It says in the IMDb trivia section that Lena Horne was not paid for her work in this film. Does this mean she was cheated or that she agreed to make it for free? I'd love to know more about this.
In the 1930s and 40s, due to segregation, Black people were often not allowed into movie theaters with Whites. So, Black theaters opened across the country--particularly in the South. And, in many cases, these theaters brought the audiences Black-produced films. The problem, however, was that the economics of the Black community were not even close to those in the country as a whole--and most films made by these tiny independent studios were pretty poor compared to the products of the majors. While this is not always true, the acting and writing were rather suspect--and production values were pretty shabby. So, as you watch "The Duke Is Tops", cut it a bit of slack--you cannot compare a film like this to the products of MGM, Warner and the like. Yes, it's sub-par--but it's also an interesting window into the times. singer and works for a guy named 'the Duke'. The acting is the worst part--and the director (if there even was one!) didn't seem to ever re-shoot scenes in which the actors stumbled over their lines or where the singers sounded flat. Horne, who really could act, looked dreadful--and you'd never have predicted her later stardom based on her acting in this one. She's certainly not the only poor one nor the worst actor in the film--but it looks like the film was shot in only a few days--which, incidentally, it was! However, on the plus side, some of the singing is quite good and the comedy works...occasionally. Overall, it's an odd curio of a bygone era, but not a good film.
In the 1930s and 40s, due to segregation, Black people were often not allowed into movie theaters with Whites. So, Black theaters opened across the country--particularly in the South. And, in many cases, these theaters brought the audiences Black-produced films. The problem, however, was that the economics of the Black community were not even close to those in the country as a whole--and most films made by these tiny independent studios were pretty poor compared to the products of the majors. While this is not always true, the acting and writing were rather suspect--and production values were pretty shabby. So, as you watch "The Duke Is Tops", cut it a bit of slack--you cannot compare a film like this to the products of MGM, Warner and the like. Yes, it's sub-par--but it's also an interesting window into the times. singer and works for a guy named 'the Duke'. The acting is the worst part--and the director (if there even was one!) didn't seem to ever re-shoot scenes in which the actors stumbled over their lines or where the singers sounded flat. Horne, who really could act, looked dreadful--and you'd never have predicted her later stardom based on her acting in this one. She's certainly not the only poor one nor the worst actor in the film--but it looks like the film was shot in only a few days--which, incidentally, it was! However, on the plus side, some of the singing is quite good and the comedy works...occasionally. Overall, it's an odd curio of a bygone era, but not a good film.