середа, 17 червня 2020 р.

Step Inside Carole Lombard's Dutch-Style Residence in California

Step Inside Carole Lombard's Dutch-Style Residence in California

The screwball-comedy icon purchased the Hollywood Hills residence in 1934, shortly after her divorce from her first husband, fellow actor William Powell
Image may contain Furniture Couch Human Person Room Bedroom Indoors Bed Cushion Living Room and Pillow
Motion Picture magazine, noting touches like an overscale daybed, concluded, “Any male who ventures [into] Carole Lombard’s new house will feel as shaggy as Tarzan. Its femininity is so unmistakable that your first glance tells you that it is occupied by a single woman.”
“This article originally appeared in the March 2006 issue of Architectural Digest.”
Screwball comedy," a term cooked up by a press agent that came to describe an entire genre of American moviemaking, appears to have been first used to promote Gregory La-Cava's My Man Godfrey (1936), the picture that made Carole Lombard a major star. What a nice piece of synchrony: The actress who helped define, and whose best work was largely defined by, this kind of ebullient, magical, zany but often sly soufflé of a movie helped to name it too.
Lombard wasn't born a screwball heroine; she and the genre evolved together. The actress liked to say that her feature movie career (which followed an important apprenticeship in a dozen Mack Sennett two-reel shorts) began with "17 flops in a row." Before he directed her in Twentieth Century (1934), her breakthrough movie, Howard Hawks called her the worst actress in the world. But he is also said to have told her costar John Barrymore that she would be a sensation—if only they could keep her from acting.
What the notable director and actor did was encourage Lombard to be herself, and this turned out to be the key to liberating an antic original from the restraining shell of a gifted, if not particularly inspired, contract player. "Coolly intelligent and calculatedly alluring in former pictures," a perceptive reviewer wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "in [Twentieth Century] she vibrates with life and passion, abandon and diablerie."
Carole Lombard was no ditz, although at the height of her career she certainly played a number of them. Born in Fort Wayne, Indiana, "The Hoosier Tornado" or "The Profane Angel"—depending on who was nicknaming her—came to Hollywood with her mother as a young girl and appeared in her first movie at 12. Adela Rogers St. Johns, admittedly a friend, said of Lombard in a contemporary profile that she had "ideas and intense curiosity about everything on earth." For once this doesn't seem to be a bit of movie magazine puffery. Lombard paid attention to how scripts were constructed. She paid attention to the way the camera photographed. She paid attention to her fellow actors too—she learned more from Barrymore in the six weeks they worked together, she said, than in her six previous years in the pictures.
In time she also had the good fortune to collaborate with some of the most deft and talented directors and writers in the business, who gave her a series of golden roles in the mid-1930s. After Hawks she worked with Ernst Lubitsch in 1935, when he produced Hands Across the Table, and again in 1942, when he directed To Be or Not to Be. In LaCava's Godfrey she received her only Oscar nomination, for her portrayal of Irene Bullock, a dingbat heiress who picks up a tramp in a scavenger hunt and brings him home to be the family butler. William A. Wellman and Ben Hecht created Hazel Flagg for her in the newspaper satire Nothing Sacred (1937), and even Alfred Hitchcock, venturing out of genre, directed her in the 1941 comedy Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
The reason Hawks and Barrymore encouraged Lombard to be herself at that key early juncture in her career was that, by all accounts, she had an irreverent, playful and infectious personality. Lombard loved practical jokes; she used colorful language; on the set she was generous and thoughtful to a tee—a profane angel indeed. She gave wildly creative themed parties and was sexually frank, in and out of her two marriages. The first was to William Powell, who, after they amicably separated, angled for her to appear opposite him in Godfrey, and the second, near the end of her life, was to Clark Gable.
The end of her life came too early, when, after indefatigably raising serious money at a series of war bond rallies in 1942, she insisted on hurrying home to Los Angeles, and the plane carrying her there crashed.
Now what kind of a home does so vivacious a personality establish for herself? Of Lombard's various residences, the most memorable—and in the history of Hollywood interior decoration, the most influential—was the house she bought in 1934, after her divorce from Powell. For decoration Lombard turned to her old friend and colleague William "Billy" Haines, whose career as a silent-screen wit and wisecracker had tanked with the arrival of the talkies but whose career as an interior designer was just about to take off. Lombard's house was arguably Haines's first complete project, and one of the actress's goals in asking him to take it on was to help him launch a new professional life.
Many years later Haines told a Lombard biographer that in designing the interiors he aimed for a femininity and a buoyancy that echoed the actress's. In the moment, or close to it, Motion Picture magazine paid a visit to the house, which was in the foothills of Hollywood just west of Fairfax Avenue; while the profile now reads very much like a comic piece, it also gives a fairly detailed account of Haines's, and presumably Lombard's, thinking about how to get the décor to "match her personality" (and her hair: The story is titled "Carole Lombard's House Is a Background for a Blonde!").
The visiting journalist reported that the actress's drawing room was done in six shades of blue (italics hers) and was "no place for tweeds or slacks, but a perfect setting for trailing tea gowns and evening dresses." Haines selected the furniture after analyzing Lombard's "type" and concluding that she was a "seductive sort of a woman who recalls a period of great elegance and formality of living" yet at the same time was modern and sophisticated. Somehow this translated into a Directoire sofa, a screen hand-painted with Greek gods and goddesses, and dining room chairs "almost Grecian in shape."
Even in this early project you can see Haines's trademarks in their first incarnations. He made side tables in his own workshops with a motif of arrows, quivers and lyres (later the shapes would be more streamlined, but similarly custom-made); he adapted lamps from black-marble busts (custom lighting would become another Haines standard touch); he added a bit of chinoiserie, a staple of just about every Haines interior. In the playroom he painted a piano in plaid to match the wallpaper, and in Lombard's bedroom he used a mirrored screen.
Commenting on this debonair accessory, soon to be copied all over town, Motion Picture magazine raved, "Seven Caroles are better than one in any room!" It's hard to argue with that.

 https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/carole-lombard-article-032006

Carole Lombard and Flight 3: A Movie Star's Mysterious Death

Carole Lombard and Flight 3: A Movie Star's Mysterious Death

Jan 16, 2017
On Jan. 16, 1942, Carole Lombard was best known as a screwball comedy actress. But not only was Lombard the highest paid actress of her time—starring in movies such as Twentieth Century, My Man Godfrey and Hitchcock’s Mr. & Mrs. Smith—she was also an outspoken New Deal Democrat, a supporter of FDR and the ongoing war effort.
That day, 75 years ago, she had just completed a major fundraising effort, raising over $2 million on her War Bond Tour. War bonds, created by U.S. Treasury department, allowed everyday Americans to invest in the war effort as well as their own futures, as the bonds supported the war in the short-term but could be cashed in for their full value a decade later. She had traveled to her home state of Indiana with her mother, Elizabeth Peters, and the press agent Otto Winkler—who worked with her husband, Clark Gable—for a three-day event to encourage citizens to buy those bonds.
But instead of returning home to California, they met an unfortunate and untimely death when the plane they were on, Flight 3, crashed into the side of the treacherous Mount Potosi in Nevada.
By all accounts, Carole Lombard should not have been on this plane in the first place. She had been advised to take a train home, given problematic weather and wartime fears, but insisted on flying instead. According to the coverage in the Jan. 26, 1942 issue of LIFE, "She told LIFE’s Photographer Myron Davis that though she had been strongly urged to return to Hollywood by rail, she had found herself unable to face three days on the 'choo-choo train.'”
Newlyweds Clark Gable and Carole Lombard Gable pose for a series of official photos at their ranch in Encino California in April 1939.Newlyweds Clark Gable and Carole Lombard Gable pose for a series of official photos at their ranch in Encino California in April 1939. Douglas Cohen Collection—Courtesy of GoodKnight Books 
The crash was surrounded by mystery at the time. Why did an experienced pilot crash into the mountain, observers wondered? Was it just an accident? Or, given that the U.S. had been attacked at Pearl Harbor just a month earlier, was it something even darker? Had Lombard, the war-effort activist, been sabotaged by German spies?
Another mystery was why Lombard really decided she had to fly. One theory indicates that her hurry to get home was due to a possible affair between her husband and Lana Turner. According to author Robert Matzen, "At the end of January 15, 1942, she decided she had done her duty – and now it was time to take care of Carole Lombard by getting home to her carousing husband by the fastest means possible. That meant air travel, something expressly forbidden because of the fear of accidents in wintry weather or sabotage by Hitler’s spies. To which the response was predictable: Kiss my ass.”
In the new trade paperback of Fireball: Carole Lombard and the Mystery of Flight 3, Matzen takes a deep dive into the life of Carole Lombard and the other passengers and pilot on Flight 3 with an expanded section of photos, many of them included in this gallery.

 The TWA DC-3 Sky Club shown is identical to the ship that crashed into Mt. Potosi, Nevada January 16, 1942.
 The TWA DC-3 Sky Club shown is identical to the ship that crashed into Mt. Potosi, Nev., on Jan. 16, 1942.

Last photo of Carole Lombard and her mother, January 1942.
At the end of a long day, Carole poses with her mother, Elizabeth “Petey” Peters in the Claypool.


TWA air hostess Alice Getz poses with veteran Capt. Wayne Williams beside a DC-3. Both would be killed in the crash of TWA Flight 3.
TWA air hostess Alice Getz poses with veteran Capt. Wayne Williams beside a DC-3. Both would be killed in the crash of TWA Flight 3.

Accident – January 16 1942 Las Vegas, NV # 17
The plane struck the cliff at center in the photo and exploded, setting off a fuel fire that rose hundreds of feet in the night sky.


Warren E. Carey of the Civil Aeronautics Board stood in the snow and drew this map of the crash scene on January 18, 1942.
 Warren E. Carey of the Civil Aeronautics Board stood in the snow and drew this map of the crash scene on Jan. 18, 1942.



Battling the worst terrain in the western United States, a rescue team tries to climb Mt. Potosi, Nevada less than 24 hours after the crash of TWA Flight 3.
 Battling the worst terrain in the western United States, a rescue team tries to climb Mt. Potosi, Nev., less than 24 hours after the crash of TWA Flight 3.

Weary recovery team members take a break two days after the crash on January 18, 1942.
 Weary recovery team members take a break two days after the crash on Jan. 18, 1942.



Three days after the crash of Flight 3, Clark Gable emerges from his bungalow at the El Rancho Las Vegas with MGM VP Eddie Mannix and Gable friend Al Menasco. Their task is to choose caskets for Gable’s wife, mother-in-law, and best friend.
Three days after the crash of Flight 3, Clark Gable emerges from his bungalow at the El Rancho Las Vegas with MGM VP Eddie Mannix and Gable friend Al Menasco. Their task is to choose caskets for Gable's wife, mother-in-law and best friend.

https://time.com/4631701/carole-lombard-flight-3/

How Carole Lombard’s career was almost over before it began

How Carole Lombard’s career was almost over before it began

carole_lombard_back_cover

In 1926, budding actress Carole Lombard was still a teenager, trying to work her way through the Hollywood minefield. She had already been employed by Fox, and hoped it would lead to big things.

However, she soon learned that in order to become a star, she would have to do more than just be a pretty face. She later spoke about her first experience: ‘[I got through my first years in Hollywood] without knowing a thing about acting. I merely stood there in front of the camera and did what the director told me, and tried to keep my mind blank so I wouldn’t interfere with his thought transmission. Something seemed to give forth on the screen, but I never knew how it happened. It was all an accident.’
The young woman had always been a regular on the Los Angeles club scene, and her fledgling film career did nothing to deter her from having a good time. However, it almost cost Carole her life one evening during 1926, when she was passenger in a car being driven by her sixteen-year-old friend, Harry Cooper. Details of what happened next remain somewhat sketchy, but one thing is clear: there was a tremendous accident, and when the car windscreen shattered, a piece of glass sliced into Carole’s face, leaving terrible gashes near her eye and on her left cheek.
The damage was not life-threatening but she was taken to hospital and ushered into surgery quickly. The process of stitching up her wounds was lengthy and done without anaesthetic, as the doctor feared it would cause her facial muscles to relax and cause further damage to the area.
Later, Carole sat down with reporter Dorothy Wooldridge, and spoke about what had been happening in her life, around the time of the accident. ‘I was terrible [as an actress for Fox] – worse than that, if possible. At the end of a year they threw me out. They should have done it long before. No girl should start picture work in a leading role. It’s unfair to her and punishment to an audience. Right after Fox let me out, an automobile discharged me too. I came out through the windshield. They took twenty-five stitches in my face and to this day I carry the scars, but they’re barely visible.’
 actress_carole_lombard
Recuperating at home; Carole tried to come to terms with the loss of her contract as well as the accident. However, instead of wallowing in her downfall, the actress spent some time resting, before turning her mind once again to acting. She immersed herself in self-study; read plays (including Shakespeare); acted out small parts in the privacy of her bedroom, and used every spare moment to better her craft.
In amongst her healing, Carole was also visited by friends who would perch on the side of her bed and tell jokes. Sometimes they cried at the unfairness of the crash cutting her career so short, but Carole told them that they mustn’t worry; that it was all okay. Underneath the bravado, however, she was concerned that if the large scar on her cheek did not heal, her career would most certainly be over. Her prediction was almost proved correct, as by the time she had recovered enough to go back to work, many of the studios had forgotten all about her fledgling career and had no interest in reigniting it.
The upset caused by this lack of concern was upsetting, but in true Lombard fashion, she refused to let it get her down. Instead she vowed to do everything in her power to put the past behind her and move on with the future. Hollywood masseuse Sylvia Ulback recalled, ‘Did she cry and moan about [the scar]? She did not. She didn’t pay any attention to it, but went right on. And because of her attitude I tell you that scar is actually attractive; girls can learn a lot from Carole.’
Still, the knowledge that she would have a scar for the rest of her life was well and truly on Carole’s mind, and the subject would be brought up in articles and interviews many times over the years. During a chat with reporter Elisabeth Goldbeck, the woman told Carole that her face seemed to have changed. She asked if this could be a result of the crash. The actress was quick to defend her looks and jumped into a full explanation:
‘I have pictures taken before and after the accident, which prove that had absolutely nothing to do with it. They were almost identical. The accident happened six years ago, and it’s only in the last three or four years that my face has changed. But it HAS changed completely. I think it changed as I changed mentally. Age changes you, and experience. It hollows your face and alters the mould. Your face can’t help reflecting all that goes on in your mind. All the emotions you feel, all the troubles and heartaches and grief you experience, leave their mark if you’re an actress.’
Carole went through a great deal as she recovered during 1926. ‘My upper lip was so stiff from this accident, that for several months I could hardly move it,’ she told reporter Muriel Babcock. ‘Massage did the trick. It is all right now.’ By autumn she was well enough to re-join her friends at the Coconut Grove nightclub, in order to take part in another dance competition. Under her real name of Jane Peters, she went all the way to the finals, where she competed against several dozen other youngsters, including actresses Joan Crawford and Billie Dove.
In time, Carole’s mental and physical scars from the accident began to fade. However, she decided not to let the matter go completely, and wanted to take the driver of the car and his parents, to court. Judge Fleming of the Superior Court was in charge of the case, but before he was able to assess the damage caused by the crash, the suit was suddenly settled out of court. Carole attempted to keep the payment a secret from reporters, but it was quickly rumoured that she had accepted $3,000 from the family, in return for a promise that she would not pursue the claim further.
This tremendous show of gumption was the beginning of a long battle to gain complete control of her life and career. From now on, Carole would never be anyone’s pushover, and whatever stressful – or sometimes tragic – circumstances were thrown at her; she would always fight her corner and come out on top. She was, in short, a woman of tremendous strength and courage that put her light years ahead of most of her contemporaries. She was without doubt, a Twentieth-Century Star.
By Michelle Morgan
 carole_lombard
 https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/articles/how-carole-lombard-s-career-was-almost-over-before-it-began/

Carole Lombard and What Remains

Carole Lombard and What Remains

The Cine-Files, issue 11 (fall 2016)

Christina Lane

Associate Professor, University of Miami
I view this video essay as a companion piece to my journal article “A Modern Marriage for the Masses: Carole Lombard, Clark Gable, and the Popular Front,” published in the Quarterly Review of Film and Video in January 2016. I have been intellectually obsessed (and personally mesmerized) by the field of classical Hollywood stars, in general, and a handful of stars, in particular, for far too long. For a certain spell, Carole Lombard, and somewhat by extension Clark Gable, emerged for me as a central site of study—comprising what I would describe as both a guilty pleasure and Sisyphean, scholarly calling. I attribute this mainly to the whimsical, disruptive, transgressive (radical-hetero-feminist) aspects of Lombard’s persona, which have gone curiously understudied until recently.
When the opportunity to create this video was extended, I posed to myself the question, what would an evocative, expressive, somewhat visceral iteration of my research look like? Moreover, here was a chance to change the angle, turning slightly away from the anti-authoritarian marriage themes and the Popular Front, New Deal context that I explored in “A Modern Marriage for the Masses” toward a look at representations of Lombard’s embodiment, mortality, and memory.
What an inviting gift—and a welcome challenge—to approach scholarly writing and representation in the form of a video essay. I saw this as an occasion to fashion cinematic meaning from the many raw bits of material that had been filtered through the “projection screen” of my mind over the (many) years that it had taken for my theoretical and historical claims about Lombard and Gable to rack into focus. Part creative collage, part fan tribute, part critical inscription, Carole Lombard and What Remains is meant to raise open-ended questions and quests related to images, sounds, stars and stardom, reality, specificity, history, memory, fans, authorship, and sites.  Indeed, it ponders sites of many kinds: sites of meaning, fan sites, a crash site, in addition to sights (internal plays with looking and seeing) and sightings (efforts to capture someone or something visually).
One dimension of this video I find worth highlighting is its dialectical tensions between image and sound, invoked in multiple ways, starting with the interplay between contemporary observer/narrator’s voice (accompanied by the noises of the equipment that have brought him to the crash site) and the classic movie images. In the second half of the video—the flipside, so to speak—sounds of Hollywood scenes are juxtaposed with visuals from our narrator’s amateur footage of Mt. Petosi.
My overall attention to sound is inspired by Lombard’s distinctive “movie voice,” which makes grand, undulating, performative gestures while gliding along the aural register as if on a dream plane (what Bob Gilpin describes as her “breathless, stream-of-consciousness, looping and loopy dialogue”). Lombard’s characters speak not only theatricality and comically, but cinematically. This video essay, as I interpret it, re-mediates the logic of the movie dreams created by and through Lombard in a way that shifts that plane, figuratively and, yes, (consciously working with the pun) even literally toward a space more corporal and somber—a dimension that was always part of her performance and persona (e.g., The Princess Comes Across 1936, Nothing Sacred 1937, To Be or Not to Be 1942).
Other ideas that animate this video essay involve authorship, related to “what counts as knowledge,” and “the role of the scholar.” Even playing a role as theorist here, I purposefully slide into the part of fan. While critical thinking is necessary in scholarship, there is something ironic—and potentially even fallacious—about the fact that traditional film theory and some strands of popular culture studies communicate an expectation that in order to do an adequate job, scholars are expected to break fully our attachment from our chosen object of study (a film, a star, a filmmaker or media-maker, a moment in time)? The work of Henry Jenkins, Alexander Doty, and others has complicated the scholar/fan lines; Doty asks, for example, “But is there really little room for autobiographical or fan elements in rigorous, intelligent critical work?” (12).
My position as fan is not the only fan-position that exists in Carole Lombard and What Remains, given the consequential role played by the ambiguous narrator (the voice behind the video camera), who serves as both a literal figure—a man who would endure a grueling, rugged, steep climb due to deep drives and desires that only he can grasp (and perhaps not fully know)—as well as a symbolic surrogate for the many fans who may identify with him, though for different reasons.
The devotion of fans, in this Internet age of social media and shared information, eventually proved fruitful for my research in ways I never could have imagined. These channels often led me to newspaper and magazine articles, photographs, verifiable facts, and living sources through fan blogs that I had not found in over a decade of searching through the some of most comprehensive and respected official archives on the subject. I credit Vicki Callahan and our conversations about her Internet, fan-based research on Mabel Normand with deepening my thinking about how such networks challenge conventional notions of what counts as legitimate sites of knowledge and intervene in assumptions about academic archives.
Carole Lombard’s untimely passing—mourned by an entire nation—happened more than seven decades ago, but what remains of her star persona? What remains of her cinematic memory—in contemporary culture at large, and with any one of us at any given time?

References
Carman, Emily. Independent Stardom: Freelance Women in the Hollywood System. Austin: University of Texas at Austin, 2016.
Carole and Co.: Celebrating Carole Lombard and Classic Hollywood. https://caroleandco.wordpress.com [Accessed 10 June 2016] Website.
Doty, Alexander. Flaming Classics: Queering the Film Canon. NY and London: Routledge, 2000.
Gilpin, Bob. DVD Commentary. My Man Godfrey. Universal Pictures, 1936. NY: Criterion, 2001. DVD.
Jenkins, Henry. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. NY and London, 2003.
Lane, Christina. “A Modern Marriage for the Masses: Carole Lombard, Clark Gable and the Cultural Front.” Quarterly Review of Film and Video 33.5 (January 2016): 401-36. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10509208.2015.1061876.
Matzen, Robert. Carole Lombard and the Mystery of Flight 3. Boulder, CO: Paladin, 2013.
Ray, Robert. How a Film Theory Got Lost and Other Mysteries in Cultural Studies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001.
Vivian Sobchack. “Chasing the Maltese Falcon: On the Fabrications of a Film Prop.” Journal of Visual Culture 6, no. 2 (July 2007): 219-46.
Stern, Lesley. “Paths that Wind through the Thicket of Things.” Critical Inquiry 28 (Autumn 2001): 317-54.

 http://www.thecine-files.com/carole-lombard/

Why I love Carole Lombard’s performance in No Man of Her Own

Why I love Carole Lombard’s performance in No Man of Her Own

Alongside her future partner, Clark Gable, this 1932 romantic comedy established Lombard as a bona fide movie star.
Words
Lauren Pinnington
Years before becoming romantically involved, Clark Gable and Carole Lombard appeared alongside each other in 1932’s perfunctory romantic comedy No Man of Her Own. It was the only picture in which the iconic couple co-starred, and is rarely referred to as a highlight of either’s career. The storyline is unremarkable: a New York gambler (Gable as Babe Stewart; finding his niche in the delectable rogue role) falls for the inexperienced good girl (Lombard’s Connie Randall), has a crisis of conscience and predictably changes his philandering ways for love at the last hurdle.
What makes the film so compelling is its smart dialogue, handled with collective comedic aplomb and pre-Code sauciness (Connie appears in only lingerie and heels in the first act), but No Man of Her Own is ultimately elevated by the layered performance of its female star, who fuses spunkiness with a candid relatability.
When we first meet Connie, she’s on the phone with her boyfriend of small town convenience, remarking ironically that she’s been busy leading her “usual life of sin,” and huffs that the only exciting thing she has to look forward to is the local drug store stocking a new flavour of ice cream. Lombard’s body language – slumped and scowling – tells us everything we need to know about Connie’s displeasure with life.
Enter Babe, who is on the lam and has chosen, by coincidence, her town in which to lie low. Their first encounter at the library where Connie works is sumptuous with sexual tension, the camera capturing the mood and the actor’s burgeoning proximity with close ups and low lighting. The conflict on Lombard’s face wondering whether to succumb to his charms (“Do your eyes bother you? ’Cause they bother me,”) is indicative of any of us who have fallen for someone we deemed unsuitable.
Connie’s feelings are expressed at every moment she’s on screen through Lombard’s eyes, which seem to betray the sensible words that fall from her character’s mouth. Her gaze is penetrating, following Gable as he moves within the frame, at first testingly – she is pinning all her hopes of reinvention on Babe – and then with deep infatuation once her guard is down. We are also treated to Lombard’s knack for bringing physical nuance to her heroine’s during the lakeside cabin scene where an anxious Connie awkwardly clicks her fingers and pulls at her pyjamas. She settles into being tactile with him as the film unfolds – a testament to professionalism as allegedly the pair were highly indifferent to one another throughout production.
As a device to move the plot forward, the two are married on the toss of a coin, Connie’s moxie the instigator of the impulsive act. Babe whisks her back to his grand apartment in the Big City, where she becomes embroiled in his high rolling lifestyle as arm candy without actually being clued in on the nature of his profession. Lombard is costumed in form-fitting gowns and jewels during these scenes, displaying a chameleon ability to pull off conservative and studio system glamour simultaneously.
The conflict during a flat third act is hardly surprising, and Lombard’s choices to play out Connie’s discovery of her husband’s true nature and inevitable circle back to acceptance by tempering line reads and avoiding melodrama are inspired. Playing Connie hysterical would be the obvious interpretation following the slew of disappointing reveals from Gable’s character but she opts for the more interesting route. In a frustrating but stereotypical female part, Dorothy Mackaill is relegated to the bad girl scorned which only amplifies the nuances of Lombard.
No Man of Her Own may not be revered or even particularly well remembered today, but it is unequivocally where Carole Lombard established herself as a bona fide movie star, using her unique gifts to bring vivacity to what could have been a forgettable footnote in her legend.

 https://lwlies.com/articles/carole-lombard-performance-no-man-of-her-own-clark-gable/