MovieChat Forums > 42nd Street (1933) Discussion > Wow, Ruby Keeler was terrible

Wow, Ruby Keeler was terrible

posted 14 years ago by Pythe
31 replies | jump to latest

Her singing was mediocre, her dancing was graceless, she wasn't terribly attractive (especially when surrounded by swarms of lovely showgirls), but most grating of all was her line delivery. She shouted everything with almost no inflection, like she was deaf in one ear. And watching her reaction when someone else was talking was almost painful. You can see her thinking, "Okay, I've got to look worried here, how should I do that? Let's try this!" How she got the lead role in a musical is beyond me.

As Cosmo said of Lina Lamont, "She can't sing, she can't dance, and she can't act. She's a triple threat."

---------------------------------
"It was night. I could tell because it was getting dark."

[–] lastmidnite2 14 years ago

she was just awful in everything. But she was married to Al Jolson.

[–] muffy-19 14 years ago

I second that! Every line she said, in every film, had the same inflection; whether it be tragic or glorious news. I always figured if she was good, I was Sarah Bernhardt!

Just goes to show you that nothing has changed, talent was (and IS) less important than connections or relations.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AzumangaDaioh 14 years ago

I disagree completely. I think Ruby's absolutely delightful to watch! And I think she's very adorable. She has the best smile.

~PROUD GLEEK~

[–] richspenc 7 years ago

I second that AzumangaDaioh. I can't believe how many people are badmouthing this sweet, beautiful girl. I love Ruby.

[–] lubin-freddy 14 years ago

Ditto the last post. Yes, her acting is pretty poor, but is is for everyone else in the film. But I think she has a good screen presence, and there is something erotic in her dancing, even if her style is "graceless".

"If I knew the way, I would take you home" ("Ripple")

[–] vaneyck 14 years ago

The first time I saw Ruby Keeler was in Go into Your Dance with Al Jolson, on TV in the early '60s. WOR-TV Channel 9 in New York had an afternoon movie under the rubric "Million Dollar Movie" that they would run all week, Monday till Friday. I loved the flick, especially the songs (She's a Latin from Manhattan, Go Into Your Dance, and especially About a Quarter to Nine.)

But even then, when I was age 12 or 13, I thought Ruby Keeler was a dud. Yes, she was cute, sort of, maybe, but she didn't seem like a dewy-eyed ingenue or a sexy vamp, she looked and acted like somebody's mother. Like my 13 year-old friends' mothers, that is - sexless, charmless, just waiting for the chance to be needlessly bossy.

Later I saw her in a couple of other movies with baby-faced Dick Powell, and she had even less sexual allure, if that were possible. There was no 'chemistry' between them, and it was impossible to imagine her as anything but a hard-working second-rater. Like you, Pythe, I find it hard to imagine how she ever got out of the chorus. There were plenty of better hoofers, singers and actors, and while she doesn't positively spoil those memorable '30s musicals, I think each would have been better with a different leading lady.

[–] brokedickdog7 13 years ago

I love this movie. I thought her dancing was very good.

But I must reluctantly agree with you that her acting is mediocre at best. At the very best. If she wasn't married to Al Jolson I doubt very seriously that she would have been cast as there were far more worthy candidates for the role.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brokedickdog7 13 years ago

I am not disputing what you wrote. I have, however, heard that her Jolson connection helped her before. But you are most likely correct.

I think Ruby is unfairly maligned. She can sing and dance and when she was young she had an ingenue quality.

So I am willing to forgive her acting performance as I am a big fan of this movie. I think you are too.

This is my favorite Busby Berkely musical. I haven't seen them all though.

[–] lewis-51 12 years ago

I agree. Ruby Keeler was absolutely adorable. Who cares if she isn't the greatest actor or dancer?

As for Busby Berkeley musicals, I love them. But the best are Golddiggers of 1933 and Footlight Parade.

[–] Trax-3 9 years ago

Yes, she was absolutely adorable. Nothing wrong with her acting too. Singing and dancing were fine for this casual viewer at least.

[–] toolkien 13 years ago

I've just assumed Keeler's career was she filled the role of underdog in the depression era 30's. She was cute, not stunning, she could sing, but not wonderfully, she could dance, but not amazingly - she was part of the "common" crowd making good, pretty much bread and butter for 30's fiction. In short, she was Shirley Temple for adults.

The audience wouldn't have connected with her if she were gorgeous and talented and uglied down.

Some people are afraid of the unknown. I don't know why, and it scares me.

[–] blondee661 12 years ago

Granted Keeler wasn't a great dancer or actress but she could outdance me any day. Sometimes when I watch a number with her I feel like I'm at a kid's dance recital, sometimes painful to watch but you're there for the kid. Even Keeler admitted she was a lousy dancer and actress and joked how did she ever get anywhere.

Like the poster before me mentioned, she probably appealed to audiences because she was the girl next door type, you found yourself rooting for her.

I find it crazy she was married Al Jolson. I wonder what she saw in him? He was 24 years older than her and a reputation for being a womanizer.

[–] tenordan 12 years ago

I have to say I love Ruby Keeler's dancing. It is so energetic! It sometimes seems like she might be trying to bang some loose nails in the floor, but so fun to watch. It reminds me of someone who plays the piano with a heavy hand who can really swing- not subtle in the least but very exciting to listen to.

Which would be worse, to live as a monster or to die as a good man?

[–] bradford-1 12 years ago

One must also remember that Keeler, and most other dancers of the time, used wooden taps, meaning you had to stomp harder, I guess, to make more noise. Metal taps were easier to hear.
"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?"

[–] npaxton-3 11 years ago

I think it helped that Peggy Sawyer was supposed to be a rank amateur who was star struck which Ruby was OK at portraying, but I never believed she could go on for Bebe Daniels and be a success. Maybe Ginger Rogers could - not Ruby Keeler!

[–] chester-copperpot-1 11 years ago

She was cute, not stunning, she could sing, but not wonderfully, she could dance, but not amazingly - she was part of the "common" crowd making good, pretty much bread and butter for 30's fiction. In short, she was Shirley Temple for adults.

She reminds me a lot of Zooey Deschanel. Or the other way around, really. They both have that cutesy doe-eyed pixie girl-quality. And the point is, they don't have to have everything, because that's not what they are about. Though, they have to have that everygirl quality, being the girl next door, though in an attractive package. The fact that they aren't "perfect" makes them more available, and therefore attractive.

[–] jayhn1111 11 years ago

I have to agree. Having just watched this movie I was curious if I was the only one that felt that way. That has got to be one of the biggest miscasts I've ever seen. I really really wanted to see more of Una Merkil and Ginger Rogers. They were adorable in this movie, but they hardly got any screentime. Ginger ROgers actually had talent and looks to go with it.

[–] cadeaux 10 years ago

I think the word "mediocre" is giving her too much credit. I don't get it - I've seen a few of her films...and I always cringe when she comes on. Her legs are awful looking...she's clunky and about as graceful as drunken sailor trying to get from one side of the ship to the other in a storm. She's not at all pleasant looking if you ask me...and she can sing about as good as I can...and that isn't saying much.

I loved seeing Ginger - her eyes...always sparkled so much. She was really a beautiful woman. Wish they would have given her the role...or anyone else for that matter.

The only thing I can deduce is that she must have been nicknamed "Keeler the Kneeler" or something...as I'm thinking she did a lot of that to get picked for the lead. Sorry - but seriously...this woman had no appeal to me at all.

C'mon...read my blog already: http://www.mariannsimms.blogspot.com

[–] jayhn1111 10 years ago

Keeler the Kneeler! That is classic LOL I couldn't agree more and I will never watch another one of her movies again. This movie was supposed to be so groundbreaking and it really suffered with her as the star.

[–] Reithian 10 years ago

Her dance at the start of the main 42nd street number always reminds me of clog rather than tap dancing. The shoes look too large for her feet but that may have been the vogue at the time.

[–] bedrock1960 10 years ago

You are correct. Ms. Keeler is actually performing buck and wing dancing in the title number, which had its roots in Irish clog dancing and differs substantially from classic tap. Also known as hoofing, buck dancing was performed not with tap shoes with metal plates but shoes with thick wooden soles which produce an entirely different sound. Many performers of the time, from Bill Robinson to Marilyn Miller, wore buck shoes. Keeler was very proficient at both buck and tap dancing, as her other films prove. The typically lazy viewer of today tends to dismiss or mock anything outside the realm of their own experience or exposure which is unfortunate. Buck and wing dancing was a most popular and percussive style which has largely been forgotten, and Ruby Keeler was one of its most accomplished performers.

[–] Reithian 10 years ago

Many thanks for the clarification.

[–] Ed in MO 10 years ago

I don't know....I've always liked her in this film. She just seemed like a very hard worker who would do whatever it took to succeed, which is what the role called for. And like a previous reviewer noted, she had something in her eyes which was very open and charming, like Zooey Deschanel born 75 years later.

I loved the way she held on to Warner Baxter when he gave the famous, "You're going out a youngster but you've got to come back a star" speech. And then at the beginning of "Shuffle Off to Buffalo" she looks wide-eyed at the audience like she can't believe she's really doing this, and that was a perfect reaction to the difficult position she was in. For many reasons I love this film, and I can't imagine anyone else in her role.

[–] fleurfairy 9 years ago

I agree that Ruby Keeler wasn't exactly a looker, compared to her peers like Ginger or Jean Harlow or Myrna Loy. However, she was a great dancer. Her solo tap number in this film is truly outstanding, especially considering how technically challenging tap dance is. I think she was perfect for the role of Peggy.