Hollywood was a different beast in 1935. It was loud, chaotic, and often dangerously indifferent to the safety of its stars. If you look at the Call of the Wild movie Clark Gable headlined for United Artists, you aren't just seeing a Jack London adaptation. You’re seeing a collision of Golden Age ego, a massive canine co-star, and some of the most grueling location shooting ever recorded in Washington State.
Jack London’s book is a masterpiece of survival. But let's be real: movies in the thirties were about movie stars. Gable was at the absolute peak of his "King of Hollywood" powers. He had just won an Oscar for It Happened One Night. He had that mustache. He had that smirk. He was basically the only person who could share a screen with a 210-pound St. Bernard and not get completely overshadowed.
The Snow, The Dogs, and the Chaos of 1935
Most people assume these old films were shot on a cozy backlot in Burbank. Not this one. Director William Wellman—who they called "Wild Bill" for a reason—dragged the entire production up to Mount Baker. We’re talking about massive snowdrifts and sub-zero temperatures. It wasn't a set; it was an endurance test.
Gable played Jack Thornton. In the book, Thornton is a bit of a secondary figure to Buck, the dog. But because this is a Call of the Wild movie Clark Gable fans were paying to see, the script shifts the focus. It becomes a rough-and-tumble adventure about a man trying to find gold and maybe find himself along the way. Honestly, the chemistry between Gable and the dog (a massive beast named Buck, played by a St. Bernard) is better than most romantic pairings of that era.
Wellman didn't want a "clean" movie. He wanted dirt. He wanted sweat. He wanted the actors to look like they were actually freezing, mostly because they were. You can see it in Gable’s breath. That’s not a special effect. That’s 1930s realism at its most unforgiving.
📖 Related: Gwendoline Butler Dead in a Row: Why This 1957 Mystery Still Packs a Punch
Loretta Young and the Scandal Behind the Scenes
You can't talk about this film without mentioning the elephant in the room. Or rather, the scandal in the snow. Loretta Young played Claire Blake, the woman Thornton rescues. On screen, they have this simmering, intense energy. Off-screen, things got complicated. Very complicated.
It's well-documented now, though it was a tightly guarded secret for decades. During the filming of the Call of the Wild movie Clark Gable and Loretta Young had an affair that resulted in a daughter, Judy Lewis. Young went to extreme lengths to hide the pregnancy, eventually "adopting" her own child to avoid a career-ending scandal. When you watch their scenes together now, knowing that history, the tension feels remarkably heavy. It’s not just acting. It’s a moment in Hollywood history frozen in time.
How It Differs From the Jack London Classic
Purists usually hate this version. If you love the book for its "survival of the fittest" philosophy and the brutal internal monologue of the dog, this movie might annoy you. The 1935 version is much more of a Western. It’s a gold-rush bromance between a man and a dog, peppered with some 1930s romantic tropes.
- The Dog's Breed: In the book, Buck is a Scotch Shepherd/St. Bernard mix. In the Gable film, he's just a straight-up St. Bernard. He's huge. He’s fluffy. He looks like he belongs on a rescue mission in the Alps, but he carries the weight of the film surprisingly well.
- The Ending: No spoilers, but the 1935 film takes a significantly more "Hollywood" approach to Thornton’s fate compared to the grim reality London wrote.
- The Dialogue: The screenplay was worked on by Gene Fowler and Leonard Praskins. They gave Gable lines that fit his persona—tough, cynical, but ultimately gold-hearted.
Jack London wrote about the primordial beast. William Wellman directed a movie about a guy in a cool hat. Both are great, but they aren't the same thing.
👉 See also: Why ASAP Rocky F kin Problems Still Runs the Club Over a Decade Later
Why the 1935 Version Beats the Modern Remakes
We’ve had several versions since. There was the 1972 one with Charlton Heston. There was the 2020 version with Harrison Ford and a CGI dog. Honestly? The CGI dog in the 2020 version is a bit uncanny valley. It feels fake.
In the Call of the Wild movie Clark Gable starred in, the dog is real. When that dog knocks Gable over, he stays knocked over. There is a physical weight to the 1935 production that modern digital filmmaking just can't replicate. You feel the cold. You see the mud. You understand why these people were risking their lives for a few nuggets of gold.
The Technical Grit of Wild Bill Wellman
William Wellman was a pilot in World War I. He didn't have patience for "soft" actors or easy shoots. He wanted the audience to feel the environment. This is why the cinematography by Charles Rosher stands out. Rosher used the natural light of the Washington wilderness to create something that feels vast and lonely.
The 1935 film was one of the first major sound productions to really push the limits of location shooting. Usually, the heavy sound equipment of the era meant movies stayed in the studio. Wellman said "no" to that. He hauled the gear into the mountains.
✨ Don't miss: Ashley My 600 Pound Life Now: What Really Happened to the Show’s Most Memorable Ashleys
It’s worth noting that the production was plagued by storms. The cast and crew were frequently snowed in. Gable, ever the outdoorsman, reportedly loved it—at least at first. He spent his downtime hunting and drinking with the locals, which only added to his "rugged man" reputation. He wasn't just playing a gold hunter; he was living like one for a few months.
The Supporting Cast You Might Miss
While Gable and Young are the draw, Jack Oakie provides the comic relief as "Shorty" Hoolihan. Every 30s movie needed a sidekick, and Oakie was one of the best. He keeps the movie from getting too depressing. Then you have Reginald Owen as the villainous Mr. Smith. He’s the kind of guy you just want to see get bitten by a dog from the moment he appears on screen. He’s pompous, cruel, and represents the "civilization" that London’s story suggests we should all escape.
Is It Worth a Watch Today?
Absolutely. But you have to view it through a specific lens. Don't look at it as a faithful adaptation of a literary classic. Look at it as a historical artifact of a time when movie stars were larger than life.
The Call of the Wild movie Clark Gable made is a testament to his charisma. He’s one of the few actors who can make a line about a dog sound like a philosophical statement. Even when the plot wanders into "typical 1930s romance" territory, Gable pulls it back with a look or a rough gesture.
If you're a fan of classic cinema, the 1935 version is the gold standard for this story. It has a soul. It has real snow. It has a real dog that probably wanted to eat the craft services table.
Actionable Insights for Film Buffs
- Watch for the Chemistry: Pay close attention to the scenes between Gable and Loretta Young. Knowing their real-life history changes the subtext of almost every exchange.
- Compare the Dogs: If you’ve seen the 2020 Harrison Ford version, watch the 1935 version immediately after. Notice how much more "present" the dog feels when it’s an actual animal and not a collection of pixels.
- Check the Credits: Look for William Wellman’s directorial flourishes—he often uses wide shots to show the insignificance of humans against the backdrop of nature.
- Read the Book First: To truly appreciate where the movie succeeds (and where it fails), spend an afternoon with Jack London’s novella. It's short, brutal, and provides the perfect context for Gable's performance.
The 1935 film isn't just a movie; it's a piece of Hollywood lore. It captures a moment when the industry was transitionary—still rough around the edges, still willing to head into the mountains with a camera and a prayer, and still dominated by stars who lived as hard as the characters they played.