This is a pleasant little comedy but a minor work coming as it does from Noel Coward. Perhaps his name on the script was part of Norma's decision to participate in this instead of the other films offered that she rejected to do this one. It certainly has an estimable cast: Melvyn Douglas an expert as this sort of fluffy comedy, Gail Patrick and Lee Bowman both able performers and a handful, Connie Gilchrist, Marjorie Main, Norma Varden, Alan Mowbray, Florence Bates etc., of the best character actors MGM had under contract. The main problem with this and perhaps part of the reason it tanked on initial release is that even all dressed up in fancy 40's fashions this is a relic of the sort of drawing room confections that were popular a decade earlier and had fallen out of favor by the war years. Unfortunately without Irving Thalberg's strong guiding hand to pick the right properties for her Norma's script sense failed her. She had done well with her previous film "Escape" but would blunder again with her follow up to this her last film "Her Cardboard Lover". Still taken as is without all the back story an enjoyable trifle but unmemorable.
17 Reviews
Her Insipid End.
nycritic25 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
There isn't much to say about WE WERE DANCING except that it was the second of Norma Shearer's career blunders in 1942 which she should not have taken and instead chosen the better roles of Charlotte Vale in NOW VOYAGER or the title role in MRS MINIVER which would have suited her fine, allowing her to wield her own mannered style of dramatic emotion with ease and would have quite definitely secured her Oscar pull. Based, albeit loosely, on two Noel Coward plays, this is the story of Vicki Wilmoriska who falls into romance with Nicki Prax, but events conspire against them. She catches Nicki with former squeeze Linda Wayne (the always aloof Gail Patrick), and decides to go into the arms of Hubert Taylor, but just as she is ready to marry Hubert, guess who pops back into her life?
Such is the stuff of this by-the-numbers fluff that holds little water or interest in a time when war dramas were the norm and eccentric socialites were dead and buried as Hollywood was concerned. Norma and the cast seem like they belong in the early 30s, not its time, and no one rises above this bad material, effectively teetering Norma's career right over the edge of the abyss, to which she would fall come the release of her next movie HER CARDBOARD LOVER. It just shows what happens when an actress refuses to age gracefully and begin to play parts more appropriate her age (she was forty). She refused to play a mother (odd, considering she played one in THE WOMEN) and was reputedly disinterested in acting altogether, which is probably why she decided to make this forgettable film, but then again, other actresses have ended their careers in worse films than this. Only for die-hard fans of her filmography, and part of a retrospective shown on August 25 on TCM as its salute to her body of work.
Such is the stuff of this by-the-numbers fluff that holds little water or interest in a time when war dramas were the norm and eccentric socialites were dead and buried as Hollywood was concerned. Norma and the cast seem like they belong in the early 30s, not its time, and no one rises above this bad material, effectively teetering Norma's career right over the edge of the abyss, to which she would fall come the release of her next movie HER CARDBOARD LOVER. It just shows what happens when an actress refuses to age gracefully and begin to play parts more appropriate her age (she was forty). She refused to play a mother (odd, considering she played one in THE WOMEN) and was reputedly disinterested in acting altogether, which is probably why she decided to make this forgettable film, but then again, other actresses have ended their careers in worse films than this. Only for die-hard fans of her filmography, and part of a retrospective shown on August 25 on TCM as its salute to her body of work.
A big cast can't save a mundane film with a little romance but very little humor
SimonJack10 October 2020
This is one time I will grant that the movie success of the 1939 comedy, "Ninotchka," might have influenced a Hollywood decision for another film - this one by MGM. The earlier film involved displaced European royalty, and this one has some of the same. And, of course, Melvyn Douglas was the male lead in that first comedy. But then, the differences leap out. Where the 1939 film was a satire with a timely plot and a fantastic screenplay, "We Were Dancing" is untimely and with a bland screenplay.
This is set in the third year of World War II and the first that the U.S. was involved. The idea that two former aristocrats as perpetual traveling house guests might be funny escaped the movie-going public of the time. And these decades later it escapes one for the simple reason that the script is flat. Where is the clever dialog, with the witticisms and the funny lines that Douglas was so excellent at? Where is the subtle, cute and zinger-loaded dialog that Norma Shearer could utter so well?
This film has none of that and very little of anything about it. It struck me as more of a drama and love story. I had to stretch to give this film six stars, and that's solely for the first-rate cast that it has. Beside the two leads, this film is loaded with top supporting actors of the day - Florence Bates, Lee Bowman, Marjorie Main, Alan Mowbray, Reginald Owen and Gail Patrick. Indeed, Marjorie Main's Judge Sidney Hawkes is the only funny role in the film, and the only one that will get some laughs.
With that cast, I doubt that MGM covered its budget. It's $1.7 million box office was near the bottom for the year - at 137th. At least one other reviewer to date called this film "boring." It may well be that to most audiences in modern times. It came close for this film aficionado. The only thing that kept it from slipping that low was the cast of various top supporting characters who kept popping in and out at times.
This is set in the third year of World War II and the first that the U.S. was involved. The idea that two former aristocrats as perpetual traveling house guests might be funny escaped the movie-going public of the time. And these decades later it escapes one for the simple reason that the script is flat. Where is the clever dialog, with the witticisms and the funny lines that Douglas was so excellent at? Where is the subtle, cute and zinger-loaded dialog that Norma Shearer could utter so well?
This film has none of that and very little of anything about it. It struck me as more of a drama and love story. I had to stretch to give this film six stars, and that's solely for the first-rate cast that it has. Beside the two leads, this film is loaded with top supporting actors of the day - Florence Bates, Lee Bowman, Marjorie Main, Alan Mowbray, Reginald Owen and Gail Patrick. Indeed, Marjorie Main's Judge Sidney Hawkes is the only funny role in the film, and the only one that will get some laughs.
With that cast, I doubt that MGM covered its budget. It's $1.7 million box office was near the bottom for the year - at 137th. At least one other reviewer to date called this film "boring." It may well be that to most audiences in modern times. It came close for this film aficionado. The only thing that kept it from slipping that low was the cast of various top supporting characters who kept popping in and out at times.
Norma Glorious... Don't Miss This !
jimmy86015 April 2006
For all the new scholarship about this neglected actress, people still need to see her in action. Yes-- let's accept the fact that, by 1942, Norma Shearer was past caring about a career in the movies, and let's take this romp for what it is: fun, vibrant, and a showcase for Norma. Her penultimate film brings out her exquisite comic timing, and her bursts of Polish round out the very amusing character of Vicky. Realize that Norma is winking at the camera and her public all through this film, asking only that we accept it on its terms: a fun exercise to help finish out her career (though there is evidence that she, in retrospect, didn't care much for it).
Norma is blonde
xan-the-crawford-fan13 October 2021
Count Nicki Prax (Melvyn Douglas) and Princess Victoria "Vicki" Wilkomirska (Norma Shearer) marry after falling in love at first sight during a party held to celebrate Vicki's engagement to another man, Hubert Tyler (Lee Bowman). They pretend to be poor (and not married) to get themselves the life they were used to leading, as rich aristocrats. However, their scheme is discovered when they're found sleeping in the same room (not in the same bed, it was the production code era).
When they actually fall poor, they take up lodgings with a whole bunch of rich friends, but will their marriage be as temporary as their wealth? There's another woman named Linda Wayne (Gail Patrick) who Nicki promised himself to before he met Vicki, and Hubert may want to get back together with Vicki. Nicki and Vicki (heh) soon divorce, but since this comedy is screwball in tone, you know it will end the same way that The Awful Truth and The Philadelphia Story ended.
I found that the film was well-paced at the beginning, lost steam in the middle and finished on a mediocre note, with a happy conclusion that seemed forced but in truth wasn't. The acting is pretty good.
Norma Shearer is her usual self (maybe a bit less mannered) as Princess Wilkomiska- she's clearly been made to look more 1940s, an ill attempt to transfer her image over to the new decade (this was her second-last film before retiring). She has a lightened, more 1940s hairstyle which makes her look both younger and older at the same time (shades of Billie Burke), and is placed in a lovely variety of pantsuits, suit-skirt combos and suit-looking dresses, many with tassels. Her character is supposed to be Polish, but Norma's about as Polish as maple syrup. She makes it work, launching into long threads of Polish (I think it's Polish, I don't speak the language so I wouldn't know) when she gets upset. Melvyn Douglas is also his usual self, charming, debonair, with that terrible mustache. He has very good chemistry with Norma, but I must admit, he had chemistry with all of his leading ladies. Even Greta Garbo.
The two leads also have reliable support from several notable character actors; the aforementioned Gail Patrick, Lee Bowman, Marjorie Main and Reginald Owen. They basically just do their usual as well. (Gail Patrick's eyebrows still freak me out. 😑) The film is nice to look at, with the usual M-G-M treatment of luscious production values and big sweeping Art Deco rooms. However, as I mentioned above, the plot isn't executed well, as the pacing is a bit off. It could have been shorter in some parts and longer in others. As well, exactly WHY Vicki and Nicki divorce is a bit unclear- you can't tell me that all Gail Patrick had to do was walk into the room.
It's not as bad as I expected it to be- much better than Her Cardboard Lover- but it doesn't rank among the best films of any actors involved. If you managed to slog your way through HCL, I'd watch this one- or if you just want to see Norma as a blonde. 🙂
Solid 6.5/10 from me, and no, I am not the only reviewer hung up on Norma's hair colour. 😁
When they actually fall poor, they take up lodgings with a whole bunch of rich friends, but will their marriage be as temporary as their wealth? There's another woman named Linda Wayne (Gail Patrick) who Nicki promised himself to before he met Vicki, and Hubert may want to get back together with Vicki. Nicki and Vicki (heh) soon divorce, but since this comedy is screwball in tone, you know it will end the same way that The Awful Truth and The Philadelphia Story ended.
I found that the film was well-paced at the beginning, lost steam in the middle and finished on a mediocre note, with a happy conclusion that seemed forced but in truth wasn't. The acting is pretty good.
Norma Shearer is her usual self (maybe a bit less mannered) as Princess Wilkomiska- she's clearly been made to look more 1940s, an ill attempt to transfer her image over to the new decade (this was her second-last film before retiring). She has a lightened, more 1940s hairstyle which makes her look both younger and older at the same time (shades of Billie Burke), and is placed in a lovely variety of pantsuits, suit-skirt combos and suit-looking dresses, many with tassels. Her character is supposed to be Polish, but Norma's about as Polish as maple syrup. She makes it work, launching into long threads of Polish (I think it's Polish, I don't speak the language so I wouldn't know) when she gets upset. Melvyn Douglas is also his usual self, charming, debonair, with that terrible mustache. He has very good chemistry with Norma, but I must admit, he had chemistry with all of his leading ladies. Even Greta Garbo.
The two leads also have reliable support from several notable character actors; the aforementioned Gail Patrick, Lee Bowman, Marjorie Main and Reginald Owen. They basically just do their usual as well. (Gail Patrick's eyebrows still freak me out. 😑) The film is nice to look at, with the usual M-G-M treatment of luscious production values and big sweeping Art Deco rooms. However, as I mentioned above, the plot isn't executed well, as the pacing is a bit off. It could have been shorter in some parts and longer in others. As well, exactly WHY Vicki and Nicki divorce is a bit unclear- you can't tell me that all Gail Patrick had to do was walk into the room.
It's not as bad as I expected it to be- much better than Her Cardboard Lover- but it doesn't rank among the best films of any actors involved. If you managed to slog your way through HCL, I'd watch this one- or if you just want to see Norma as a blonde. 🙂
Solid 6.5/10 from me, and no, I am not the only reviewer hung up on Norma's hair colour. 😁
I can't believe Noel Coward wrote this
blanche-218 June 2015
This film, "We Were Dancing" from 1942 is a combination of two Noel Coward plays, and neither one was his best work.
The film stars Norma Shearer and Melvin Douglas, with a good supporting cast including Gail Patrick, Lee Bowman, Alan Mowbray, Connie Gilchrist, Norma Varden, Reginald Owen, and Marjorie Main.
Norma Shearer, with a blondish wig, plays Princess Victoria 'Vicki' Wilomirska who, when she gets excited, spouts outrageous Polish. At her engagement party (she is to marry the Lee Bowman character), she dances with Baron Nicholas Prax (Douglas) and they fall in love immediately. She breaks her engagement and marries the Baron.
The profession of these two is that of houseguests. They wander from place to place staying in the homes of socially ambitious people, usually Americans, who like the pedigree.
It's the usual break up to make up scenario.
Norma's big problem was that she couldn't get out of the '30s, and without her husband around, she couldn't choose films either. She obviously was concerned about her age and unfortunately, she had a right to - at 40, she was about 10 years past the age where most leading ladies in those days actually were leading ladies and not character actors. It's a shame, because she would have done so well in other films more appropriate for her.
This film has the same problem as "Her Cardboard Lover" - it came out at the wrong time, when this type of film had come and gone, and people were looking to more serious films or films that put the war into the story: "Mrs. Miniver," "The More the Merrier," "A Yank in the RAF," etc.
Norma Shearer was a hard-working, dedicated actress, but her ego got in the way of her final film choices. If only she had stopped with the wonderful "Escape" -- but she didn't.
The film stars Norma Shearer and Melvin Douglas, with a good supporting cast including Gail Patrick, Lee Bowman, Alan Mowbray, Connie Gilchrist, Norma Varden, Reginald Owen, and Marjorie Main.
Norma Shearer, with a blondish wig, plays Princess Victoria 'Vicki' Wilomirska who, when she gets excited, spouts outrageous Polish. At her engagement party (she is to marry the Lee Bowman character), she dances with Baron Nicholas Prax (Douglas) and they fall in love immediately. She breaks her engagement and marries the Baron.
The profession of these two is that of houseguests. They wander from place to place staying in the homes of socially ambitious people, usually Americans, who like the pedigree.
It's the usual break up to make up scenario.
Norma's big problem was that she couldn't get out of the '30s, and without her husband around, she couldn't choose films either. She obviously was concerned about her age and unfortunately, she had a right to - at 40, she was about 10 years past the age where most leading ladies in those days actually were leading ladies and not character actors. It's a shame, because she would have done so well in other films more appropriate for her.
This film has the same problem as "Her Cardboard Lover" - it came out at the wrong time, when this type of film had come and gone, and people were looking to more serious films or films that put the war into the story: "Mrs. Miniver," "The More the Merrier," "A Yank in the RAF," etc.
Norma Shearer was a hard-working, dedicated actress, but her ego got in the way of her final film choices. If only she had stopped with the wonderful "Escape" -- but she didn't.
Yes, it's silly, but Norma Shearer never looked better.
AlsExGal24 July 2021
The combination of Norma Shearer, Melvyn Douglas, and their troop of
solid MGM cast mates plus newbie Ava Gardner, make this sophisticated romantic comedy by Noel Coward a delight. The plot is supposed to be silly and fun, with witty banter and the butter smooth interaction of all the cast, doing total justice to Coward's brilliance.
Norma is always at her best but she is particularly relaxed and excellent and Melvyn is perfect as her playboy husband. No wonder so many actresses were envious of Norma's talent, she was truly and deservedly the Queen of Metro for many years. Oh, and by the way, MGM is unequalled for Art Direction by the brilliant Cedric Gibbons and his staff. The sets are noticeably fantastic and fully in the beautiful, authentic MGM style.
This movie marks the end of a never-to-be-regained period of sophistication, elegance, and paradoxically innocence, before the shattering war experience changed American tastes. This is a late and overlooked masterpiece in a genre that postwar filmmakers and audiences could never again do or enjoy so well.
Norma is always at her best but she is particularly relaxed and excellent and Melvyn is perfect as her playboy husband. No wonder so many actresses were envious of Norma's talent, she was truly and deservedly the Queen of Metro for many years. Oh, and by the way, MGM is unequalled for Art Direction by the brilliant Cedric Gibbons and his staff. The sets are noticeably fantastic and fully in the beautiful, authentic MGM style.
This movie marks the end of a never-to-be-regained period of sophistication, elegance, and paradoxically innocence, before the shattering war experience changed American tastes. This is a late and overlooked masterpiece in a genre that postwar filmmakers and audiences could never again do or enjoy so well.
borderline
SnoopyStyle23 March 2024
Vicki Wilomirska (Norma Shearer) and Nicki Prax (Melvyn Douglas) are European aristocrats with lavish titles and little else. They play to various American nouveau riche benefactors and make their way as houseguests of one estate to the next. They fall in love and secretly marry. When their marriage is exposed, their lives become much harder as few find married nobles that interesting. Suddenly, it's the unthinkable. He has to get a job.
This is based on a Noël Coward play. I don't mind this pairing although it doesn't excite me. There is limited humor and I barely care about these characters. The situation is interesting and has a few fun turns. It's a lot of boring rich people and few of them are that much fun. The third photo in IMDB has the couple looking bored. That's how I feel for most of this movie.
This is based on a Noël Coward play. I don't mind this pairing although it doesn't excite me. There is limited humor and I barely care about these characters. The situation is interesting and has a few fun turns. It's a lot of boring rich people and few of them are that much fun. The third photo in IMDB has the couple looking bored. That's how I feel for most of this movie.
I guess I see it all a bit differently.
planktonrules24 January 2019
For me, the plot of "We Were Dancing" is a very hard sell. I think that I am unique about this, as I didn't notice this same problem in other reviews. Here's the problem. Melvyn Douglas and Norma Shearer play people who are hard to like at the onset--at least for me. They are both nobels with no income and spend their lives sponging off people...as professional houseguests. The notion of them being, essentially, well-bred leeches was a very difficult thing...I automatically disliked them and felt they should be slapped and told to get jobs! I know...not everyone had that reaction to the movie. Perhaps you will not.
When the story begins, Princess Wilomirska (Shearer) breaks off her engagement to a rich man in order to marry a guy she just met, Baron Prax (Douglas). Neither has an income and although they marry, they pretend to others they haven't in order to keep themselves 'available'--hence ensuring suitors will let them stay in their homes! This is pretty awful....and eventually their ruse is discovered*. As a result, they might have to find another way to live as choice invitations to stay begin to dry up. Could this mean, horror of horrors, actually getting jobs and living like the common people?!
This is a well acted and highly polished film from MGM. It's slick and well made...and also a film I just didn't like because the people starring in it played parasites. Sorry...just not a film I can endorse.
*The reveal is VERY post-code. They are caught in a bedroom in SEPARATE beds...not exactly naughty nor realistic...but also due to one of the sillier requirements of the Production Code era.
When the story begins, Princess Wilomirska (Shearer) breaks off her engagement to a rich man in order to marry a guy she just met, Baron Prax (Douglas). Neither has an income and although they marry, they pretend to others they haven't in order to keep themselves 'available'--hence ensuring suitors will let them stay in their homes! This is pretty awful....and eventually their ruse is discovered*. As a result, they might have to find another way to live as choice invitations to stay begin to dry up. Could this mean, horror of horrors, actually getting jobs and living like the common people?!
This is a well acted and highly polished film from MGM. It's slick and well made...and also a film I just didn't like because the people starring in it played parasites. Sorry...just not a film I can endorse.
*The reveal is VERY post-code. They are caught in a bedroom in SEPARATE beds...not exactly naughty nor realistic...but also due to one of the sillier requirements of the Production Code era.
Norma Shearer has a Bad Dye
wes-connors10 November 2010
Though she's promised her hand in marriage to a handsome lawyer, frivolous Polish princess Norma Shearer (as Victoria "Vicki" Wilomirska) falls in love with poor noble Melvyn Douglas (as Nicholas "Nikki" Prax) - while "We Were Dancing," according to Ms. Shearer. Although her societal friends suggest otherwise, Shearer breaks up with rich young Lee Bowman (as Hubert Tyler) and marries Mr. Douglas. Shearer and Douglas try to "live on love" with some difficulty. Also, Mr. Bowman and Douglas' former girlfriend Gail Patrick (as Linda Wayne) won't stay out of the picture.
This was the first Shearer film after an absence of over a year. Some of the roles the actress reportedly turned down were more publicity than actual fact; but, apparently, she could have done "Mrs. Miniver" (1942) instead of this - and one other film role ("Her Cardboard Lover"), before retiring from the screen. Although it can be defended as having some appeal - on paper - "We Were Dancing" was a wrong turn. Shearer's desire to seem younger than her characters is strained to the brink, affecting both her acting and appearance. Shearer's lightened hair looks more gray than blonde.
*** We Were Dancing (4/30/42) Robert Z. Leonard ~ Norma Shearer, Melvyn Douglas, Gail Patrick, Lee Bowman
This was the first Shearer film after an absence of over a year. Some of the roles the actress reportedly turned down were more publicity than actual fact; but, apparently, she could have done "Mrs. Miniver" (1942) instead of this - and one other film role ("Her Cardboard Lover"), before retiring from the screen. Although it can be defended as having some appeal - on paper - "We Were Dancing" was a wrong turn. Shearer's desire to seem younger than her characters is strained to the brink, affecting both her acting and appearance. Shearer's lightened hair looks more gray than blonde.
*** We Were Dancing (4/30/42) Robert Z. Leonard ~ Norma Shearer, Melvyn Douglas, Gail Patrick, Lee Bowman
An under-appreciated gem of a comedy
1953calif17 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I must most courteously beg to differ with all the previous comments on "We Were Dancing." This film is quite simply a frothy, delightful romp---filled with witty dialogue and great chemistry between the two leads, a luminous Norma Shearer and a suave Melvyn Douglas. Shearer's comic timing in most of her major scenes is exquisite. The banter exchanged between the two obviously smitten spouses is well performed throughout the movie. There's even a poignant dramatic scene where Douglas' character comforts Shearer's because she's sacrificed a significant chunk of her pride in order to help him financially.
I'm not sure why this movie has gotten such a bad reputation. So what if its tone and style is more akin to 1930s screwball comedies rather than World War II dramas. The 1942 timing of its release near the start of U.S. involvement in the war was simply unfortunate. And yes, Shearer's career was never the same after she turned down the lead in Mrs. Miniver, but so what. It doesn't mean that both the film and her comic performance in it cannot be savored and appreciated some 60 years later. Skip the preconceptions and give this movie a look when you're in the mood for a most diverting and enjoyable comedy. You won't regret the choice. You may even feel like dancing after watching!
I'm not sure why this movie has gotten such a bad reputation. So what if its tone and style is more akin to 1930s screwball comedies rather than World War II dramas. The 1942 timing of its release near the start of U.S. involvement in the war was simply unfortunate. And yes, Shearer's career was never the same after she turned down the lead in Mrs. Miniver, but so what. It doesn't mean that both the film and her comic performance in it cannot be savored and appreciated some 60 years later. Skip the preconceptions and give this movie a look when you're in the mood for a most diverting and enjoyable comedy. You won't regret the choice. You may even feel like dancing after watching!
We Were Wondering Noel
bkoganbing4 May 2013
We Were Dancing was one of the small playlets that Noel Coward wrote for his show Tonight At 8:30. Two years earlier Coward told anyone who wanted to hear how much he disliked what MGM did to his production of Bittersweet when Jeannete MacDonald and Nelson Eddy starred in it. MGM must have had the rights for this show before that because Coward said that he would never allow another of his shows to be filmed in Hollywood.
Back in the day Norma Shearer and Robert Montgomery did Coward's Private Lives back in 1931 to good acclaim. It's the only reason I can think of why Shearer chose to do this film as opposed to Mrs. Miniver which she was also offered. Other than Greta Garbo, Shearer as Mrs. Irving Thalberg had first refusal on any part there. Of course it was Thalberg who did the choosing and he was gone.
Whatever possessed the folks at MGM to take Coward's British based story about a pair of titled individuals who make a living as permanent party guests and bring it to an American setting we'll never know but through séance. Occasionally you'll hear some flashes of Coward's witty dialog, but it only shows how mediocre the rest of the words are.
Norma Shearer and Melvyn Douglas do get a solid supporting cast of decent players, but the whole bunch can't lift this film above average.
Back in the day Norma Shearer and Robert Montgomery did Coward's Private Lives back in 1931 to good acclaim. It's the only reason I can think of why Shearer chose to do this film as opposed to Mrs. Miniver which she was also offered. Other than Greta Garbo, Shearer as Mrs. Irving Thalberg had first refusal on any part there. Of course it was Thalberg who did the choosing and he was gone.
Whatever possessed the folks at MGM to take Coward's British based story about a pair of titled individuals who make a living as permanent party guests and bring it to an American setting we'll never know but through séance. Occasionally you'll hear some flashes of Coward's witty dialog, but it only shows how mediocre the rest of the words are.
Norma Shearer and Melvyn Douglas do get a solid supporting cast of decent players, but the whole bunch can't lift this film above average.
Norma and Melvyn Douglas make a marvelous team in this neglected gem
Emaisie3929 April 2007
Why this film is so maligned I will never figure out. The script is witty. Leonard's direction sparkles and the acting by the charismatic Norma Shearer and Melvyn Douglas is a delight. Certainly it is MGM glossy fluff but it is so entertaining. Something about a penniless princess and the playboy she falls in love with. However it does not matter with these two stars at their peak. Norma is beautiful in her second to last film. I wonder if this film really flopped since box-office numbers are not available. Now Norma's last film "Her Cardboard Lover" is terrible but this charmer does not deserve such a hideous reputation. The forgotten Gail Patrick is also a delight as Norma's competition for Douglas.
lovely to look at, but as empty as a soufflé
richard-178717 November 2017
I have never seen Norma Shearer look more beautiful than she does in this picture - and that's saying a lot. Nor is she as mannered as in some of her better-known pictures, like *The Women*. Melvyn Douglas, one of my favorite actors, also looks great here.
Unfortunately, there isn't anything to the script. They and the rest of the cast, some of them very fine actors, are left with nothing to work with.
There is no pacing here either. We just go from one scene to the next with no sense of forward motion. Compare it to *The Women*, for example, which builds to the great final scene where all the women come together and destroy Joan Crawford's character. Or better yet, compare it to another film directed by Robert Z. Leonard just two years before, *Pride and Prejudice*, which is one of the most perfectly paced movies I have ever seen.
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that this 95 minute movie was based on a one-act play, and had to be padded.
Perhaps the play on which is it based, Noel Coward's one-acter of the same name, just isn't very good. The best of Coward is fun when done well by any cast, but I've encountered some Coward plays, like *Conversation Piece*, that only seem to work when he's in them. He was a very good actor in his own way, and could make uninteresting dialogue sound very clever just by the way he delivered it. Coward premiered this play with himself and Gertrude Lawrence, one of his great partners, in the leads in both London and New York. Their way of working with dialogue together may well have had a lot to do with the play's initial success, more than the play itself.
I wasn't bored. Shearer was so beautiful, I spent much of the time just looking at her face. The lead characters have no real depth, so it took no great acting to portray them. Nor are they particularly interesting or attractive. They are leaches who live off the nouveau riche, whom they disdain, so they really aren't particularly likable. You can imagine some of the dialogue appealing to New York theater goers in the 1930s when it was still fashionable to make fun of people simply because they came from Des Moines or Buffalo or Ashtabula or ..... I can't imagine this movie having a lot of success outside a few big cities, though. It's sophistication is pretty thin.
Unfortunately, there isn't anything to the script. They and the rest of the cast, some of them very fine actors, are left with nothing to work with.
There is no pacing here either. We just go from one scene to the next with no sense of forward motion. Compare it to *The Women*, for example, which builds to the great final scene where all the women come together and destroy Joan Crawford's character. Or better yet, compare it to another film directed by Robert Z. Leonard just two years before, *Pride and Prejudice*, which is one of the most perfectly paced movies I have ever seen.
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that this 95 minute movie was based on a one-act play, and had to be padded.
Perhaps the play on which is it based, Noel Coward's one-acter of the same name, just isn't very good. The best of Coward is fun when done well by any cast, but I've encountered some Coward plays, like *Conversation Piece*, that only seem to work when he's in them. He was a very good actor in his own way, and could make uninteresting dialogue sound very clever just by the way he delivered it. Coward premiered this play with himself and Gertrude Lawrence, one of his great partners, in the leads in both London and New York. Their way of working with dialogue together may well have had a lot to do with the play's initial success, more than the play itself.
I wasn't bored. Shearer was so beautiful, I spent much of the time just looking at her face. The lead characters have no real depth, so it took no great acting to portray them. Nor are they particularly interesting or attractive. They are leaches who live off the nouveau riche, whom they disdain, so they really aren't particularly likable. You can imagine some of the dialogue appealing to New York theater goers in the 1930s when it was still fashionable to make fun of people simply because they came from Des Moines or Buffalo or Ashtabula or ..... I can't imagine this movie having a lot of success outside a few big cities, though. It's sophistication is pretty thin.
A comedy equivalent to flat champagne!
Pat-5410 September 1998
In 1936, MGM Producer, Irving Thalberg died, leaving his widow, Norma Shearer, to pick her own scripts. An example of Miss Shearer's lack of good judgment is her appearance in this dud that she chose to do rather than play Kay Miniver in "Mrs. Miniver," which won Greer Garson an Academy Award. Based on Noel Coward's "Tonight at 8:30," critics called this comedy as sparking as "flat champagne." Norma Shearer made only one more film after this and retired from the screen at age 40.
A fun classic to watch!
tpmco9 January 2008
I may listen or read the critics comments, but I never take their reviews as gospel. I'd rather watch a movie and pass my own judgement. This movie is another example where a critic in the old days with a powerful pen completely downplayed a great classic. I watched this movie on the AMC channel and just loved it. And, I was very disappointed when I couldn't find this movie on DVD to add to my collection. Being a history buff, this movie provides a window back into 1942. Loved the cast, wardrobes, set designs, old cars, and the plot was cute. I'd definitely recommend this movie to friends who also enjoy the classics! Does anyone know where I could purchase this in VCR format since it's not available on DVD?
We are bored
rhoda-92 October 2020
Well, it's half a sophisticated pair. There's divine, debonair Melvyn Douglas...and arch, coy, 40-year-old Norma Shearer as not only a romantic maiden but Princess Victoria Anastasia, if you please. The title would seem to suggest a European origin, but Norma is as American as waffles and half as tasty.
The script is likewise pretentious and phony: "Humility is the saving grace of the bourgeoisie." I've never noticed it. Then there are all those supporting actresses screeching and fluttering to make you think they are high society types.
Dismal.
The script is likewise pretentious and phony: "Humility is the saving grace of the bourgeoisie." I've never noticed it. Then there are all those supporting actresses screeching and fluttering to make you think they are high society types.
Dismal.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
