User reviews

One of the great pleasures of being able to see these talky pre-Code films so many years after the fact is that they offer us a photographic record of what the stylized Broadway theater of the Twenties and Thirties was like--lots of witty and heart-felt dialogue as beautiful people move from chair to sofa, drink champagne and cocktails, and occasionally lean against a mantel piece to say something profound or moving. No one back in the Thirties seemed to find it odd then that two of the principle characters, father and son, upper-class American inhabitants of Connecticut, were played by Englishmen-- Henry Stephenson and Leslie Howard. It was an accepted convention that all people with money sounded English. In this story, Howard, the charming but weak idealist he was to play again and again, is torn between his love of two stronger women: Ann Harding, the bohemian painter, and Myrna Loy, the ambitious society bride. Harding chooses to plays the role correctly (in my opinion) as more of a Vassar girl dilettante, the sort that Mary McCarthy was to satirize, than a starving Greenwich Village bohemian, and Myrna Loy is the beautiful but manipulative rich girl out to trap her man into living a secure and comfortable life. The vastly underrated Phillip Barry, whose play this film adapted, was an excellent chronicler of upper middle-class American life as in was once lived in the Depression. He has a great deal of empathy for his characters and enormous skill as a dramatist. His greatest triumph was to be a vehicle Kate Hepburn commissioned a few years later, The Philadelphia Story, but this earlier play introduces many of the social themes he was to write about in all his plays. As always, Barry wrote demanding parts for women. Myrna Loy (who was soon to be Nora in the Thin Man series) never again had a role that demanded so much of her. She is absolutely perfect. The film produced by David Selznick was an enormous flop in its day, but it's wonderful to have it around now.

Leslie Howard, Ann Harding, and Myrna Loy are all members of "The Animal Kingdom" in this 1932 film based on the play by Phillip Barry. Barry in his way was a transitional playwright - he wrote about the upper class, usually negatively, but always gave a nod to the lower class - they were the ones that had more fun. Just a little bit later, plays about the upper class would go by the wayside for plays about the working class - Waiting for Lefty, Awake and Sing - as America moved through the depression.

Leslie Howard plays a member of said upper class who has engaged in a Bohemian lifestyle, living with an intelligent artist (Harding). They have a no attachment, open relationship, and he takes her at her word and gets himself engaged to a gorgeous, wealthy young woman (Myrna Loy) just as Harding decides she wants to settle down and have a family. She accepts his decision, but not his offer of continuing friendship.

There is a line about the "animal kingdom" in the film, but I prefer to think the title has to do with baser instincts. If Howard passionately desired Ann Harding, he wouldn't have wanted to be friends - and it's her desire of him that makes her reject his "just friends" suggestion. Let's face facts - Loy turns him on and knows it. In fact, she uses sex as a manipulative weapon, and he's putty in her hands. It's more blatant in this film than, say, "Harriet Craig" which was done under the code - but the power of sex is there.

Of course, a relationship based on sexual desire and nothing else eventually grows tired, and Howard finds himself going back to talk with Harding and spend time with her. She smartly keeps running. Clearly, Howard is a man who wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

Harding was an interesting leading woman - she was attractive but not beautiful and had a very low, distinctive speaking voice. She came from the Broadway stage, and her heyday in films was through the mid-thirties, though she worked consistently in films and television until the mid-60s. As was the case back then, at 31 years of age, her time as a leading lady was drawing to a close, and soon would be turned over to people like the younger Loy. Her performance in "The Animal Kingdom" is a very honest one. Loy is absolutely ravishing and wears beautiful clothes. She essays the part of the glamorous wife beautifully, reminiscent of Gene Tierney later on with the ultra-feminine facade hiding the steel underneath. Howard is handsome and thoughtful in the lead, and one can see it slowly occurring to him that he made a mistake.

Very good.

1st watched 12/7/2004 - 7 out of 10(Dir- Edward H. Griffith): Surprisingly honest and frank drama about a man who can't decide between two women in his life. One, ties him down to a commitment and is a solid person and the other doesn't ask for a commitment and is a great friend but doesn't have the stability of the first. I never did figure out why the movie was called "Animal Kingdom", but I believe it has to do with how we as humans tend to become survivalists like those in the animal kingdom do when things aren't going well. This is one of the most complex character studies that I've seen in awhile especially from a movie made so long ago. The acting is kind of up-and-down but the story is consistently intriguing as we try to figure out what Tom(the book publisher) is going to do in his life from one moment to the next. Every character in this story is interesting in one way or another and the movie works hard to follow these characters and not just make a happy-go-lucky movie experience. There is a uniqueness in this film's open attitude towards love and friendship and how to piece them together that I have not seen often.

That was a line from another Philip Barry play which had a bit more screen popularity than The Animal Kingdom. Philip Barry as a playwright was able to find an audience in two distinct eras of American history, the carefree Roaring Twenties and the poorer socially significant Thirties. He did with a clever mixture of social commentary while writing about the privileged classes enjoying their privileges.

The Animal Kingdom had a 183 performance run on Broadway the previous year and its star Leslie Howard was a movie name already on two continents. So Howard, Bill Gargan, and Ilka Chase repeat their Broadway roles here. Good thing for Howard, he got to do this screen version of one of his Broadway triumphs. Probably in a few more years Cary Grant might have gotten the call.

Howard is a rich young man rather bored with his life and living without benefit of clergy with bohemian artist Ann Harding. But family pressures force him to marry society girl Myrna Loy. Guess who in the end he winds up with or watch the film to find out.

A lot of similarities here with Holiday, a Barry play that got a more well known screen adaption. An overbearing parent, snobbish friends/ relatives and two women to choose from, and some down to earth friends for the hero.

The players do well here and a special note should be made of Bill Gargan who plays Howard's butler who is a washed up former prizefighter. The Animal Kingdom was Gargan's feature film debut and I wouldn't be surprised if Leslie Howard did the same service for him as he did for Humphrey Bogart in The Petrified Forest.

The Animal Kingdom despite good notices failed to find an audience in Herbert Hoover America. Howard's problems do seem trivial in the face of what a lot of people were dealing with. Still it's a good and faithful adaption of a good play.

A film examining character and intelligence, motives and integrity, the artist's life versus the conventional life. It is a love story which depicts love and friendship on many levels. This film is one of those interesting ones where the viewer has to be able to listen to dialogue and interpret meaning. There are subtle interactions between the characters and a civilized, low-key ambiance.

very good movie that the censors couldn't destroy. amazing for it's blatantly adult themes in 1932. the story hasn't aged one bit. lesile howard is brilliant in his role. i saw this on tv one night and searched for half a year to figure out what it was called. fantastic.

Typical pre code film. Relative sexual frankness a plus; the fact that we're watching a filmed creaky stage play (with all the American characters except the boxer/butler speaking in English accents) a big minus. That's pretty much how it went in the early 30s until screenwriters like Herman Mankewiecz, Lenore Coffey and Ben Hecht learned their craft. Solid C.

Previous reviewers have summarized the plot well. Likewise its pre-code frankness. But what makes this movie most interesting is the unusual context the various stars find themselves in. Think playwright Phillip Barry. What comes to mind: "The Philadelphia Story." Think Leslie Howard: "Pygmalion" and "Gone with the Wind." Think Myrna Loy: the "Thin Man" series. Think William Gargan: many later movies. Notice that Myrna Loy, later such an important star, has to take third billing after Ann Harding. That certainly wouldn't have been the case just a few years later. Good to see Ilka Chase in a screen role. I thought Howard and Loy superb in their acting, probably among the best work they ever did. Under the banal everyday polite surface of the dialogue and events little by little the characters expose themselves: Loy as the manipulative femme fatal and Howard as the man for whom the light begins slowly to turn on. For those whom the title puzzled, I caught Howard saying at one point, "We're just members of the animal kingdom."

Compare this film to Platinum Blonde of 1931 starring Jean Harlow. My IMDb review summarizes the parallels between these two films.

The Animal Kingdom has Leslie Howard, Ann Harding & Myrna Loy which is enough reason to watch this film. Ann Harding was a big star at that time and got top billing. I have enjoyed watching several of her films. This is pre"Thin Man" Myrna Loy so her character is a departure from the likable fun loving spouse of William Powell. I have grown to like Leslie Howard after initially only knowing him from his "Gone with the Wind" role. This is a pre-code film and the subject manner reflects that. None of the later restrictions of moral codes. Others describe the plot so won't go into that. It is listed as a comedy and drama but don't expect any comedy from the lead actors. The only source of comedy is the butler of Leslie Howard. The story is really a drama about relationships with just a small amount of comedy relief. After viewing the film my impression is that it was a curiosity of the time period but had enough interest to recommend it to others.

This movie had some good ideas, as others have pointed out, but the people behind it didn't really seem to understand the difference between plays and movies. Plays are "allowed" to be a bit talkier than movies since the actors doing the talking are in the same space breathing the same air as the audience. On the other hand scene breaks and multiple short scenes aren't nearly as disruptive in movies as in plays, so for God's sake use them! For example, after the opening shot of the printing press we never see the place again. Result: we don't care about it nearly as much as the characters do.

Also, the "villain" of the piece does some emotionally abusive stuff off screen, but the "hero" is a bit of a jerk on screen. Result: while watching the movie I ended up rooting for the wrong person at the end.

And this is probably more of a writing and acting problem than a cinematography problem but the relationships are so underdeveloped that Cecelia and Daisy running off together would almost make as much sense as what actually happens.

All in all, this movie is ripe for a remake by someone who actually knows what a movie is. And since it's in the public domain pretty much anyone can take a shot at it. Otherwise just read the plot summery off Wikipedia. It has all the interesting twists without any static talking scenes.

A movie like this strikes me as a matter of taste. On one hand, it's slow, talky, and confined strictly to drawing rooms. On the other, it's a story of some substance, as Tom (Howard) must work through common human desires to figure out where happiness lies. In short, should he link up with the sexy Cecilia (Loy) or with the talented Daisy (Harding). Had the screenplay tightened up, varied the staging, and livened things up, the appeal would be stronger. Unfortunately, the lively butler's (Gargan) un-butler antics don't amount to much bouncy relief.

Nonetheless, Loy is drop-dead beautiful and a convincing manipulator, while Harding settles for a secondary and less glamorous role. I still can't decide on Howard—is he miscast or not. On one hand, he's got a bland screen presence, one that works against the pacing. Then too, I'm afraid a livelier mood would have overwhelmed his restrained struggle. On the other hand, he manages considerable subtlety in his portrayal of the conflicted rich man's son.

Overall, viewers not turned off by what amounts to a filmed stage play, may find subtle rewards in this searching 85-minutes. For me, it was mainly a disappointing struggle.

Thomas Collier (Leslie Howard) has always eschewed conventions and the advice of his father for a more Bohemian lifestyle, so when he tells his best friend, Daisy (Ann Harding), he is to marry, she is confused and hurt. But he does settle into the country life of Connecticut with his new wife, Cecelia (Myrna Loy), and steers his publishing business toward more commercial-and less artistic-endeavors.

This is a very mannered story. Much of the text remains subtext, relying on the cast to convey their hidden emotions nonverbally, which they do very well. There is a battle going on, but it is not between the two women; it is an struggle within Tom, who may have sacrificed what he really wants for comfort, or predictability, or family considerations.

The "animal kingdom" apparently refers to the natural order of things. Tom and Daisy have always tried to live on a "higher" plane of their own invention, but human nature, being part of nature, is a primal force. And when Tom comes to a psychic crisis, he must decide which part of his emotional makeup to nourish.

It is enjoyable to watch these actors master the lines that originated with Philip Barry's play. A performance particularly fun to watch is that of the butler, Regan (William Gargan), who is rather undisciplined.

All plays by Philip Barry are intelligent plays. But when The Animal Kingdom was filmed, movies had not learned yet how to move while filming plays. The result is a very slow movie, which we listen to but do not compels us to look at. Edward H.Griffith was that kind of director, but the films he made for MGM immediately after this were much better. Specially No More Ladies had a pleasant rhytm and camera movements, which we do not find in the interminable conversations of this picture. But Griffith was an excellent director of actors and his work with Ann Harding, Leslie Howard, Myrna Loy and William Gargan proves it. It is very amusing to watch Henry Stephenson really acting under Griffith and not being just himself as usual.

Once I actually spoke to Ann Harding on the telephone, but, alas, I didn't really know who she was. Yes, it was late in her life and early in mine, but if I had had the slightest idea what an extraordinary actress she had been, I would have been more forward, would have tried to spend time talking with her in person.

I knew the name. She had been a star. But now having seen her in "The Animal Kingdom," I am simply astonished at her ability.

In fact the entire cast is compelling. Even other people of whom I knew nothing or very little were impossible to look away from.

For example, "Franc," played by Leni Stengel, was such a strong, and well-written, character, she was never over-shadowed even by the major characters. "Joe," played by Don Dillaway, was another, and I had never heard of either actor before. Now I want to see everything they ever appeared in. The two actors were remarkable performers, contributing great talent to an already overwhelmingly talented cast.

Myrna Loy played a strong and attractive "society lady," but her character was different from the kind she is known for and gave her a chance to demonstrate she too was one fine actress, capable of variety, and not just a pretty face.

Leslie Howard played, as it seemed he so often did, a rather weak character, but one capable of greatness, or at least potentially of strength.

William Gargan was wonderful as a supposed-to-be-servant who just didn't "know his place." I've never seen him in this type of role, and he was just captivating.

But Ann Harding stole it all.

She was, of course, beautiful, but her mannerisms and gestures, under played, just proved definitely that she was an actress, and an actress of power.

Horace Jackson's script is based on a Philip Barry play so perhaps credit for the dialogue belongs mostly to Barry, but it's intelligent and entices an audience into sticking with everything happening on the screen, even though the actual story is rather sad. It's about misdirected desires, and sacrifices people really shouldn't make.

"The Animal Kingdom" is a good movie, one I recommend, and one I am grateful to Turner Classic Movies for presenting on 9 December 2016. It is and has much more than the one-sentence description found in TV listings. It is much more than a soap opera. It is a strong drama beautifully acted and written, and deserving of serious attention.

It's fair to call this a "chick flick" on the basis of its romantic plot, but it's also a theatrical film. It's obviously done in stage play format, with the sort of characters one usually envisions on stage.

There is a romantic triangle of Leslie Howard and two women. It does take a while before we realize how it must play out emotionally, so there is some suspense. Handsome Neil Hamilton comes out of the lion's mouth to provide the possible fourth, and I won't spoil it by saying how far he gets. I must say that when I found a movie called "The Animal Kingdom" with the hunter who met Tarzan on two safaris before becoming cat food, I thought this might be more of an adventure.

Sadly, a lot of it dragged. That's the "chick flick" part, but it's also good drama. It's most conversation, but well blocked. The comic relief character of the ex boxer provides some relief from what often becomes melodramatic. Trouble is, there are long spurts in which he probably should have been inter-spliced more often.

Still, it is a nice story, and best for viewing with company.

I caught this by accident the other night trolling on amazon prime. WOW. I had never seen Ann Harding before - now I'm searching for all her films. Her scenes with Leslie Howard are timeless. She reminds me a bit of Helen Hunt - the intelligence, integrity and genuine affection she displays jump right across the screen. Her character is a total opposite to the completely controlled and controlling wife played by Myrna Loy. I never liked Philadelphia Story all that much so I was not anticipating that I would sit through the entirety of another Phillip Barry story, but I was wrong. Philadelphia Story asked us to smile at the elderly father's affairs with younger women and dismissed his daughter's opposition solely because her mother declared "it doesn't bother me", when clearly the reverse situation would have been unthinkable and abhorrent. Animal Kingdom instead shows us a woman typically viewed by society as "dishonorable", living a life of integrity. Not what you would expect from this era. I only wish we'd had a final scene with Harding and Howard, but I'm a romantic.

I came away from this with a somewhat different message than the playwright intended (the same playwright, I should point out, who started The Philadelphia Story with a comedic stylization of wife-beating). The hero, played by Leslie Howard, starts a publishing enterprise devoted to the avant-garde works admired by his friends. He marries, and surprise, his wife, played rather icily by Myrna Loy, has the philistine idea that he should publish a few titles which will actually reap a profit so that he can at least finance his little enterprise without losing the family fortune. The movie leaves no doubt that such a money-grubbing attitude is worthy of the deepest condemnation. Hubby naturally finds himself longing for his former without-benefit-of-clergy bedmate, played by Ann Harding, who understands his sensitive soul and is more likely to indulge his dissipating his wealth, since she has no more sense than he does.

Oh, I enjoyed the movie, but I'm surprised that so many seem not to notice how shallow and stupid its ideas are. Leslie Howard does his best to make the protagonist seem noble, and I guess that for many viewers, he succeeds. Loy, not yet a star, is lovely as always.

Too slow, drags on too much. Kind of interesting how they made it look like New York City in the background though it was filmed on RKO lot. Hard to complain about any movie with Myrna Loy, who is lovely. Leslie Howard is Leslie Howard and his boyish charm shines through as usual though I think he is let down by the script. Ann Harding is good though the role is not so appealing or believable at times. William Gargan makes a fine turn in a supporting role, though again, the script isn't that good for his character's believability. There is one scene in particular that really stands out between Loy and Howard which really highlights the pre-code nature of this movie. It is really amazing how far films could push the envelope at this time. Interesting to see that George Cukor had an uncredited directing role in this though totally understandable when you see the romantic scenes.