Reviews

Normand's reputation is that she was a superbly gifted and beloved comedienne whose career was thwarted by scandal and her own reckless behavior. Having just read Lefler's "Mabel Normand The Life and Career of a Hollywood Madcap', I was surprised to learn that 'Mickey' - a HUGE box-office success - was in the public domain and available. This film was so popular it was in continual theatrical release for 4 years - an astonishing feat! - when the average film run was 2 weeks.

So I watched it. On YouTube. Not the ideal venue, of course, but even so, I fail to see why this film was so popular. Lefler explains the historical context for it's appeal to audiences, but still, 'Mickey' seems to me to be rather ordinary. And worse, I fail to see that Normand was superbly gifted as a comedienne. The biggest laughs - and there were too few of these - were provided by the dog - a good foil for Normand.

Because this film is historically important, it deserves to be given a top-tier restoration. Maybe the multi-million dollar Hollywood actors and producers can be cajoled into donating some of their millions for this purpose. Preserving the films of the industry of which they are a part should be to them a cause worthy of their support, one that is no less important - and definitely more achievable - than saving the planet.

This film - which is a psychological melodrama, not noir - has 4 flaws: 1. The title. A noir would be titled "Guilty Secrets" or "Murder Will Out" or similar. 2. Lizabeth Scott. Her role as love interest to Sam is superfluous. And the character she plays - a weepy sad sack - is annoying. 3. The film is titled "The Strange Love of Martha Ivers", and yet SAM is the main character. Really, this is HIS film, not Martha's. 4. The 30-minute backstory takes up too much screen time. The wait for Stanwyck and the other grownups to appear seems endless.

The 3 leads are perfect, but Heflin is the most perfect. A round of applause goes to the screenwriter for putting all those wise and witty words in Sam's mouth, which made his character so likable. And a raspberry goes to the star-building producer for giving so much screen time to Scott.

This is a Dietrich film, her last starring role at her home studio, Paramount. She is supported by 2 of the top Hollywood leading men - Douglas and Marshall - and dressed sumptuously by Travis Banton. The film should have been a money-maker for its studio, but apparently it was too sophisticated for the small-town public and she became 'Box Office Poison' after its release. Variety, in its disparaging but humorous review, said that you could hang coats from Dietrich's eyelashes. I attentively kept an eye on those eyelashes and have to admit that they ARE long, but not long enough to hang a coat on.

I liked this film. I especially liked Dietrich's aristocrat diplomat husband - Marshall - devoted to duty to fend off WW2. And I liked Dietrich. She has servants who attend to all personal and household tasks and therefore she has nothing to do. She is bored. She flies to Paris and has a romantic evening with a stranger - Douglas - a piano playing playboy who is infatuated with her. In the end she chooses the man who is the only one who can give her the happiness she craves. Females can learn a trick or 2 or more re how to attract and keep a man from closely observing Dietrich in this film. In what was once common terminology, she is a "man's woman." How times and the culture have changed.

BTW, 'Angel', although it has bits of comedy supplied by the servants, is not a comedy, but is instead a light-hearted, sophisticated marital drama.

The way to enjoy this film is to ignore McLaglen, an otherwise fine actor. His perpetual clenched-jaw grin is beyond odd, and yet I assume he's obeying Von Sternberg's orders to play agent X-27s love interest in this repellent manner. No matter. The love story, the plot, are irrelevant. Dietrich is the reason this film is mesmerizing.

As expected, there are fabulous costumes that only Dietrich can wear and look enchanting. And lots of cigarettes being smoked in those glittery costumes. And that soft voice making the word 'No' seductive. Dietrich doesn't move in a straight line, rather she sways and spins from point A to point B. Then in a surprising change of pace, she plays a peasant girl working as a hotel maid stealing military secrets from Lew Cody. How fortunate we are, 85 years later, to be able to watch this film - again and again - on DVD.

The DVD claims this 1938 box office flop is hilarious, but it's not. The scriptwriters give Grant a believable character and consistently funny lines, but his partner, Hepburn, is incapable of being a dizzy, dopey, screwball girl who, having met Grant on the day before his wedding, is determined to win him. She's gorgeous, but insufferably obnoxious and as irritating as poison ivy. And what, pray tell, is a leopard doing in the story?

This boring comedy is considered a classic because ... Hepburn and Grant have become, in the decades since 1938, movie icons. At least 4 of Hepburn's films are among my top favorites, but this one, peeeuuu. In Hepburn's defense, this was an impossible role. None of her fellow screwballs - Irene Dunne, Jean Arthur, Claudette Colbert, Carole Lombard - could have made this nutcase irresistibly adorable. BTW, Baby, the leopard, and George, the dog, turn in top notch performances.

Long-suffering womanhood – the turf of Ruth Chatterton - is NOT what I want from a Garbo film. And to hear her called Susie – good grief – this is Garbo, not Janet Gaynor. In this sob-sister story, Susan is a character who rises above victimhood to become a woman in control of herself and her life. And Rodney is the impetus for her transformation. But, like Robert Montgomery's Andre in Inspiration, Gable's Rodney spurns Susan because she's been unfaithful. Unfaithful – how much better and more evocative that title would have been than Susan Lenox, Her Fall and Rise.

In this on-again off-again love story, Garbo is convincing as a woman who spends years chasing after Rodney, who repeatedly rejects her, because, she says, "I know he loves me." Amazingly - or not so amazingly since this is Hollywood - as it turns out, Susan is right. He does love her. During the years that's she's been rising from the gutter and he's been falling into the male version of the gutter – alcohol and laboring in steamy tropical jungles – he's loved her. Gable was well-cast and is convincing as a man who knows how to love a woman, but has difficulty forgiving.

Although the script is as faulty as the story, and despite the paucity of jaw-dropping costumes, any film Garbo appears in is worth seeing. And adding Gable is frosting on the cake. 2 months after Susan Lenox arrived in theatres, Mata Hari was released. Now THAT's a story fit for Garbo.

10 stars for Garbo - whose acting is as true today as in 1931. Barrymore is 10 stars too, even though today his acting appears hammy - but I like the hammy acting of the Barrymore brothers. The plot is irrelevant, and to rate the film on the basis of plot cohesiveness and truthfulness is silly. If one wants the "truth", watch a documentary. Garbo is the reason why this film is held in high regard. And how enjoyable it is to watch Garbo toy with her lovers and outsmart her adversaries, until she makes the fatal mistake of falling in love with her prey. As the object of her affections, Navarro is inadequate, which makes it hard to believe that Garbo/Mata would fall in love with him. The role calls for someone dashing, someone who could look like he was caught up in a grand passion, rather than wallowing in puppy love. Someone who could wring tears from the audience as he lies in a hospital bed, his face bandaged, his eyes blind. Would Gary Cooper be dashing enough? John Gilbert too old (at 31)?

Also co-starring and serving with distinction is Adrian, whose many costumes for Garbo, designed to drive the men in Mata's life wild with desire - to say nothing of the envious women in the movie theatres who slink around their kitchens in cotton aprons - contribute greatly to the aura of glamour and sophistication that Garbo/Mata exudes so abundantly.

Regardless of the film's straying from the facts - which themselves are disputable - this Garbo Vehicle ranks with the best of the films she made in her 17-year career at MGM.

Any Garbo film deserves 10 stars - just because she's in it. She is what makes this otherwise not believable story worth seeing. Unlike Crawford or Shearer, only Garbo could turn this dross into gold. The major weakness is the object of her love - Robert Montgomery. I've read that Montgomery in interviews refuses to talk about this film, his only co-starring role with Garbo. And having now seen the film, the reason for his reticence is plain. How he must have squirmed in his seat at the film's premiere, for both the role and his performance are mediocre. The young Clark Gable - an MGM contract player like Montgomery - would have been better cast and would have explained why Yvonne was smitten with him.

My favorite scene is where at the beginning of their affair Andre is finishing breakfast in the hotel's romantic and idyllic park-like setting when Yvonne arrives with a gift of flowers for him. Yvonne is no longer bored by life and the men in her life. She is in love! Yvonne has inspired love in all the male artists who have been her former lovers (established in the early party scene) but none have inspired love in her. Nor, ironically, does she inspire true love in Andre. How is that possible? Regardless of her past lifestyle - which does not seem so unrespectable to today's audience - in the end, Yvonne makes the right choice and does what's best for the both of them.

Was curious to see Gish in a talkie as well as a film in which William de Mille and his screenwriter wife Clara Beranger were involved. The NYT reviewer praised it. Expectations were raised. The result was disappointment. But even with no expectations, I would have been disappointed.

This film is on the Mill Creek Comedy Collection that I'm watching. Despite a few comedy elements, this is not a comedy. And Roland Young does not give a laugh-producing performance. The trouble he gets himself into by being a mouse is not believable. However, from the moment Gish enters the story, because of her pragmatic yet eccentric character, the film becomes interesting. Alice's view of how to live and be happy is so unusual and so mesmerizing that I want to know more about her. I'm now motivated to read Bennett's novel.

The filmmakers had wonderful story material to work with, so it's puzzling as to why the end product is not wonderful. But thanks to the tip from another IMDb reviewer, I'll watch the 1943 remake with Monty Wooley and Laird Cregar. The only disappointment I'm expecting from the remake is that Gish will not be in it.

One dose of these 2 is enough for me. There's another O & J film included in this Mill Creek comedy collection, but no thanks. Hope and Crosby, also wise-cracking would-be con artists in their Road pictures, show by contrast how inferior Olsen & Johnson are as film comedians.

Watched this film just to see Joyce Compton in one of her dumb blonde roles. She's fabulous. But it was irritating to watch O & J routinely belittle and mistreat her. Shockingly, they drove away from the café, miles from their destination, leaving her behind in the dust. However, to her character's credit, she takes no notice of their meanness, catches up to them, and continues to be loyal to these louts. Also enjoyed seeing Lila Lee, a major star in silent films, in a sizable support role.

10 stars for Compton. Zero stars for the 2 stars.

This film is based on the 1922 play, renamed "Who's Who" - a better title than "Lonely Wives" - that starred Charles Ruggles. While Ruggles would have been perfection as Smith/Zero, this film version is hilarious, due primarily to the inventive comedic performance of Horton. Also superb are the butler - a tippler who thinks he's going crazy - and Horton's guard dog mother-in-law. It's a pleasure to watch the adorable Ralston, La Plante, and Miller - 3 femme stars from the silent era who have featured roles - contribute so deftly to the merriment. As the plot thickens, the tempo speeds up so that the second half is a whirl of exits, entrances and misunderstandings. Surprisingly, but believably, all wrongs are righted in the end.

Even though this film from the Mill Creek comedy collection was a poor visual and audio transfer from a TV showing, it's amazing just how good this comedy is and how much I enjoyed it.

Actually, the story is an original screenplay written by the film's director. But it's still pulp. The plot is UNcredible. The romance - if that's what it is - between Skip and Candy is UNbelievable. But neither one of these "faults" detracts one iota from enjoying this film to the max.

I'm amazed that all the scenes and sets were built and filmed inside the Fox studio. It has the look and feel of having been filmed on location, in the actual streets and waterfront of NYC, in July. And the actors, especially Joey, are sweating. Realism is achieved under the hot studio lights.

The film benefits from not casting Marilyn Monroe - who was deemed to be too sweet and innocent to play Candy - and instead, the director cast Peters. Her performance is stellar. And that goes double for Widmark. It's a plus for the film that the lead actors are not 50s mega stars. The actors in the 3 other substantial roles, are also superb.

The communist storyline didn't bother me, nor did it negatively date the film. 1953, after all, was a time of fear - fear of juvenile delinquents, dope fiends, aliens from outer space, polio, and the Cold War. The story moves at a fast clip, fast enough to keep the viewer involved in turning the pages, so to speak. And the climactic scene at the end where Skip and Joey slug it out in the subway station is knuckle-chewing excitement.

I had no preconceived ideas about what to expect when I checked out the DVD from the library. Total involvement, which rarely happens for me when watching films made later than the 20s and 30s, is what happened. I hit the jackpot with this one.

. . . but that didn't stop Warner Bros from trying to manufacture another. And failing. One minute listening to the high-pitched warbler and I hit the fast-forward button. Because this slapstick-teary eyes-opera and harmonicas-family values-melodrama film has some likable features, I will probably watch it again, but next time I'll use the mute button. Did 1942 audiences like what they were hearing? Did audiences like Gloria Warren? What an annoying personality. Non-stop smiling and perky cheerfulness. Depressing to watch her. I also fast-forwarded through the highjinks of the 3 kids chasing each other around the house. The Buster Brown bobbed kid gets my vote for most obnoxious child actor ever to appear on the silver screen.

What are the fabulous Kay Francis and Walter Huston doing in this B-movie? Warners should have made them the focus of the story, rather than the kids. Francis is so warm and loving and likable - a mother unlike any I've ever known in real life. And it's no contest between the grizzled Huston and his rich rival for Francis hand in marriage. One has star power and the other does not.

Although I'm certain home life in real American homes was not as warm and cozy as in Francis home, I liked it in the same way I like Judge Hardy's happy home. But I wonder, was it realistic that in 1942 a man would walk through an open door into a strangers living room and be welcomed by a teenage girl who is alone and practicing her high notes at the piano? If so, life in America has certainly changed in the last 70 years. But seeing how life was in the Hollywood version of the good old days is one of the major pleasures to be had from watching old movies.

Here we have a comedy about 3 American heiresses who married into British aristocracy and how they coped with their loveless marriages. Of the 3, Pearl/Bennett has coped especially well, having made herself the leader of the Smart Set. But her success as a titled lady of leisure is a lot of hard work. While Maugham's story is passe today, as it may have been in 1933, still, it's very entertaining, loaded with laughs and chuckles. Bennett is superb. She is so much fun to watch as she gets herself into trouble and then, against the odds, gets herself out. Drawing-room comedy suits her and is the direction she should have continued to travel. Bennett would have been wonderful as Amanda in Coward's "Private Lives", but MGM's Thalberg owned the rights, and in 1931, while Bennett was playing suffering womanhood, Shearer played Amanda.

Gilbert Roland was cast as the gold digger and did very well in a role that others, including Bennett's frequent costar, Joel McCrea, would have found impossible to play. The Duchesse demonstrates that furs and a little tricorn hat produce the illusion of beauty, if not youth.

Ernest, necessary to the plot, makes a surprise appearance at the end of the film, in a scene exactly as Maugham wrote it. However, while Maugham's stage directions describe Ernest as "overwhelmingly gentlemanly . . . speaks in mincing tones" it does not say that his face was a smear of eye shadow and lipstick. What possessed Cukor anyway? Ernest is a likable character and doesn't need garish makeup to deliver the very funny lines Maugham wrote for him.

The opening 2 scenes with husband George were not in the play. Apparently they were added to provide motivation as to why Pearl is the way she is and to make Pearl/Bennett sympathetic to audiences. Was this ruse successful? Variety's reviewer wrote, "Miss Bennett goes wicked early and stays that way to the finish. That she shows no sign of repenting or changing her ways will be difficult to justify with many of her best customers." Bennett's box-office popularity was slipping away. She had to escape the baby formula that made her a Star and change her image in order to attract new fans without losing her old fans. This was a difficult problem which Our Betters did not solve.

This film will not get boring with repeat viewings. In spite of its imperfections, I intend to watch it repeatedly. After 82 years, the comedy and Bennett are still bright. Therefore, it rates a 10.

This is an excellent film and if a "clear and bright" copy exists, it deserves to be reissued. Even though some scenes of the Televista release are marred by "snow" and the entirety is less than sharp, the picture quality is tolerable. The musical score is a mixture of appropriate and inappropriate accompaniment and should be redone.

I especially liked the scene where Dresser, now coiffed and dressed as a Grand Dame, ventures forth into a room of reporters and becomes the star she used to be. Clothes do make the woman. The makeover also has the magical effect of restoring her humanity and mother love. As for the ending, if you have tears, prepare to shed them now.

Jack Pickford, oftentimes today slighted as an actor, is excellent, his performance subtle and moving. Jack looks great - no sign of dissipation from the alcohol he abused or drugs that he is supposed to have abused. In fact, with his Valentino face, it's easy to see why he was catnip to the ladies in real life. As for the other actors, they all give natural performances. It's a mistaken idea that silent film actors expressed themselves using exaggerated cartoon gestures. That type of acting ended when Jack's sister, Mary, rose to stardom in 1914.

A favorite though uncredited actor is the pet goose. There's a charming scene of a determined Dresser marching down the road with the goose, equally determined to go along, waddling and running behind her. A welcome bit of gentle comedy relief.

According to the excellent documentary on Grable included on the DVD, she had been making films since 1929, and this one, made when she was 24, made her a star. For the next 10 plus years she topped popularity polls as she sang and danced in Fox technicolor musicals. Her looks and pizazz in this film reminded me of Lana Turner, before she too became a mega star. Betty is adorable. Women liked her and men said, "I want to marry a girl just like the girl that married Harry James." The boys in khaki didn't say that about Lana when she married Artie Shaw.

Betty was primarily a dancer and her specialty number in the last few minutes, wearing an "Argentine" ruffled costume and shaking her shoulders with a bit of oomph at the close, showed her wow power. Down Argentine Way is a sure cure for the blues. Betty, as well as that dynamic dancing duo, the Nicholas Brothers, are guaranteed to banish drooping spirits and put a smile on your face.

Constance Bennett brings vim and vigor to this soppy story of maternal longings. In Bennett's most recent hit movie, What Price Hollywood, she said, "I can't have a baby in every picture", but in that film, and in Rockabye, no kidding, there's a baby. In Bennett's private life, as all fan mag readers knew, between marriages Bennett had adopted a baby and was raising it as a single, working mom. This was unusual in 1932, but as fan mag readers also knew, Bennett did as she pleased. In Rockabye, Bennett, a celebrated Hollywood star with an adopted baby, plays Judy, a celebrated stage star adopting a baby. A case of art imitating life. Did Bennett's femme fan base vicariously see themselves in Bennett's character, a lone woman with child? Not likely, as Judy did not struggle alone to raise an adorable tyke but had multiple hands assisting - namely a nanny, nurse, governess, cook, and her own mother, plus a male presence in the person of her doting manager. Did Bennett's femme fan base wonder why Bennett didn't marry first and then pursue motherhood? Did the adoption agency wonder? Did audiences wonder why Bennett, at the peak of her Star Power, insisted on making this never produced and unproducible play?

Bennett is fabulous and gives a wonderful and lively performance. In films prior to What Price Hollywood Bennett was passive, even lethargic. In Rockabye she kicks up her heels, sings in a speakeasy with the pals of her youth, gets frisky with scrambled eggs and balloons, and has a rollicking good time with her new love. I suspect Bennett was playing herself, a free-spirit who thumbed her nose at conventions. Bennett too is believable in the script's hard-to-swallow scenes of sorrow and sacrifice. Variety's reviewer wrote, "This actress is one of the few who can somehow achieve conviction in just such stagey things" and "She is accountable for practically all its merits."

How did the public respond to Rockabye? After the opening in New York, Variety predicted it would do well, as all Bennett films had done. Bennett's biographer wrote that it was a colossal box-office flop. TCM wrote that RKO records showed it was a respectable hit and grossed slightly more than the very successful What Price Hollywood. So it was a flop and a hit? Maybe it was both. After a disastrous preview of Rockabye, the film was remade with a new director and costars. This would have doubled production costs and resulted in a loss, regardless of grosses. RKO then wised up - in future, no more babies.

10 stars for Bennett. 0 stars for story.

An American artist in Paris falls in love with his model and wants to marry her, but she say's no. They argue and part. Bennett is beautiful and bohemian. McCrea is handsome and conventional. They meet again at a wild Artist's ball, Bennett wearing a gown and skull cap of glittering sequins that's a knockout. She's irresistibly charming as she woos herself back into the arms of the grumpy object of her affections.

This was another Bennett blockbuster. Variety's reviewer wrote, "It's from the customary Bennett mold (that) will make each a little less strong at the b.o." Those words proved prophetic. Reviewer also criticized the star's acting, "It's becoming as stereotyped as the stories themselves." I liked Bennett's acting, but what awful posture. On the other hand, Hedda Hopper knows how to stand up straight and keep her hands where they belong, but she can't act. Everyone else acts A-OK. The plot of this "risqué" movie is irrelevant. The only reason to watch it - then or now - is to see Bennett work her magic. That's why she was paid $5000 a week.

They don't make 'em like this anymore. But the weeper genre was popular with the ladies once upon a time, and Bennett led the pack of martyrs. Her suffering in Born to Love is all the sadder because it could have been so easily avoided if she had just answered her husband's questions frankly and fully. But not Bennett. Her evasiveness followed by her unforgivably cruel words turned this kindly man's love for her into hate. But still, she didn't deserve what she got.

Variety's reviewer wrote of the plot, "Constance Bennett is ruined again and has another baby" and "How the women love it, that sobbing stuff." Bennett's hand-wringing and heavy emoting was criticized, but I thought her acting was exactly how her character would respond to the shocks the script writers threw at her. Regardless, Variety saw the film's box-office potential, "Bennett isn't much of an actress here but still drawing as ever because of this story." Only a year after this huge hit, the drawing power of Bennett and stories like Born to Love would lose favor with fickle moviegoers, and she and her producers were unable to keep her career from sliding downhill until Topper reinvented her as a sophisticated comedienne.

This was Joel McCrea's first (of 4) teamings with Bennett as well as his first major role. He's wonderful to watch and Bennett's undying love for him is believable. Cavanaugh is excellent and manages to be sympathetic even while being cold-hearted and vengeful.

The film's theme is honor in its various guises and how concealing the truth to preserve a dead man's honor brings misery to all concerned. The opening subtitles tell us that Garbo/Diana is a gallant lady. The viewer needs to be told this for otherwise we would conclude that her suffering as well as the suffering caused others was needlessly brought about by her foolish error in judgment.

Garbo is perfection in her shifting moods - first as a young woman in love, playful and happy with her true love, Gilbert, then when she makes that fateful mistake which she thinks brings honor to herself, and so on right up to her death 10 years later after her self-image of an honorable woman has been taken from her.

Gilbert's role is subsidiary, not sympathetic, and of all things, boring. Most surprising, he lacks fire, There's no passion in his scenes with Diana, except in a late scene in his rooms where Diana breaks through his defenses, telling him she never said "I love you" to any of the other men in her life, only to Gilbert, and that makes her virtuous in Gilbert's code of morality. The actor who does exhibit fire is the young Douglas Fairbanks Jr, whose self-loathing is redirected to a passionate hatred of his sister.

I liked Garbo's action in the reconciliation scene where she walks over to Gilbert's father with an unlit cigarette and when he strikes a match she takes out her lighter and lights it herself, thereby emphasizing that she will not bow again to his idea of honor. I also liked the director's choice of showing the widow Diana's 7-year exile in Europe through a series of newspaper photos and their captions. This expedient kept the story focused on the interactions of the main characters. And THE main character, Garbo, is so superb that the script problems make no difference to one's enjoyment of this flawed film.

This film was made right after the successful What Price Hollywood, which was a departure from Bennett's string of confession stories that made her the highest paid actress in the business. In this film, Bennett is even better. The plot is familiar - the only surprise being that Bennett's wastrel brother doesn't get what he deserves - but the plot doesn't matter. This is the story of a girl who meets the man she can happily live with for the rest of her life, though there is a big bump enroute to the happy ending. Bennett is reteamed with Neil Hamilton - her love interest in What Price Hollywood - and he proves that he's the man who can tame this privileged rich girl, who thinks traffic signs and no smoking in the elevator don't apply to her.

In 1932 Bennett was getting bad press for her high-hat ways and big spender habits, so the scriptwriters wrote a scene in Hamilton's law office where she gives $100 to his destitute client with a promise of more to come. Hamilton says approvingly, "That was a very nice thing for you to do", which the audience could hardly fail to approve of as well, thereby softening her image.

Bennett/Dell is confident and flirtatious, a young woman who goes after what she wants, and it's immediately evident that she wants the not rich Hamilton, who is smitten with her at first sight. Bennett is gorgeous, stunning in her furs and hats and gowns. Her acting throughout is spot on, and in the climatic courtroom scene she is impressive. Her moods on the witness stand shift from haughtiness to fear to relief and then to suspense as prosecutor Hamilton stares at her for a nerve wracking minute before speaking.

Bennett had a wider range than she's reputed to have, wider than Shearer and Crawford, neither of whom could do comedy. This film should have been the beginning of a long career with one triumphant film following another. Instead, it was the beginning of the end of her stardom. And why Hamilton didn't become a major star like Bennett's frequent movie partner, Joel McCrea, is another mystery.

Constance Bennett is terrific in this not so terrific film. Late in life she told an interviewer she was no Sarah Bernhardt but her self-appraisal was off target and doesn't apply to her performance as the outcast lady. MGM filmed this story in 1929 with Garbo and audience comparison of the 2 interpretations may have been a factor in the 1934 version's box-office failure. Or maybe it was something else.

In the early scenes Iris is a young woman in love, bubbling with happiness, for she's about to marry her true love, played by Herbert Marshall. But Marshall is miscast. He's too old to play Napier, Iris childhood playmate, who allows his father to make major life decisions for him. Iris and Napier don't marry. Years later, Iris marries 'Boy', a man with a secret, which she discovers on her wedding day. Boy's response to her discovery is incredible. Iris then makes her own incredible decision that results in the ruination of those she loves as well as herself. Iris tells a lie. This saves Boy's reputation while destroying her own. More years later, the truth is revealed, but it's too late to be of use to anyone. That Bennett succeeds in making these incredible happenings credible is impressive.

And Bennett is graceful and alluring on the dance floor. A wonderful scene shows the pleasure seeking merry widow in her Adrian gown dancing the tango in a nightclub on the Riviera. She does appear to be enjoying herself and her partner. But we know better. Under that gay exterior there beats the broken heart of a noble woman. Or something like that.

Variety's reviewer wrote, "It's a very good acting job by Constance Bennett and if the story hadn't been such a patch-quilt it might have been one of her memorable performances." I agree. The story is to blame. BTW, the secret Iris guarded is somewhat mysterious. Being referred to as Boy's "purity" has misled today's viewers, but the audience of 1934, especially the males, would have known that Boy had a disease, at that time incurable and considered so shameful that it was spoken of only in confidence with one's doctor. MGM's genius producer, Irving Thalberg, as well as the Production Code were responsible for this hash.

In order to seduce a rich publisher, Bennett, posing as a newspaper interviewer, wears spectacles. In spite of beauty disguised, Halliday tumbles into her trap. The morning after a boozed-filled night, and although he's wise to her game, what does Halliday do? He tells his valet he'll be apartment hunting that day. Within 12 hours Bennett lands herself in a Bed of Roses.

Soon after, Bennett, having grown accustomed to maid service and her super-deluxe apartment, tires of luxury. The pampered and bored Bennett yearns for love - in the handsome face and figure of Joel McCrea. She decides she will find her happiness on his cotton barge sailing up and down the Mississippi. Halliday tells her she'll tire of river boating and cooking and cleaning and looking after McCrea after the honeymoon euphoria wears off- and I agree.

The film's message is that a girl won't find lasting happiness in feathers and furs - true - but in self-respect - true - and romance - false. Except for the first 15 minutes of tawdry sordidness where I wondered why Bennett agreed to make this film, I enjoyed watching the Bad Girl turn herself into a Good Girl.

Bennett's screen image was that of a sophisticated girl who knew how to take care of herself and get what she wanted. Her fans (wrote Griffith & Mayer) believed she would get out of traps that would hold them fast. Surprisingly then, in this film she's passive, unambitious and defeated at the ripe old age of 20 something. Makes me wonder what her benefactor, Menjou, saw in her that kept him interested for several years.

The beginning scene in the tenement apartment is terrific, the crowded setting warm and cozy as the family members get ready to start the day. The entire cast is perfect. Gable is very watchable and it's easy to see he would soon be a star. Montgomery is charming and believable when he tells Bennett he knows about her and Menjou but he loves her and wants to marry her as long as there is no more dilly dallying with Menjou. Rambeau is especially good in the scene where she refuses to loan Bennett $100 (a lot of money in 1931), telling her to get off her high horse and do what Rambeau does to support herself. And the generous but not-the-marrying-kind Menjou is likable and his suits are beautifully cut and fitted.

And Anita Page is excellent. A commenter asks what happened to Page's career. In 1930 Page was a star. In 1931 she was a supporting player. In 1933 her MGM contract was not renewed and she retired. Studio politics is what happened to the star who was second in popularity to Garbo.

So there was another ending filmed but not used. My guess is that a despairing Bennett jumped onto the RR tracks, ala Anna Karenina, or teamed up with Rambeau as a I-hate-men gold digger.