MovieChat Forums > Gable and Lombard (1976) Discussion > Obvious Inaccuracy

Obvious Inaccuracy

posted 13 years ago by HauntedGirl
8 replies | jump to latest

Gable and Lombard did a film together in 1932, "No Man of Her Own", however throughtout the film reporters and the public keep asking if the two have ever met each other before and the two keep pretending that they've only casually met before. Wouldn't the the public remember their film they made together? I understand that they are trying to keep the affair secret, but I think people would recall that Gable & Lombard knew each other from working together on the set!
Besides this major flaw in the storytelling accuracy of their romance, I found the spirit of the film enjoyable and the portrayal of Gable by Brolin to be outstanding.

"It's a perfect night for mystery and horror. The air itself is filled with monsters."

[–] countrygirltori 13 years ago

There were a lot of inaccuracies in this film. One of the most obvious that I have found is that when he accounts all the actresses he has made love to on screen he says Colbert in order to prove to Lombard that he's capable of being her leading man. Meanwhile he doesn't have a film with Colbert until 1934 in "It Happened One Night" yet he hasn't made his film with her yet which releases in 1932. Also he wasn't called the King until after he receives the honor in 1936. These are simple facts that I know about his life and I don't pretend to know that much about him. You would think that the screenwriter would have studied up these basic facts of his life and get it straight.

Also, I'm pretty sure that all these settings (especially in the beginning) are all made up. I would HARDLY consider this a biopic.

I do think that Brolin's performance is brilliant tho.

[–] jrs-8 12 years ago

Yes the film is filled with loads of inaccuracies. The film opens with Gable going to the area of the crash scene with Lombard's P.R. man. In real life that man was on the plane with Lombard. And that's just the beginning. The film is almost pure fiction being passed off as fact.

[–] jac91604 12 years ago

It's now being shown on one of the Encore cable channels. Like some of you I'm an old time movie buff.

It sounds like the makers of the film didn't care about being accurate or figured that 1970s movie going audiences didn't know or care about the facts.

I plan on watching it just to see what it's like.

[–] jac91604 12 years ago

Well I watched it and have to say it felt more like a TV movie rather than a feature film.

It just wasn't very good. James Brolin did do justice to Clark Gable but the late Jill Clayburgh(a good actress) was miscast big time.

Blythe Danner would have been a better choice. Clayburgh's Lombard came off trashy and that's not how she was.

I was dissapointed, and it wasn't just the inaccuracies, the film came off as cheesy.

I also noticed 70s hairstyles(like the actress playing Ria Gable), that annoys me, you get the old cars and vintage clothes, get the hairstyles right!

[–] kim02128 12 years ago

Watching it now, the plot is like a bad B movie from the 1930's trying to be funny but missing the mark...right from the get go, the film is so inaccurate...Gable really did love Lombard and their romance deserved a better tribute...

"Sentiment comes easy at fifty cents a word."

[–] hardwood53 12 years ago

They make these films about famous people and do not bother fact checking, then people avoid seeing them in droves.

Word of mouth has a lot to do with a films success. The people who want to see these biopics already know a lot about the subjects of the film. Of course they feel used when they see such inaccuracies and the word of mouth reflects disappointment.

Do you think the people that make these things are unaware that if their rotten film were at least accurate they could still get sales through the Educational Market?

[–] xxxloroxxxx 11 years ago

jrs-8: I'm sorry to inform you that you're wrong when you say that "the film is almost pure fiction being passed off as fact". The truth is this movie was never intended or portrayed to be an accurately historic account of Gable and Lombard's real life romance. From its very release it was explained that it was simply a "fictionalized account" of said love story. Even now, as it's being broadcast by the Encore/Starz channels, this fact is unmistakenly explained. If you can only enjoy a film when it's 100% accurate you're bound to be disappointed 99% of the time because all screenwriters usually take liberties from historic facts in order to make movies more enjoyable or adapted to the present time. I didn't particularly like this movie but it was for totally different reasons.

[–] vmars080 11 years ago

This movie is about 99% fiction. Which I don't understand since there are plenty of books and articles from magazines etc about these 2 separately and together. She was *terribly* miscast but i agree that Brolin is doing pretty well. He sounds like he is from the South (a bit Texas-y actually) but there are times when I see him - and I own almost every film Clark Gable ever made so i know how he looks - & forget i'm looking at James Brolin.

I guess this would be more enjoyable to a non-film historian, i just know too much about these two to buy anything much in this film.

(They did make a film together, didn't get along great, she thought he was a ham. She did arrive at a party in an ambulance which was very Carole, but he was not an un-known whose car was driven off the road! They did finally click at the White Ball but that event was not depicted well at all. They showed up with different dates but did leave together)

OK, I guess i'll watch a bit more, just wondered what anyone else thought.