How to Undress in Front of Your Husband
Plot
This 1937 exploitation short film follows a voyeuristic 'Peeping Tom' who derives pleasure from spying on women through their windows as they undress. The film presents two distinct subjects for his viewing pleasure: the first is a young, attractive woman dressed in lingerie who embodies the idealized female form, while the second subject, described charitably as less conventionally attractive, still provides entertainment for both the protagonist and the audience. The film captures the voyeur's perspective as he watches these intimate moments, presenting scenes that were considered scandalous for the time period. Through its brief narrative, the film explores themes of voyeurism and the male gaze in a manner typical of exploitation cinema, pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable in 1930s filmmaking.
Director
About the Production
This film was typical of Dwain Esper's exploitation shorts, shot quickly and cheaply to capitalize on sensational content. The production likely spanned only a few days, using minimal sets and natural lighting to reduce costs. Esper was known for his ability to produce controversial content on shoestring budgets, often recycling sets and props from his other productions.
Historical Background
This film was produced during a fascinating period in American cinema history. The Hays Code, which enforced strict moral guidelines on mainstream Hollywood films, was in full effect by 1937. However, this created a market for exploitation films that operated outside the studio system. The Great Depression was still affecting the country, and audiences were seeking escapism and sensationalism. Exploitation filmmakers like Dwain Esper capitalized on this by producing films with taboo subjects that mainstream studios couldn't touch. The film industry was also dealing with the transition from silent films to talkies, and by 1937, sound was firmly established. This period saw the rise of independent producers who found niches the major studios couldn't or wouldn't serve. The film also reflects the era's complex attitudes toward sexuality and morality, presenting content that was simultaneously condemned and consumed by curious audiences.
Why This Film Matters
While not a masterpiece of cinema, 'How to Undress in Front of Your Husband' represents an important chapter in film history as an example of exploitation cinema that operated parallel to mainstream Hollywood. These films pushed boundaries and tested the limits of what audiences would accept, often dealing with subjects like sexuality, drug use, and other taboo topics. The film is significant for its role in the development of independent cinema and its challenge to the censorship systems of the time. It also provides insight into the sexual mores and voyeuristic interests of 1930s America, showing how filmmakers circumvented restrictions to satisfy audience curiosity. The film's existence demonstrates the persistence of a market for adult-oriented content even during supposedly conservative periods, and it influenced later generations of exploitation and underground filmmakers who would continue to push boundaries in subsequent decades.
Making Of
The production of this film was characteristic of Dwain Esper's exploitation filmmaking methods. Working with minimal budgets, Esper would often film in rented spaces or even his own home, using available lighting and basic equipment. The casting process was likely informal, with Esper drawing from a pool of actors willing to appear in controversial content. Elaine Barrie's involvement was particularly notable given her marriage to John Barrymore, suggesting she was either seeking independence from her famous husband or needed the work. The film was probably shot in just one or two days, with minimal rehearsals and often improvised dialogue. Esper's wife, Hildegarde Stadie, frequently wrote or co-wrote his films, though her exact involvement in this production is unclear. The film's distribution would have been through specialized channels that catered to audiences seeking sensational content, often playing in grindhouse theaters or as part of traveling roadshow presentations.
Visual Style
The cinematography was likely basic and functional, typical of low-budget exploitation productions. The camera work probably emphasized the voyeuristic perspective, using techniques that placed the viewer in the position of the Peeping Tom character. Lighting may have been harsh or uneven due to budget constraints, though this could have unintentionally added to the film's gritty, underground aesthetic. The visual style prioritized clarity of the controversial content over artistic composition, with straightforward shots that left little to the imagination. Any camera movement would have been minimal and practical rather than expressive, focusing on presenting the scenes as directly as possible.
Innovations
The film has no notable technical achievements, representing standard production values for low-budget exploitation cinema of the 1930s. The technical aspects were likely rudimentary, using basic equipment and techniques that prioritized economy over innovation. Any technical choices were driven by budget constraints rather than artistic considerations. The film's significance lies not in its technical merits but in its content and the context of its production within the exploitation film industry.
Music
The soundtrack was likely minimal, possibly using stock music or simple piano accompaniment typical of low-budget productions of the era. Sound quality would have been basic, recorded with primitive equipment that often picked up unwanted noise. Any musical elements would have been functional rather than artistic, serving primarily to provide background atmosphere rather than enhance the narrative. Dialogue, if present, would have been recorded live on set with limited post-production refinement. The overall audio experience would have been secondary to the visual content, which was the main selling point of the film.
Famous Quotes
No significant dialogue from this obscure exploitation short has been preserved in film history archives
The film likely relied more on visual spectacle than memorable dialogue, typical of Esper's productions
Memorable Scenes
- The opening sequence establishing the Peeping Tom character and his voyeuristic habits, setting the tone for the entire short film
- The contrasting scenes of the two different women undressing, highlighting the film's exploration of different body types and the voyeur's indiscriminate viewing habits
- The final scene where the voyeur is potentially discovered or escapes, providing narrative closure to the brief story
Did You Know?
- Director Dwain Esper was known as the 'King of Exploitation Cinema' in the 1930s, producing numerous controversial films that pushed the boundaries of decency codes
- The film was likely distributed through the 'roadshow' circuit, where exploitation films were shown in independent theaters often accompanied by sensational live lectures
- Elaine Barrie, one of the stars, was the wife of famous actor John Barrymore at the time, though their marriage was troubled
- Trixie Friganza was a veteran vaudeville performer who transitioned to films, known for her plus-size figure and comedic timing
- The film was made during the era when the Hays Code was supposedly in effect, but exploitation filmmakers like Esper found ways to circumvent censorship by targeting independent theaters
- Like many of Esper's films, this short was likely advertised with lurid posters and sensational taglines to draw curious audiences
- The film represents a subgenre of 'sex hygiene' films that used the guise of educational content to show forbidden material
- Hal Richardson appeared in several of Esper's exploitation films, becoming something of a regular in his productions
- The film was probably shot on 16mm film to save costs, then blown up to 35mm for theatrical release
- Esper often used the same sets and locations across multiple films to maximize his minimal budgets
What Critics Said
Contemporary critical reception for this type of exploitation film was virtually nonexistent, as mainstream publications refused to review or acknowledge such productions. The film was likely condemned by moral watchdog groups and religious organizations who decried the content as immoral and corrupting. Modern film historians and scholars view the film primarily as a historical artifact rather than a work of artistic merit, analyzing it in the context of exploitation cinema and censorship battles of the 1930s. Some critics appreciate these films for their unintentional humor and camp value, while others examine them as cultural documents that reveal the tensions between public morality and private curiosity during the period.
What Audiences Thought
The film likely attracted its intended audience of curious adults seeking titillating content unavailable in mainstream theaters. Exploitation films of this era often found success through word-of-mouth and sensational advertising, despite (or because of) their controversial nature. Audiences attending these films knew they were seeing something forbidden, which added to the appeal. The film's short runtime and direct approach to its subject matter would have satisfied viewers looking for quick thrills rather than complex narratives. Like many exploitation films, it probably developed a cult following among those who appreciated its audacity and willingness to push boundaries.
Film Connections
Influenced By
- Earlier exploitation films of the 1920s and early 1930s
- Vaudeville and burlesque traditions
- Sensationalist journalism and pulp magazines
This Film Influenced
- Later exploitation films of the 1940s and 1950s
- Nudie-cutie films of the 1950s
- Roughie films of the 1960s
You Might Also Like
Film Restoration
The preservation status of this obscure 1937 exploitation short is uncertain. Many of Dwain Esper's films have survived through various means, including prints found in private collections and film archives. Some exist only in degraded or incomplete form. The film may be preserved in specialized archives that focus on exploitation and cult cinema, or it could be considered lost, as many low-budget productions from this era have disappeared over time. Any surviving copies would likely show significant wear and deterioration due to the cheap film stock used in production and the numerous exhibition prints that were run until they wore out.