Sadly Over-hyped

Powerful

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

It's a story about Washington D.C. It's about dirty tricks, sleazy operatives, scurrilous personal attacks and lies. The 2012 presidential campaign? No, "The Gorgeous Hussy." Many people have noted that "The Gorgeous Hussy" is not historically accurate. This is true and at the beginning of the picture they call it "fiction"-drawn from real characters, but definitely fiction. What did you expect? It's MGM in 1936. There is a huge budget, lavish production values, beautiful costumes (male and female), top-notch acting and, of course, romance.The story centers around Peggy O'Neill, Joan Crawford, an innkeeper's daughter called "Pothouse Peg," for her politics and her men. The men are a list of Metro's best—Robert Taylor, Jimmy Stewart, Franchot Tone, Melvyn Douglas and Lionel Barrymore. Robert Taylor dominates the first quarter of the picture with his enormous energy, his playfulness, his rapport with Crawford and his skin-tight costume. Taylor even sings and dances.After Bow Timberlake's (Taylor's) heroic off screen death, things settle down. Andrew Jackson (Barrymore) dominates every scene he's in. Beulah Bondi, as Rachel Jackson, is equally good. She won an Oscar nomination for her role.Joan Crawford is usually criticized for appearing in an historical picture because she was too "modern." Here she handles her costumes beautifully, using her skirts to express a range of emotions. While her acting is fine, she is overwhelmed by the male contingent.Franchot Tone, Crawford's husband at the time, is quietly effective as her second husband John Eaton. Melvyn Douglas brings strength and intelligence to his role as Virginian John Randolph. Jimmy Stewart is wasted as Peg's failed suitor."The Gorgeous Hussy" is fun, sometimes moving and a reminder that political behavior wasn't all that different in the 1820s.

No! No! No! What is that most modern, at least to her time, of actresses Joan Crawford doing in hoop skirts and crinoline? Pretty much making a fool of herself, not that it's her fault MGM should have known better. There is not one look or gesture that she makes that has a feeling of any period but the 20th century.Both stagnant and silly this completely miscast picture takes an interesting and scandalous piece of American history, The Petticoat Affair, and make it seem asinine and trivial when it practically tore Jackson's presidency apart and did lead to most of his cabinet's resignation. Proof positive that not every film that came out of Hollywood's golden age and its premiere studio was a classic worth seeing filled with top flight talent or not. Even if you are a completist of any of the stars work this will be a struggle to get through.

This movie is a disgrace to history and period pieces of the 30's. The true story of Peggy Eaton was so much better and I have no idea why they didn't follow the storyline the way it played out in real life. Peggy Eaton was a flirt and married while she was having an affair with Sec. of Agriculture John Eaton. It didn't make any sense in this movie to have Joan Crawford's character not be turned on by Francot Tone, who she was married to in real life. Instead she was attracted to John Randolph, who was a Senator and this part was fictional for no reason. Why not have her fall in love with her future husband? Her husband, at the time, did die at sea and it was rumored that he committed suicide because Peggy was having an affair with John Eaton, who she married a month later. That would have been a real drama. Then, when she went calling on the Washington Ladies, they snubbed her and called her a "hussy." Andrew Jackson was so mad, he fired his whole cabinet, like in the movie. This movie didn't make any sense and to call it "Gorgeous Hussy" made people think they were going to get a good soap opera, which they could have if they would have written a script that stuck to the story. I can just see a good scene with Peggy calling on the ladies only to kept waiting in a hallway and head held high as she had to leave in shame. Joan Crawford can't act. Vivien Leigh, she is not. She spends every scene trying to look radiant and only looks like a deer in headlights.Andrew Jackson was not Jed Clampett, as he is portrayed here. For God's sake, he was a lawyer, Senator and General at the time of his inauguration. He would not have been brawling at his inauguration party and he didn't say "ain't". Rachel was not Granny Clampet either. She was from a wealthy family in Tennessee and did smoke a pipe, but then a lot of independent minded women smoked. I was just appalled at the portrayal of these characters. No plot was developed and the political issues of nullification, states rights, Bank of America and Peggy Eaton as the 'hussy' were not developed and if the viewer doesn't know history, this whole movie would be perplexing to say the least. As the last scene fades, when the "heroine" who doesn't love her "hero" sails off to Spain, we are left feeling cheated of history. This movie is only good to see the beautiful sets and costumes of the time. I don't even understand why Beulah Bondi, who was great as Rachel was nominated for an Academy Award for her 3 or 4 scenes. There must have been other actresses who had more complex roles that year. Joan Crawford was just awful and Lionel Barrymore should have done a little more study on Andrew Jackson, who was a strong and noble gentleman, not a country bumpkin.I only rate this movie as high as I did for the costumes and set design. Don't take any of the history seriously. They shamelessly bungled this movie.

This entertaining story is definitely worth the cost of rental. It is available in most video stores. It follows an Inn keepers daughter (Joan Crawford at her loveliest) through two marriages and a lasting friendship with Andrew Jackson. Although her particular character is fictitious, the rest of the story line is fairly historically accurate, especially the portrayal of the close campaign Jackson ran, due to the opposition of his wife Rachel.