vert001 I first saw RAFTER ROMANCE a few years ago as a break from all the Akira Kurosawa films I'd been watching on TCM. In a rather odd coupling, Turner Classic Movies had decided to play all of the Japanese director's films during its Ginger Rogers Month, and all the promos I'd been seeing about Ginger finally made me decide to take a break from the next modern day Japanese version of HAMLET or KING LEAR or MACBETH (or Gorky's THE LOWER DEPTHS for that matter). Something called RAFTER ROMANCE seemed like it would be quite a contrast. It was, and it was a lot of fun, too.Instead of going over the plot again, I'll mention two scenes. The swastika incident has inspired some comment. The swastika had long been a good luck symbol in much of the world, including among the Hindus as well as the aboriginal American Indians. Clearly the boy is using it as such in the scene in RAFTER ROMANCE. It's not surprising that an adolescent wouldn't have been keeping up with the contemporary political developments in Europe. His father, however, judging by his accent, must have originally come from the Old World, and it's not unlikely that he would have been familiar with recent European events. Thus the landlord associated the swastika with the Nazis and was unhappy to see it on the walls of his apartments, a reaction that his son did not immediately understand. It seems to me to be a sly political commentary, surely the only one that we see in the charming romcom RAFTER ROMANCE.True the plot about two people sharing an apartment without ever meeting one another doesn't make any sense (what happens on weekends or holidays?), but how many airtight plots do we ever come across? RAFTER ROMANCE moves quickly, contains likable characters, has some genuinely funny scenes (anything featuring Laura Hope Crews, anything featuring the telemarketing office, Ginger's 'date' with Robert Benchley), a few that aren't so funny but nothing that is notably awful, and a pair of leads (Ginger Rogers and Norman Foster) who fit easily together in what is their third and last movie as co-stars. Though there's considerable talent all around her, it's Rogers who holds it all together, and RKO must have been very pleased in seeing what they had in her.Though it's a small, simple picture, RAFTER ROMANCE does supply some surprises. Did you know there were telemarketing companies in 1933? I sure didn't. Neither their spiel nor the reactions to their cold calling seems to have changed much. But most surprising was that shower scene, or I should say the prelude to it. When Ginger slipped off the jacket of that business suit she was wearing my jaw dropped at the sight of her bare back! I mean, no blouse underneath, only a silk scarf crossing over her breasts? Somehow I doubt that was a common costume for the well-dressed office girl of 1933, but I guess that's why they call them pre-Code!

MartinHafer This is one of the "lost but found" films shown on TCM on 4/4/07. Apparently this and two other films shown that night were held out of public release due to litigation concerning royalties and now the powers that be at Turner Classic Movies have taken care of the licensing issues. Of the three films shown that night, none of them were great treasures but all three were excellent--very solid examples of the type of films RKO made during the era. Normally, when you think of RKO in 1933, you think KING KONG or Astaire and Rogers as a team, but there were other good films that might rank just below them in quality and entertainment.RAFTER ROMANCE was made just before Ginger Rogers began her starring films with Fred Astaire. Although she had done a few movies before this, she was not an A-list star and often appeared in B-pictures or in supporting roles. Here she is teamed with the relatively unknown actor, Norman Foster--befitting her status at RKO at the time. However, despite this technically being a "lesser" film, it was marvelously entertaining and fun provided you could suspend your sense of disbelief and just enjoy. Sure, the possibility of a man and a woman sharing an apartment and never meeting and hating each other BUT also meeting in real life and fall in love because they don't realize they are roommates is pretty tough to swallow. But it is no nicely handled and fun that you probably can look past this and just enjoy it on a superficial level.By the way, the landlord (George Sidney) was great. Sure, he was very stereotypically Jewish, but he was pretty funny and not particularly offensive. Also, when his dim-witted son was drawing a swastika on the wall "for good luck", seeing his dad slap him up side the head was a pointed and very interesting comment about the rising anti-semitism of the Nazis in Europe.

movingpicturegal Delightfully fun romantic comedy about Jack, behind on his rent, Mary, behind on her rent, and the well-meaning landlord who comes up with an idea for a rather novel arrangement for the two - to share Jack's attic apartment. Mary has a job selling ice boxes, Jack works the night shift, so Mary gets the apartment from 8 P.M. to 8 A.M. and Jack from 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. - and the two of them hate each other instantly and pull mean tricks on each other (stuff like putting his suit in the shower and cutting her bed so it collapses), though have never actually met. But wait! They do meet each other one day in front of a local delicatessen, and like each other, but have no idea they are actually living in the same apartment.Sounds like a plot we've all heard before - but this film was really, really cute and fun to watch. Ginger Rogers is gorgeous and funny as Mary, Norman Foster gives a steady, likable performance as Jack, and Laura Hope Crews really steals the scenes she is in playing a rich, drunken old dame who wants to "help" handsome Jack's career (he also happens to be a struggling artist) - she is hilarious. Okay - here's a few observations: how come Mary and Jack have never, ever seen each other before even though they have been living in the same brownstone on separate floors for at least long enough to both be overdue on the rent (you would think they would have at least passed each other on the stairs or out at the curb or maybe on the weekend a few times), and how about that company picnic where everyone has left except our two stars and ALL the garbage and trash from the picnicking is just left behind on the tables! Ah well - all in all, I found this to be a very enjoyable, funny, well done film.

charlie hazlett The father was NOT upset due to a reference to Hitler but he was upset that the boy was scribbling on the walls. the swastika was, at one time, a good luck charm and could be found in many cultures around the world. Today, of course, it refers to nothing but Hitler and his atrocities, but in 1933 it had nothing to do with Hitler. This was a great movie, and was before the censors got into cutting some scenes. Her bare back in one scene and showing her undressing must have been outrageous to many at that time.Movies went from that freedom to almost no freedoms to almost unlimited freedom today. Ain't it a wonderful life ????