Step Lively, Jeeves (1937)

After mistakenly trying to swindle each-other, two con artists decide to team up and use a new trick, duping well-off butler Jeeves into believing he's a long-lost descendant of Sir Francis Drake, and must collect on a fortune in America. They create a media storm surrounding the arrival of the new 'Earl of Braddock'. Interested in this news is Babe, a former gang leader turned society lady, who's excited to be entertaining a genuine Earl, and has her goons bring him over, much to the horror of the increasingly nervous con-men...

When it come to bad adaptions, an interesting topic is whether or not they're still good movies in spite of their disrespectful nature. In the case of Step Lively, Jeeves, this is a perfect example. The film itself is actually pretty decent. But when you consider it as a Jeeves movie, it's a total failure, in every conceivable way! Here's how bad it is. 1936's Thank You, Jeeves was an in-name-only adaption that completely failed to capture the tone, spirit, or contents of the books. And yet it is still a more loyal adaption than this!

There are a few things that hold Step Lively from feeling like a true Jeeves story. First up is the 12 minute beginning, which introduces us to the two con-artists, and our favourite gentleman is nowhere to be seen! It takes almost 1/6th of the way through his own movie before he appears! When he finally does Bertie Wooster is nowhere to be found, nor even mentioned. Jeeves is instead in the employ of some random couple.

Next up, the lack of a friendly dope like Bertie means Jeeves' personality is changed completely, to make him into a gullible fool. And last up is the change of setting to America. In fairness the Jeeves stories did sometimes go to the old colony, but when it's such a big element here, at the cost of so much else, it just feels like a typically American move-Poaching a story and changing up the setting to their own backyard.

With all of this you may be wondering, are there any familiar Wodehousian touches? For the most part, no, but there was one part I really liked, and felt would be right at home in a P.G. novel. Patricia has set herself up in the crooks' household posing as a rich girl, and when she and Jeeves meet again, he comments how good it is to see her again...which Babe takes as proof of this fine young girl's high standing.

If there is a benefit to Step Lively, Jeeves being so unfaithful, it does mean it's very easy to switch off and just accept this as its own film. And on those terms it ain't half bad. I can see why it's not more widely loved, and it's not gonna win any awards, but it's fine. Easily on par with the likes of Torchy Blane or Mexican Spitfire.

The characters here are quite decent, with exceptions. One issue is just how many there are. Jeeves, the friendly reporter and her beau, the con artists, and a band of high society crooks. It gets a bit much, especially for a 69 minute long film. It's not often I say this, since 60-70 minutes is such a perfect runtime for these kinds of films, but Step Lively, Jeeves really could've stood to be longer.

Jeeves is an alright lead in places, if you forget who he's supposed to be, but is not the strongest. He's even a bit too passive in the climax (although his honesty does shine through). Taking the action is reporter Patricia, who's a fun dame, and has a nice friendship with Jeeves. She may not trust the two con men, but she can just tell he's on the level. Her boyfriend is your typical 'You should settle down and marry me' guy but isn't too obnoxious about it, and always tries getting his way by helping rather than hindering her.

Onto the villains, the con men are a hoot! Especially the 'Russian prince', who says constant malapropisms. The pair have some great zingers too, like "Stop involving nations and cut some bread!". I like how the Prince never beaks character, almost like he's been doing this act for so long he believes it himself.

The gang of crooks are a fairly amusing bunch. Head honcho Babe is trying to make do in high society, while her hubby is trying to do his best in this ill-fitting world, as are his goons. They're lighthearted baddies, causing problems but never truly evil. The only thing I disliked was the decision to have Babe be the creator of Jeeves' famous pick-me-up! Sacrilege!

The acting in Step Lively, Jeeves is fine all round. One 'upside' to the change in Jeeves' personality is that it means Arthur Treacher gives a more appropriate and subdued performance, rather than the boisterous and bombastic one he gave in the previous film. The character as written here still means he feels unlike Jeeves, but at least his general mannerisms are more befitting.

The rest of the cast are decent enough. Alan Dinehart and George Givot are a hoot as the con artists (with Givot's accent being a particular highlight!), while Patricia Ellis and Robert Kent are serviceable as the heroic couple. The gaggle of guys playing the crooks are pretty good, as is Helen Flint as their ringleader.

Despite their differences in construction, P.G. Wodehouse and Classic Hollywood had many similarities, and these worked best when independent of each-other. Most attempts the Yanks ever made to adapt Plum's stories were groanworthy at best, insulting at worst. Step Lively, Jeeves is proof positive of this, acting as a movie that works well in its own right, but poorly as a representation of Wodehouse's fine craft. It's worth checking out if you're an old Hollywood fan, but not urgently, and it may drive you to a rage if you're a fan of the text. Ultimately, there are easier and better films to find...