Fantastic!

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The most interesting part of this film for me was watching the early work of cinematographer Greg Toland. Years later Toland would photograph Citizen Kane. It is hardly a tour de force of his talents but it does have some of his touches on display. His use of composition in the foreground and background is here. So is his use of semi-deep focus and stark black and white contrasts. Toland was clearly ahead of his time when this was made in 1932. A film as a whole has the look of classic cinema. Very unusual for 1932. The script is very wordy and tends to advance at a snails pace but Toland's interesting compositions kept it moving along for me.Also interesting to me is the way this film foreshadows Mr Smith Goes To Washington. In Mr Smith, a young, naive senator goes to Washington and absolutely refuses to be drawn into a world of corruption. In Washington Masquerade just the opposite happens. The hero succumbs to first sexual and then monetary corruption. In that respect, I found it a more interesting idea than Mr Smith.

Lionel Barrymore, crusading attorney from the sticks, takes on the bosses of his home state and wins election as Senator. This movie asks the question: "Can an honest man go to Washington and keep his integrity intact?" Since this is the early 30s (and pre Code), the answer to the question manages to be both downbeat and unrealistic. Also, the politics of our hero really is straight Huey P. Long (with a touch of Perry Mason). This makes watching this film at times a touch unpleasant. The railing against bosses and big corporate interests is both shrill and unspecific. But the moral smugness throughout is unmistakable.The interesting thing here is the performance by Lionel Barrymore, which is far better than his norm. The character here feels real, even when he is spouting the populist nonsense of the day. Perhaps Barrymore intends him to seem a bit of a fraud? Lionel even gets a romantic scene with the Washington hostess who is trying to seduce him. (Bigger surprise -- the scene is actually sexy, and Lionel is credible in it.) Watch the film for the surprise Barrymore performance, and also for a sense that there were political films before Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. But not for the rather blah plot.

I happened to catch this film just today on Turner Classics, and expected to see Lionel Barrymore perform his usual job of overacting in this 1932 release. Surprisingly, I thought he was perfectly in character as a reformer elected to the U.S. Senate, finding himself entrapped in what still seems common today of becoming a captive of either ego or the compromising pressures of constantly needing funds for reelection. In this case, being a lonely widower, he was trapped by an ambitious and unfaithful woman who married him and then led him to resign his seat for monetary gain in order to keep her. In the end, he redeems himself before an investigative hearing by being brutally honest about his own failings and that of the system.

Hattie made her screen debut in 1932 as a maid which she would go on to win an academy award for and be type cast. Did she enjoy working as a maid in this project? It could be akin to working as a receptionist in your late 30's, but it pays the bills. Not much entertainment in this film, but interesting nonetheless.