Girls of the Road (1940) ** (out of 4) "B" picture from Columbia has Ann Dvorak playing the daughter of the governor who decides to see what it's really like out on the streets. She joins up with a group of homeless girls who travel from town to town struggling to get food or a roof over their head. This film pretty much turns out to be a watered down version of William A. Wellman's classic WILD BOYS OF THE ROAD and while its heart is in the right place the final product doesn't have much going for it. The biggest problem I had with the film was a little bit of logic but we see this rich daughter seeing her new friends struggle yet she never offers them any help. Yes, I understand she wants to see what it's like being homeless but you'd think she would take care of her friends and just go on her little experiment alone. Another problem with the film is that the acting is pretty bad. Normally this wouldn't be too much of a deal breaker in a "B" picture but there are many scenes here that want an emotion impact and it just can't happen due to the bad acting. There's a death scene here, which is pretty embarrassing as well as a few other dramatic moments that just don't work. The screenplay really doesn't offer anything original as we go down countless roads that other films went down with much better results. I must admit that I found the 61-minute running time to feel too long and in the end the film really doesn't work on any level. What keeps the movie going is the fact that women take up all the lead roles and this little switch does make the film at least watchable if you don't mind "B" movies. Dvorak certainly had much better days as she appears uninterested from start to finish.

While it's true this movie is badly dated, I still think is worthwhile as a snapshot in time.Made in 1940, it chronicles the experiences of a group of wandering hobo woman caught in the economic grinder of the depression. I think it's valuable, because most of us - even us ancianos - have little conception of how desperate and depressing things were back in those days.The movie stars Ann Dvorak, Helen Mack, and Lola Lane, with a very competent supporting cast including Ann Doran and Mary Field. Ann Dvorak's performance especially stands out and reminds me of what an underrated actress she really was. While many of the others overact - I guess we can blame the director for a lot of that - her performance is understated and perfectly believable. But even though the production is theatrical and a little overdone, there are still nuggets of real emotion if you look for them. An expression, a tear in the eye, a quivering voice. Not what I would have expected in a melodrama like this.This movie makes a sincere attempt to deal with, what was a real contemporary problem back when it was made, and although we have our own problems to deal with today, looking back in history is always a good way to keep from repeating it. Take a look.

The best thing about this highly sanitized expose is that its heart is in the right place. Importantly, the movie serves as a peek into how the uprooted, even women, were treated by local jurisdictions already burdened by their own Depression problems and unwilling to take on new ones. However, the contrast with the gritty, realistic Wild Boys of the Road (1933) could hardly be stronger, thanks mainly to the deadening hand of the Production Code of 1934. Note, for example, the general absence of men around these all-girl encampments, rather surprising given the opportunities. But then, including men in the camp mix would have complicated both the tone and the message. Thus, we're left with what looks like an all-girl touring group down on their luck. Note too, how nearly all the well-scrubbed girls are outfitted in the less vulnerable pants instead of dresses at a time when cheap cotton dresses were standard and affordable, (consider Barbara Hershey's cheap little print in the much more realistic Boxcar Bertha {1972}). But most revealing is when one of the girls explains why it's easier being a penniless man than a penniless woman. What she says is true, but, tellingly, she leaves out the one big advantage women-- especially the comely young women of this movie-- have when needing to earn a buck. In fact, as part of its streamlining and sanitizing, the screenplay suppresses altogether what should be the rather obvious topic of prostitution.All in all, I suspect the movie reveals more about the state of Hollywood politics, circa 1940, than it does about its subject matter. Nonetheless, I agree that TMC should be congratulated for reviving such obscurities. And though the movie is, I think, far from a classic, it is a provocative window into its time and into a topic many of us didn't know existed. Besides, I sense an underground fan club forming around the sorely neglected Ann Dvorak. With her large, expressive eyes, aquiline nose, and the courage to take on an ethnic stage name-- plus genuine talent-- she merits re-discovery in a big way.

...the major studio you work for does not want you anymore. Just like today back in the 'Golden Age of Hollywood' the shelf life of female Stars was noticeably shorter then their male counterparts. Three (3) of the Stars of GIRLS OF THE ROAD (1940) are more noted for their roles at their home studios. ANN DVORAK and LOLA LANE at Warner Brothers (WB) and HELEN MACK, RKO. When a studio was done with you it was fade away or find work somewhere else. That somewhere this time was at COLUMBIA.GIRLS OF THE ROAD is a social commentary picture typical of the time and usually done most successfully at the WB. This effort from COLUMBIA though dated is still entertaining portraying the plight of vagrant women. A Governors Daughter played by DVORAK wishes first hand to find out how to solve the plight of these girls. The bulk of her odyssey is a learning experience and building a friendship with MACK. Concluding with the moral redemption of all including tough girl LANE.There were five (5) major studios. M.G.M., PARAMOUNT, RKO, 20TH CENTURY FOX and WARNER BROTHERS. Plus some heavy-weight independents like GOLDWYN or SELZNICK. Now you could move horizontally between these studios and still be on top. The next level would be COLUMBIA, HAL ROACH, REPUBLIC, UNIVERSAL and UNITED ARTISTS. This was still respectable the only problem with working at COLUMBIA was putting up with HARRY COHN who fancied himself Don Juan. It could get worse though you might end up at MONOGRAM, PRC or any of the dozens of poverty row studios that came and went. Some not even lasting a year, fading away just like some their careers.