There are other problems, due to the changing styles of public opinion and changes in society. It was a man's world in the corporate world in 1933, so Stanwyck has her work cut out for her. Wood (when she is going to be fired for an indiscretion with him) admits that he did not want her to work.
But in 2006, Stanwyck would have been finding woman all over the place. In the film there are nasty, catty remarks (obviously some based on jealousy) towards Stanwyck from other secretaries and female employees at her rapid rise. In 2006, she'd be frequently confronting women superiors, and she would find them cutting her off at the legs very quickly. Of course, if she finds one or two are lesbians she might try that road but it is doubtful. And she also never seems to meet any men who are gay. They do have gay male executives in business, who wouldn't give a damn about her legs or breasts.
Then there is her mentor, Mr Cragg. Cragg is remade in the "bowdlerized" version into trying to make her seek a moral center. In reality he pushes Nieztsche, but the way (in a broader sense) the Nazis pushed Nieztsche - find your way to power and push it. While Nieztsche did stress power sometimes, it wasn't the be-all and end-all of his theories. Otherwise nobody would read him today in college courses. Cragg is obviously self-educated, but only half-educated. In short if somebody who thoroughly studied Nieztsche confronted Cragg he'd make him look like a half-educated fool. And this is Stanwyck's mentor! A good film, and for it's day worth a 10...but seriously flawed.

The tragedy of the doomed ship Titanic has inspired many books and movies. The battle between nature and technology always caught man's imagination. The latest film concerning this tragedy in the Atlantic Ocean was written and directed by famous action movie filmmaker James Cameron. The story of "Titanic" involves two fictional characters (Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet) from different backgrounds (one is a hobo-artist, the other is an aristocrat) and how their love triumphs over societal barriers and the tragedy of a sinking ship that they happen to be on.
First of all, although using a historical name, this movie had little regard to history. The plot was built around two fictional lovers, French diamond, and treasure hunters. The deaths of over a thousand of people on the greatest luxury ship of its time became a mere background. Many historical facts were simply forgotten. Where was the radio operator that ignored the iceberg warnings? Why was there no mention of the ship that was only 5 miles away from the Titanic but did not come to the rescue because its captain failed to identify the distress signal? Omitting these facts is an insult to the tragedy. And what was the point of flavoring this historical disaster with fictional cheesy romance when the story is already as sad as it is.
The overall plot was rather shallow; rich equals greed and corruption, poverty equals compassion and heroism. It is very ironic to spend $200 million to make a movie about how money corrupts. There was absolutely no human side shown in anti-heroes. It seemed like Billy Zane was playing a part of the devil. Casting was also very poor. If DiCaprio was 2 inches shorter than Winslet, you could swear she was his baby-sitter. The length of the movie was unnecessarily stretched to over 3 hours. First hour and the half was wasted on establishing the relationships between the characters that were known to audience long before they went to theater and the dialogue that was used to do so made it even worse. Hearing corny pick up lines such as "I see you" and "This is my side of the ship" generated more pain than the screams of drowning people. Also, jokes were too abundant and rather lame.
"Titanic" did involve some moving scenes such as the part when the musicians were playing while the ship was sinking but they were no way near anything original. The best thing about this film were its special effects, and that is the only thing that truly deserved an award.
Although this film lacked artistical value in overall sense, the public could not resist a sentimental story starring Romeo (DiCaprio), and so the movie became a success. Now it is safe to say that the industry will be less hesitant to invest large amounts of money in a single motion picture, so it seems that "Titanic" did achieve something after all.