Clara Bow, topheavy with IT (1927)

21 December 2010

“She’s a ripping sort, really,” someone says about Clara Bow’s character in It.  “She’s really topheavy with ‘IT’.”  Bow was the It Girl in the late 20s not just because she was popular.  “It” denoted a personal charisma that seemed to ooze from the pores of a few special individuals and not at all from others.  Perhaps sex appeal had something to do with it, yet Bow’s high-test caffeinated activity conveyed more best-girl good nature than the languid, sexy sultriness of other stars, from Louise Brooks to Gloria Swanson.  I’ve seen only two of Bow’s films (It and Wings, both made in 1927) and in both she conveys the same sparkly, occasionally goofy willingness to bounce around the screen.  Critics have simplified this to mean sex appeal, but I see a girl I’d have liked to go out dancing with.

First and foremost, Clara Bow was adorable.  She had a pile of indomitable curly hair cut in some kind of proximate of a 1920s bob, with enormous dark eyes and round, youthful cheeks better suited to hamming it up onscreen than to come-hither looks.  If we want to talk about “it” as meaning sex appeal, we must specify that her appeal came from the flirtatious fun that Bow insists on having in these films rather than something more serious; she’s the girl you take to the rides at amusement park and who has a hard time keeping her skirt from riding up to show her garters, as in the clip below.  What she showed onscreen was a willingness to show a little skin — but only in that offhand, accidental way that was both funny and a little titillating.  Bow was that good-time girl who was probably chaste but who showed an intoxicating familiarity with the men around her.  In It she sets out to win the heart of the department-store owner, and she does.

Turns out, It was a Hollywood vehicle specifically designed to shine Bow’s star.  The filmmakers took a fluffy 1926 article from Cosmopolitan by Elinor Glyn, paid Glyn piles of money, and transformed it into a narrative about a shopgirl who turns the heads of wealthy men and eventually that department store man.  They even gave Glyn major writing credits for the film (though it had virtually nothing to do with her article) and had her walk into the restaurant at the Ritz to discuss her idea, as if it were as significant and complex as the theory of relativity:

[“IT” signifies] self-confidence and indifference as to whether you are pleasing or not — and something in you that gives the impression that you are not all cold.  That’s “IT”!  If you have “IT”, you will win the girl you love.

That pronouncement sets the tone for the rest of the film, which remains as unserious as Bow could keep it.  But one can’t help being convinced via her manic energy and that preposterously loopy head of hair that she really did have “it,” and that you want to watch her keep performing it onscreen.  The dreariest part of the film is when we are reminded, again and again, of Glyn’s simple idea.  Not that it weighs Bow down in the least.  As David Thomson puts it in his Biographical Dictionary of Film, she appears as “a lipstick butterfly veering between old adages and fresh opportunities.”  I’m going to keep watching.

5 Responses to “Clara Bow, topheavy with IT (1927)”

  1. didion Says:

    The adulation of Clara Bow isn’t as overwhelming as for Louise Brooks, but see a fan page at; a transcription of an autobiographical 1928 Photoplay article at; and an entire forum dedicated to discussing her at How great is the web?

  2. Hattie Says:

    To me this is a document. Those rides: the wheel, the waves, the big slides, still existed at the now vanished Playland at the Beach when I was a kid in San Francisco. They were the places where working people went to have fun on their days off.
    All the structures were made of polished or painted wood and had a look that no longer exists. I remember always wanting to get into the exact center of the wheel, because that was the only place where you would not get thrown off.
    Of course these days all these rides and amusements would be considered too dangerous. A lot of this kind of fun is a thing of the past, alas.

    • didion Says:

      I completely agree! And what is it — the lack of sound, the quaint 20s dresses and hair styles — that makes me watch this scene with such wonder? I think it has to do with the obvious fun such rides permitted. I can just feel my stomach lurching as they slide down that terrific rolling slide and bump into one another at the bottom.

      Thinking back on the number of times I threw up after a ride at the fair when I was a kid, I think maybe it’s only recently that amusement park rides have become so tediously safe and yet so high-tech and elaborate. Just look at how simple these rides are — and how obviously fun.

  3. Hattie Says:

    They also have lost their erotic kick. The couples, the sailors and their girlfriends, etc. A kind of funky atmosphere that even kids picked up as exciting and maybe a little dangerous.

  4. […] loved to tease us with scantily-clad women — even an amateur film lover like me has seen Clara Bow, Louise Brooks, Miriam Hopkins and other actresses stripping down to their unmentionables. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: