Soitenly
Moronika
The community forum of ThreeStooges.net

Trouble in Paradise (1932) - Miriam Hopkins, Kay Francis, Herbert Marshall

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline metaldams

  https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x246hmy

Watch TROUBLE IN PARADISE in the link above


      TROUBLE IN PARADISE is a very different type of comedy than what I normally review.  While it would be unfair of me to say nobody who frequents Three Stooges boards would watch a film like this, I am going to guess it’s less of you than Abbott and Costello or The Marx Brothers.  Show the previously mentioned comedians to a six or seven year old and a lot of them will get it and remain fans for life.  Show them TROUBLE IN PARADISE?  Way too adult, way over their heads.  This is the world of screwball comedy where clever writing and really messed up adult relationships are front and center.  It is inhabited by straighter looking characters and actors and actresses who are signed for a film to play comedy, not basing their careers on a single comic character.  In this case, the stars of this sex and theft love triangle are Miriam Hopkins, Kay Francis and Herbert Marshall.  Most of you will know Kay Francis as the villainess in THE COCOANUTS, but they all had established careers far beyond comedy.  TROUBLE IN PARADISE is also a director’s film, as Ernst Lubitsch gets above the title billing.  A man worshipped by the auteur crowd (which I’m less a part of the older I get), who indeed directed many a classic Hollywood and German silent in his day.  Check out his filmography, quite impressive.  Writer Samson Raphaelson deserves a ton of credit for bringing this film to life as well.

      OK, so if you notice in a lot of my Abbott and Costello reviews, I will state the plot is nonsensical and it’s usually OK if there are a few good routines and the comedians themselves act funny.  Those films are simple pleasures and I like them that way.  In the case of TROUBLE IN PARADISE, the plot and writing are central to the appreciation of this film, so I don’t know how to review this without spoilers.  To those of you who have never seen this movie and do not want spoilers, do not read beyond this paragraph.  Just know I recommend this film if you’re in the mood for a well directed, well acted, well written, clever comedy about a love triangle involving thieves and narcissists.  It has a pre code eroticism throughout and is fun to watch.  For you non spoiler people, end of review.

      For those of you who have seen this or don’t care about spoilers, the film opens with a brilliant shot of a man on the ground in the aftermath of a robbery and pans to Gaston Monescu (Herbert Marshall) in his balcony with his butler awaiting a romantic evening.  The dialogue here is fantastic, from the butler’s sycophant yes man routine to Gaston telling the butler, “It must be a marvelous supper.  We may not eat it, but it must be marvelous.”  Once the lady - Lily Vautier (Hopkins) arrives, she is rambling about all the countesses and barons and other variety of royalty she ran into on the way.  She’s afraid being seen going into Gaston’s house for a one night rendezvous will get around and ruin her reputation.  Layer by layer, the pretense for both characters falls off.  Lily takes a phone call where she’s pretending to be of high society on the outside, but a shot revealing the other end of the call shows she lives in a tenement and is a commoner looking for adventure.  Then when Gaston and Lily are eating dinner, Lily reveals to Gaston she knows he was the thief who robbed the man in the opening shot of the film.  It is then slowly revealed they have been robbing each other all night, all in a casual manner, mind you.  She robbed his wallet and watch and him her diamond pin and garter - yes, her garter.  When the mask falls off and both realize they are thieves and not high society, they embrace and fall in love.  The way each character gets unmasked is a brilliant piece of writing.

      The third person in the love triangle is Madame Mariette Colet, a rich heiress from her much older deceased husband’s perfume company.  She purchases a 125,000 franc diamond purse that gets stolen by Gaston.  When she posts an ad of a 20,000 franc reward to anybody who finds the purse, Gaston returns it and the love triangle begins.  Gaston displays knowledge of what brand lipstick and powder she should wear,  interior design and what she should do with her money.  His charming manner in addition to his knowledge on such things convinces Madame Colet to hire Gaston as her secretary.  Lily also gets hired separately, so the cat and mouse game of sex and larceny begins.  Madame Colet reveals herself to be very controlling towards men, toying around with two suitors she has no desire to be with (played by old Hollywood stalwarts Charles Ruggles and  Edward Everett Horton) and flat out admits her controlling nature to Gaston towards the end of the film.  So three very controlling and manipulative characters and in the end, Gaston and Lily do end up in a wonderful come full circle ending.  I know I said spoilers allowed, but even I don’t have the heart to give away the ending gag here.  Let’s just say another clever piece of writing and it left me with a satisfied feeling.

      A few fun touches throughout the film include the yes sir montages of all the servants.  The one with Gaston is awesome.  The second to last shot is of a maid who doesn’t say yes, but instead says maybe.  Then after that, in a pre code eye popper, we get Kay Francis in shorts, back on the ground and legs WAY back over her head getting a yes from Gaston if this position is OK.  For me to accurately describe the position, I would have to consult my Kama Sutra.  Stuff like this was just not allowed once the code came in.  There is also a great scene at a party where Gaston is talking to female guests behind a screen door so we don’t hear anything.  Madame Colet confronts him.  We hear no dialogue, but the pantomime obviously displays both her displeasure and him charming his way out of it making all well.  Very tasteful storytelling device.

      So yeah, TROUBLE IN PARADISE is a screwball comedy in a much different vain than what is usually discussed here, but is absolutely worth watching.  A very clever and adult film that can get the armchair psychiatrists in us going all day, and it’s pretty funny as well.  Highly recommended.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline Dr. Mabuse

"The Lubitsch Touch" at its most sublime. Unseen for decades thanks to the Production Code, the refreshingly adult "Trouble in Paradise" (1932) gets better with age. You couldn't ask for a more stylish love triangle than Miriam Hopkins, Kay Francis and Herbert Marshall — surrounded by colorful supporting players and Hans Dreier's impressive Art Deco sets. Screenwriter Samson Raphaelson delivers a treasure trove of urbane dialogue. Ernst Lubitsch's masterpiece and the epitome of sophisticated filmmaking.

10/10


Offline Umbrella Sam

  • Toastmaster General
  • Knothead
  • *****
    • Talk About Cinema
Well, that was different. Normally, I’m not really a fan of these types of “love affair” pre-Code films, but I do have to admit that Lubitsch’s style did make for a fascinating film. I’m familiar with two of Lubitsch’s films-TO BE OR NOT TO BE and THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER. I like both of them, although it does seem as though Lubitsch made more of an effort with this film to be less conventional. The way he opens the film definitely does not feel typical; it almost feels Ike he’s throwing you into a random plot immediately, which is something I hate, but rather he’s just gradually introducing these characters through pieced together actions and dialogue that eventually unmask Gaston and Lily. It actually does seem rather clever and unconventional, something that becomes more and more clear throughout the film as Lubitsch employs devices like the montages.

The acting in the movie is pretty good too. Herbert Marshall, Miriam Hopkins and Kay Francis are all convincing as manipulative characters that often can charm each other out of certain situations. A lot of the film revolves around them and not many supporting characters, so it’s especially important that Lubitsch chose three leads capable of playing such roles.

As a comedy, I really didn’t find all that much to be funny about it. The only moments I really ever found myself laughing at either involved really fast talking or the two ROCKY AND BULLWINKLE SHOW narrators-I mean, the major and Francois-trying to make conversation with each other. I think part of the issue may have just been that I was never really sure I understood everything that was going on. Obviously, I understood the main plot involving the love triangle, but I never really got the point of little things like the recurring stairs gag, for example.

Overall, I do think this film deserves a lot of respect for all the effort that went in, but it’s not something I’d really go out of my way to see whenever it’s on. I’m not going to rate it because I just flat out don’t know what to rate something that I don’t entirely understand. It’s an interesting movie for sure and I can see lots of people enjoying it for its clever storytelling techniques; it just happens to be part of a genre that I’m not a particular fan of.
“I’ll take a milkshake...with sour milk!” -Shemp (Punchy Cowpunchers, 1950)

My blog: https://talk-about-cinema.blogspot.com


Offline metaldams

Well, that was different. Normally, I’m not really a fan of these types of “love affair” pre-Code films, but I do have to admit that Lubitsch’s style did make for a fascinating film. I’m familiar with two of Lubitsch’s films-TO BE OR NOT TO BE and THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER. I like both of them, although it does seem as though Lubitsch made more of an effort with this film to be less conventional. The way he opens the film definitely does not feel typical; it almost feels Ike he’s throwing you into a random plot immediately, which is something I hate, but rather he’s just gradually introducing these characters through pieced together actions and dialogue that eventually unmask Gaston and Lily. It actually does seem rather clever and unconventional, something that becomes more and more clear throughout the film as Lubitsch employs devices like the montages.

The acting in the movie is pretty good too. Herbert Marshall, Miriam Hopkins and Kay Francis are all convincing as manipulative characters that often can charm each other out of certain situations. A lot of the film revolves around them and not many supporting characters, so it’s especially important that Lubitsch chose three leads capable of playing such roles.

As a comedy, I really didn’t find all that much to be funny about it. The only moments I really ever found myself laughing at either involved really fast talking or the two ROCKY AND BULLWINKLE SHOW narrators-I mean, the major and Francois-trying to make conversation with each other. I think part of the issue may have just been that I was never really sure I understood everything that was going on. Obviously, I understood the main plot involving the love triangle, but I never really got the point of little things like the recurring stairs gag, for example.

Overall, I do think this film deserves a lot of respect for all the effort that went in, but it’s not something I’d really go out of my way to see whenever it’s on. I’m not going to rate it because I just flat out don’t know what to rate something that I don’t entirely understand. It’s an interesting movie for sure and I can see lots of people enjoying it for its clever storytelling techniques; it just happens to be part of a genre that I’m not a particular fan of.

Yeah, TROUBLE IN PARADISE is quite different from what we normally discuss, thanks for checking it out and and commenting, your point of view is appreciated and interesting, as always.  I have seen the two Lubitsch films you’ve mentioned, also NINOTCHKA.  All very good as you said, but more conventional for sure.

When I’m in the mood to do another screwball comedy, I’ll probably go with either THE LADY EVE or TWENTIETH CENTURY.  Both favorites of mine and the latter is a 1934 Columbia film that uses the same train set and porter from WOMAN HATERS.
- Doug Sarnecky