I have read many reviews of this film by the pros and almost without exception they marvel at Crawford's "stealing" the picture. I have never agreed with this opinion. Crawford's "Crystal" is fun, sure, but I can imagine any number of actresses could do the part as well (just take a look at her co-worker at the perfrume counter who gets in a few good lines too). For me, it's Norma Shearer's picture from start to finish. Yes, she's grand in the old Hollywood tradition with that upper crust manner of speaking they liked to affect back then (her mother is even worse) but I suppose that kind of drama is needed to put over such an anti-women's lib script as this one. I don't understand how so many reviewers cite her arm-stretching gesture at the end as over-dramatic silent-film acting. She is afterall going back to her husband who we have never seen. What was she supposed to be reaching for? On that same note I still cringe whenever Mary decides that even after two years of her ex-husband's philandering, she can't wait to take the jerk back. And the way the women are so spoiled is outrageous too. Even the Catholic one who does nothing but have baby after baby (thank God she's rich!!) gets to have enough maids and servants so that the children are more of an annoyance than a responsibility. Any even though everyone seems to rave about Rosalind Russell, I find her part the most over the top. And whoever thinks this movie is as timely today as it was in 1939 must really be living in la la land. Can you imagine the reaction of today's women to these five who do nothing but live for their husbands? There'd be a riot at the movie house! Nevertheless, the real gem of the picture is the Countess De Lav. I always get a kick out of when she says on the train to Reno "I don't pick them for character. I'll bet you picked yours for character and where did it get you? On the train to Reno." A great rainy day movie.
