If you haven't seen "Crime Without Passion", the previous Ben Hecht - Charles MacArthur collaboration made in 1934, "The Scoundrel" will strike you as a particularly interesting and unusual film; if you have (like I did, yesterday no less) it will still be interesting, but you can not help but notice that the two writers-directors are essentially reworking the same main theme (and character), to the point where it sometimes feels as if you're watching the same movie (except made with less style this time). Ultimately, it's a moralistic fairy tale, but Noel Coward gives a tour-de-force performance in a rare acting gig. Warning: do not read IMDb's plot summary - it practically gives the entire movie away! **1/2 out of 4.
22 Reviews
Wonderfully pretentious
1930s_Time_Machine22 December 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not sure whether this is a great film with fantastic writing or a mediocre film with fantastic writing. It might be just fantastic writing that's essentially a novel which some actors are reading to you? Whatever it is, the writing is the sort of writing which you almost feel like applauding at times. Every sentence spoken by Noel Coward is brilliantly crafted achieving a level of pithy, sarcastic eloquence that never ceases. That our number one playwright at the time agreed to cross the pond to read someone else's words in someone else's play (for this is more of a play than a movie) is quite incredible and shows how much respect Noël Coward had for two of America's greatest.
It's set in the pretentious world of publishing and is about a bunch of pretentious pseudo-intellectuals led by the ultimate pretentious pseudo-intellectual, Tony Mallare, played with absolute relish by Noel Coward. Mallare is wonderfully horrid, he's the most cynical, cruel and unpleasant character imaginable but because he is so devilishly witty people cannot resist his charm. He blatantly uses people for his own advantage and abandons them simply when he tires of them. He discovers a fresh-faced young poet called Cora Moore who is full of life and optimism; the very opposite of Mallare. She is a girl whom he sees as someone he can twist and corrupt into one of his own. As Mallare charms his way into her life she falls madly in love with him, she adopts his ways, his lifestyle and his crowd of self-important hanger-ons abandoning her fiancée, someone who genuinely loved her who subsequently becomes a broken man. Eventually he tells Cora that he has become bored with her and dismisses as mere sentimental nonsense the fact that he has broken her heart.
The advantage superstar-writers, Hecht and MacArthur had in producing and directing their own film was that they were their own boss so could do whatever they liked and write whatever they wanted. A couple of writers making a film on their own without any interference is both good and bad. The bad aspect is that at times this film seems more like a 'read-through' rehearsal for a stage play rather than something made by movie-makers (although their earlier collaboration: Crime Without Passion was a brilliant film). This makes it feel a little like a much older film than it actually is - like something from 1929/1930. It also has the self-indulgent, arty feel of a play that the student union might stage. The good however easily outweighs the bad but it might not suit everyone.
The final part of this motion picture leaves the familiar set of the publishing house and enters the bizarre and dreamy realm of fantasy where Mallare has died but returned to earth to find at least one person who cared enough about him to shed a tear. Tears: the self-coddling retreat from intelligence as he earlier dismissed them. This last part actually only makes up a very small part of the film but is very impressive with imaginative montages, innovative photography and drenched with symbolism such as the freezing, drowning rain of New York in August - even our two writers Hecht and MacArthur make cameos in the flop-house where Mallare is searching for redemption.
Overall, this is possibly too experimental to be considered a good film but it is very enjoyable and thoroughly entertaining. Noel Coward takes a while to get used to but after you've put Monty Python's: 'Isn't is awfully good to have...' song out of your mind you soon get used to him. The beautiful word weaving from Hecht and MacArthur threads magically together to make their smirking, odious character so utterly believable that he is almost admirable. In a way, he does to us what he does to everyone he encounters in the story, we are all charmed by him......except for Cora's boyfriend who just wants to shoot dead the annoying, supercilious pompous twerp....probably a lot of people watching this will also have that reaction as well so might just hate this film.
It's set in the pretentious world of publishing and is about a bunch of pretentious pseudo-intellectuals led by the ultimate pretentious pseudo-intellectual, Tony Mallare, played with absolute relish by Noel Coward. Mallare is wonderfully horrid, he's the most cynical, cruel and unpleasant character imaginable but because he is so devilishly witty people cannot resist his charm. He blatantly uses people for his own advantage and abandons them simply when he tires of them. He discovers a fresh-faced young poet called Cora Moore who is full of life and optimism; the very opposite of Mallare. She is a girl whom he sees as someone he can twist and corrupt into one of his own. As Mallare charms his way into her life she falls madly in love with him, she adopts his ways, his lifestyle and his crowd of self-important hanger-ons abandoning her fiancée, someone who genuinely loved her who subsequently becomes a broken man. Eventually he tells Cora that he has become bored with her and dismisses as mere sentimental nonsense the fact that he has broken her heart.
The advantage superstar-writers, Hecht and MacArthur had in producing and directing their own film was that they were their own boss so could do whatever they liked and write whatever they wanted. A couple of writers making a film on their own without any interference is both good and bad. The bad aspect is that at times this film seems more like a 'read-through' rehearsal for a stage play rather than something made by movie-makers (although their earlier collaboration: Crime Without Passion was a brilliant film). This makes it feel a little like a much older film than it actually is - like something from 1929/1930. It also has the self-indulgent, arty feel of a play that the student union might stage. The good however easily outweighs the bad but it might not suit everyone.
The final part of this motion picture leaves the familiar set of the publishing house and enters the bizarre and dreamy realm of fantasy where Mallare has died but returned to earth to find at least one person who cared enough about him to shed a tear. Tears: the self-coddling retreat from intelligence as he earlier dismissed them. This last part actually only makes up a very small part of the film but is very impressive with imaginative montages, innovative photography and drenched with symbolism such as the freezing, drowning rain of New York in August - even our two writers Hecht and MacArthur make cameos in the flop-house where Mallare is searching for redemption.
Overall, this is possibly too experimental to be considered a good film but it is very enjoyable and thoroughly entertaining. Noel Coward takes a while to get used to but after you've put Monty Python's: 'Isn't is awfully good to have...' song out of your mind you soon get used to him. The beautiful word weaving from Hecht and MacArthur threads magically together to make their smirking, odious character so utterly believable that he is almost admirable. In a way, he does to us what he does to everyone he encounters in the story, we are all charmed by him......except for Cora's boyfriend who just wants to shoot dead the annoying, supercilious pompous twerp....probably a lot of people watching this will also have that reaction as well so might just hate this film.
Disappointing
Handlinghandel24 June 2006
Watching Noel Coward in an extremely unsympathetic role is interesting in itself. He does well, too. Julie Haydon is good as the innocent woman he seduces.The supporting cast is fine.
The editor Coward plays is shockingly cruel. He knows he is and revels in it. But the movie takes an unfortunate turn: Without revealing anything, I will say that it turns from cold-hearted and dark to mystical. Hecht was a brilliant screenwriter, and Charles MacArthur, his co-director, was a fine playwright as well. But I think one "Specter Of The Rose" is enough. "The Scoundrel" is better than that movie but it veers uncomfortably close to it.
The editor Coward plays is shockingly cruel. He knows he is and revels in it. But the movie takes an unfortunate turn: Without revealing anything, I will say that it turns from cold-hearted and dark to mystical. Hecht was a brilliant screenwriter, and Charles MacArthur, his co-director, was a fine playwright as well. But I think one "Specter Of The Rose" is enough. "The Scoundrel" is better than that movie but it veers uncomfortably close to it.
How could such a wretch have had such good taste?
theowinthrop12 August 2004
In 1934 Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur made an independent film starring Claude Rains and Margo called CRIME WITHOUT PASSION. The results were moderately interesting, so the two creators returned to movie production in 1935 with THE SCOUNDREL. Now their star was not just a great actor like Rains, but the leading British playwrite (except for Bernard Shaw) of the first half of the 20th Century - Noel Coward. Coward plays a book editor who is brilliant, brittle, witty, and totally amoral. He has many literary acquaintances, but no friends. Not that these literary figures (Alexander Woolcott, Lionel Stander, Eduardo Cianelli) are really likeable enough to merit having friends of their own. Indeed these people are so self-centered that one wonders how they can relate to humanity enough to have good taste in writing, publishing, or even playing music (Coward's second girlfriend is a pianist who is as cold as he is).
The wit of the lines of dialogue, no matter how hard Coward can give them, is not on par with the lines of witty dialogue from Coward's PRIVATE LIVES or BLYTHE SPIRIT. Hecht and MacArthur could write funny material in a farce like THE FRONT PAGE or TWENTIETH CENTURY (or Hecht's solo work, in say NOTHING SACRED), but they were not brittle or delicate. So that Coward's amoral attitude starts to drag after awhile. Then the film turns into a search for emotional catharsis. Coward dies in an airplane crash in the Caribbean, but his unhappy spirit returns to earth. His acquaintances do not heed his warnings about the emptiness of their lives (Coward sort of becomes the equivelent of Jacob Marley here), but he does find some sorrow for his lost soul from his first girlfriend. So he finds salvation in this drop of sadness.
The total film must be considered an interesting failure, and leads one to another point - Coward's name lives today because of the continuous strength of those major plays of his (PRIVATE LIVES, BLYTHE SPIRIT, HAY FEVER). His movies are another matter. Few of his performances were so well done on celluloid as to bear comparison to Olivier, Richardson, Guilgud, Guinness, Redgrave, Mills, Burton, and Sim. His best performances are probably in his own film IN WHICH WE SERVE or in later films where he was in supporting parts (OUR MAN IN HAVANAH and BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING). But how to explain a serious attempt at film making like THE ASTONISHED HEART which failed so badly (the story doesn't quite make sense). Of all his best plays, the only one to gain an Oscar was the dated CAVALCADE (in 1934), now best recalled for a brief scene when a young couple on a honeymoon turn out to be onboard the R.M.S. Titanic. Why Coward, a master of theatre, a gifted cabaret performer, a good actor, turned up so maladroit a film career is one of the mysteries of 20th Century films.
The wit of the lines of dialogue, no matter how hard Coward can give them, is not on par with the lines of witty dialogue from Coward's PRIVATE LIVES or BLYTHE SPIRIT. Hecht and MacArthur could write funny material in a farce like THE FRONT PAGE or TWENTIETH CENTURY (or Hecht's solo work, in say NOTHING SACRED), but they were not brittle or delicate. So that Coward's amoral attitude starts to drag after awhile. Then the film turns into a search for emotional catharsis. Coward dies in an airplane crash in the Caribbean, but his unhappy spirit returns to earth. His acquaintances do not heed his warnings about the emptiness of their lives (Coward sort of becomes the equivelent of Jacob Marley here), but he does find some sorrow for his lost soul from his first girlfriend. So he finds salvation in this drop of sadness.
The total film must be considered an interesting failure, and leads one to another point - Coward's name lives today because of the continuous strength of those major plays of his (PRIVATE LIVES, BLYTHE SPIRIT, HAY FEVER). His movies are another matter. Few of his performances were so well done on celluloid as to bear comparison to Olivier, Richardson, Guilgud, Guinness, Redgrave, Mills, Burton, and Sim. His best performances are probably in his own film IN WHICH WE SERVE or in later films where he was in supporting parts (OUR MAN IN HAVANAH and BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING). But how to explain a serious attempt at film making like THE ASTONISHED HEART which failed so badly (the story doesn't quite make sense). Of all his best plays, the only one to gain an Oscar was the dated CAVALCADE (in 1934), now best recalled for a brief scene when a young couple on a honeymoon turn out to be onboard the R.M.S. Titanic. Why Coward, a master of theatre, a gifted cabaret performer, a good actor, turned up so maladroit a film career is one of the mysteries of 20th Century films.
A stageplay in font of a camera.
cheathamg16 February 2021
This film is very old style; early days of the talkies. In the beginning of what we now think of as the film industry there was a good deal of holdover from stage work. D. W. Griffith had shown film makers what was possible but it hadn't really taken hold yet. MacArthur, Hecht and Coward were playwrights experimenting with film making. This film was essentially a platform for clever dialog, such as could be expected in one of their stage plays. You can't judge it by modern cinema narrative standards. You can only appreciate it for itself. The emotions are rather raw and the characterizations are somewhat simplistic but that's because it's all just backdrop for the dialog. Speaking of which, at one point Coward's character is speaking to the girl whom he has seduced and abandoned. She is sobbing her heart out and he says, "Tears always make me crueler than I really am." He then goes on to say, "I can't cry for my sins. If I could I would now. I don't particularly like myself." Truly cruel people are forever saying how much they dislike being cruel. Characters in Coward's plays always come off as being flip and shallow but somewhere down deep, they are sincere. I've read that in real life Coward was one of the nicest people you could know. Perhaps he was simply afraid of emotion, afraid of being hurt.
THE SCOUNDREL (Ben Hecht, Charles MacArthur & Lee Garmes, 1935) ***
Bunuel197610 February 2014
Oddly enough, for the longest time, I had believed that this movie was a recipient of the full four star rating on Leonard Maltin's film guide; ultimately, it only got three stars there, which nicely corresponds to the two allotted it by Leslie Halliwell. In any case, THE SCOUNDREL's inclusion in my ongoing Oscar marathon comes courtesy of its winning an Academy Award for Best Original Story. The sophisticated yet fanciful plot tells of a ruthless heel of a publisher who treats his equally callous writer clients terribly and his coterie of long-suffering client girlfriends abominably until he meets his comeuppance in a plane crash at sea; God allows him to return to earth for a month but, unless he can find someone there able to shed genuine tears for his demise, his soul will condemned to roam restlessly for all time.
The film marked the starring screen debut of British theatrical institution Noel Coward following a small role in D.W. Griffith's Silent WWI epic HEARTS OF THE WORLD (1918) and is notable for bringing him together with two of America's most renowned playwrights/screenwriters Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur (here making their sophomore directorial effort in Hollywood). For the record, Coward's erratic film career peaked with his WWII propaganda classic IN WHICH WE SERVE (1942; which he starred in, wrote, produced, composed and co-directed with a debuting David Lean!) but he did lend, albeit briefly, his legendarily suave presence to a few noteworthy films, namely Otto Preminger's BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING (1965), Joseph Losey's BOOM (1968) and the cult caper comedy THE Italian JOB (1969); indeed, his only other starring role came 15 years after THE SCOUNDREL in Terence Fisher's THE ASTONISHED HEART (1950; which I own a copy of but have yet to watch).
With regards to the two directors, MacArthur only helmed three more movies, all in collaboration with Hecht – including CRIME WITHOUT PASSION (1934) and SOAK THE RICH (1936) which, again, are both in my unwatched pile; on the other hand, Hecht lasted for three more films (often in collaboration with celebrated cinematographer Lee Garmes), including SPECTER OF THE ROSE (1946) and ACTORS AND SIN (1952) which, you guessed it, I have yet to delve into. Interestingly, Garmes' name also crops up in THE SCOUNDREL where he is billed as cinematographer and "Associate Director" as seems to have been the case with the duo's directorial debut the previous year.
The mainstay of the movie is undoubtedly Noel Coward's magnetic central performance forever quipping the vitriolic epigrams that the superb script is chock-full of. Yet, therein, lies the film's most glaring problem: being in the company of these disagreeably amoral and irredeemably cold-hearted characters – even if for a relatively slim 76 minutes – does wear the viewer down; indeed, even the one humane character here (Coward's latest conquest, a poetess played by Julie Haydon) is made to utter, "I just realized there IS a God" upon reading the newspaper headline of his death at sea! Still, having the cast peppered with a slew of Hollywood and Broadway notables helps immeasurably in removing the traces of bad taste: from Stanley Ridges to Harry Davenport (who suffer the most from Coward's egomaniacal antics) and from Lionel Stander to Edward(!) Cianelli to Alexander Woolcott (who, conversely, show the least remorse for his passing). Allegedly, the mystical final third of the film also has the directing duo and a debuting Burgess Meredith among the inhabitants of a flophouse Haydon visits in her desperate search for Ridges; although this segment might strike one as incongruously sentimental, the stylishness of the visual treatment in which it is rendered manages to smooth over such lapses in tone. In fact, according to a contemporary review of THE SCOUNDREL in "The New York Times", it is mentioned that the film fades out on a shot of "the River Styx and Mr. Coward presumably journeying across it into the great beyond" but this is nowhere to be seen in the copy I watched which ends more prosaically on a close-up of a ghostly Coward's grateful face turned upwards towards God for granting him eternal peace after all.
The film marked the starring screen debut of British theatrical institution Noel Coward following a small role in D.W. Griffith's Silent WWI epic HEARTS OF THE WORLD (1918) and is notable for bringing him together with two of America's most renowned playwrights/screenwriters Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur (here making their sophomore directorial effort in Hollywood). For the record, Coward's erratic film career peaked with his WWII propaganda classic IN WHICH WE SERVE (1942; which he starred in, wrote, produced, composed and co-directed with a debuting David Lean!) but he did lend, albeit briefly, his legendarily suave presence to a few noteworthy films, namely Otto Preminger's BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING (1965), Joseph Losey's BOOM (1968) and the cult caper comedy THE Italian JOB (1969); indeed, his only other starring role came 15 years after THE SCOUNDREL in Terence Fisher's THE ASTONISHED HEART (1950; which I own a copy of but have yet to watch).
With regards to the two directors, MacArthur only helmed three more movies, all in collaboration with Hecht – including CRIME WITHOUT PASSION (1934) and SOAK THE RICH (1936) which, again, are both in my unwatched pile; on the other hand, Hecht lasted for three more films (often in collaboration with celebrated cinematographer Lee Garmes), including SPECTER OF THE ROSE (1946) and ACTORS AND SIN (1952) which, you guessed it, I have yet to delve into. Interestingly, Garmes' name also crops up in THE SCOUNDREL where he is billed as cinematographer and "Associate Director" as seems to have been the case with the duo's directorial debut the previous year.
The mainstay of the movie is undoubtedly Noel Coward's magnetic central performance forever quipping the vitriolic epigrams that the superb script is chock-full of. Yet, therein, lies the film's most glaring problem: being in the company of these disagreeably amoral and irredeemably cold-hearted characters – even if for a relatively slim 76 minutes – does wear the viewer down; indeed, even the one humane character here (Coward's latest conquest, a poetess played by Julie Haydon) is made to utter, "I just realized there IS a God" upon reading the newspaper headline of his death at sea! Still, having the cast peppered with a slew of Hollywood and Broadway notables helps immeasurably in removing the traces of bad taste: from Stanley Ridges to Harry Davenport (who suffer the most from Coward's egomaniacal antics) and from Lionel Stander to Edward(!) Cianelli to Alexander Woolcott (who, conversely, show the least remorse for his passing). Allegedly, the mystical final third of the film also has the directing duo and a debuting Burgess Meredith among the inhabitants of a flophouse Haydon visits in her desperate search for Ridges; although this segment might strike one as incongruously sentimental, the stylishness of the visual treatment in which it is rendered manages to smooth over such lapses in tone. In fact, according to a contemporary review of THE SCOUNDREL in "The New York Times", it is mentioned that the film fades out on a shot of "the River Styx and Mr. Coward presumably journeying across it into the great beyond" but this is nowhere to be seen in the copy I watched which ends more prosaically on a close-up of a ghostly Coward's grateful face turned upwards towards God for granting him eternal peace after all.
The First Noel
writers_reign18 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
If we discount Hearts Of The World in which, as a youngster, he had a small role, The Scoundrel was Noel Coward's first significant film in which he played the lead. It will be of special interest to anyone interested in the New York literary scene - the Algonquin 'Round Table' set for example for not only are the characters drawn from that milieu but it was actually shot in new York shortly before the Hollywood companies closed down their studios in New York and moved permanently to the West coast. Add to that the fact that co-writer-directors Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur were very much a part of the Algonquin set - it was in fact Hecht to whom Herman Mankiewicz sent his now notorious telegram urging Hecht to take up a screenwting post in Hollywood where his only competition would be 'idiots' - and they found a part for prominent member Alexander Woolcott, more or less playing himself whilst leading lady Julie Haydon would go on to marry leading drama critic George Jean Nathan. Coward plays publisher Anthony Mullare, clearly based on the late Horace Liveright and has no problem convincing as the witty, urbane, narcissist, who wouldn't be caught dead without a bowl of bon mots within arms' reach. It's dialogue rather than plot-driven and Coward is well up to carrying the part. Veteran film buffs may well cherish seeing 'hard' men such as Eduardo Cianelli and Lionel Stander as effete hangers-on and it remains an interesting curio.
1936 Oscar for Best Original Story????
prometheeus10 February 2007
It's very hard to believe that this movie won an Oscar at all.
I saw this unbelievable movie at last years San Francisco Film Noir Festival 4 in '06. The print was in decent shape.
In the opening credits an abstract image is shown with the Three Furies looking more like they are falling down rather than flying.
Coward acts like Heston in Ben Hur. Almost like the silent actors did when they had to emote their feelings without voices.The acting was so atrocious that a lot of people in the theatre watching it were laughing (including myself) outright at the badness of it.
But this was made during The Depression so there is the notion that there is hope for us all. That the bad stuff that we're in is only temporary.
However, just because a movie has won an Oscar as well as being classified as Film Noir; does not guarantee that the movie is supposed to be good.
I enjoyed seeing Lionel Stander who would later get blacklisted, show up in one of the best westerns "Once Upon A TIme in The West", then moved onto "Hart to Hart".
I saw this unbelievable movie at last years San Francisco Film Noir Festival 4 in '06. The print was in decent shape.
In the opening credits an abstract image is shown with the Three Furies looking more like they are falling down rather than flying.
Coward acts like Heston in Ben Hur. Almost like the silent actors did when they had to emote their feelings without voices.The acting was so atrocious that a lot of people in the theatre watching it were laughing (including myself) outright at the badness of it.
But this was made during The Depression so there is the notion that there is hope for us all. That the bad stuff that we're in is only temporary.
However, just because a movie has won an Oscar as well as being classified as Film Noir; does not guarantee that the movie is supposed to be good.
I enjoyed seeing Lionel Stander who would later get blacklisted, show up in one of the best westerns "Once Upon A TIme in The West", then moved onto "Hart to Hart".
Excellent story of redemption
liguan20003 December 2002
Noel Coward is perfectly cast as a suave, vain, selfish well educated, upper class publisher. The literary crowd that congregates at his office is equally lacking in depth and seems concerned only with their status and success. They constantly meet at Noel Coward's publishing office in the hope of gaining favor for their next book and to make sure they are not left out on the latest gossip in the artistic realm.
Cora is a young idealist and poet who believes her love can change Noel Coward and that they can establish a long lasting relationship. She ends her relationship with her fiancé to become Noel's lover. However Noel returns to his playboy ways after 6 months and ends the relationship. This breaks Cora's heart and she eventually returns to her fiancé who has since lost his job and self respect after losing Cora.
The story picks up when Noel Coward leaves New York City by plane chasing after a new lover, a concert pianist who is just as shallow as he is. However a storm is encountered and the plane crashes into the sea killing Noel. God takes pity on him and grants him one month on Earth to find someone who will cry for him, otherwise he is condemned to wander the Earth, never to find rest, for all eternity.
The climax takes place on a dim, rainy night and ends with a prayer and a miracle. A strange redemption occurs. The death experience teaches Noel the true values of life, although his former associate artists are incapable of understanding his message.
The film has beautiful music and the scenes are classic film noir. Unfortunately it is not on DVD or VHS. For those who enjoy this type of movie it is a classic masterpiece. Noel Coward's dialog is sharp and witty and no one could play the part better.
Cora is a young idealist and poet who believes her love can change Noel Coward and that they can establish a long lasting relationship. She ends her relationship with her fiancé to become Noel's lover. However Noel returns to his playboy ways after 6 months and ends the relationship. This breaks Cora's heart and she eventually returns to her fiancé who has since lost his job and self respect after losing Cora.
The story picks up when Noel Coward leaves New York City by plane chasing after a new lover, a concert pianist who is just as shallow as he is. However a storm is encountered and the plane crashes into the sea killing Noel. God takes pity on him and grants him one month on Earth to find someone who will cry for him, otherwise he is condemned to wander the Earth, never to find rest, for all eternity.
The climax takes place on a dim, rainy night and ends with a prayer and a miracle. A strange redemption occurs. The death experience teaches Noel the true values of life, although his former associate artists are incapable of understanding his message.
The film has beautiful music and the scenes are classic film noir. Unfortunately it is not on DVD or VHS. For those who enjoy this type of movie it is a classic masterpiece. Noel Coward's dialog is sharp and witty and no one could play the part better.
a charming jerk
lee_eisenberg24 July 2018
I liked most of "The Scoundrel". Noël Coward does a great job playing a heartless character. The plot comes across as an earlier version of "Ghost" or "Heaven Can Wait". Or rather, it would come across that way if it didn't add a religious angle at the end. As in "The Goonies", adding one wrong element can weaken an entire movie.
Other than that it's worth seeing. I guess that the point that it makes is that we don't truly understand our chances until it's too late, just like how Coward's character doesn't make an effort to be a decent person during his lifetime. OK, not great.
I suspect that if Noël Coward had lived longer, he would've felt comfortable acknowledging his homosexuality.
Other than that it's worth seeing. I guess that the point that it makes is that we don't truly understand our chances until it's too late, just like how Coward's character doesn't make an effort to be a decent person during his lifetime. OK, not great.
I suspect that if Noël Coward had lived longer, he would've felt comfortable acknowledging his homosexuality.
This is a GREAT FILM
chasschn27 January 2007
The Scoundrel is a fantastic film which takes the viewer on an emotional and linguistic journey that reminds one of the power of the film medium. Everything from costumes to sets and lighting changes for the darker in a brilliant way. The whole film shifts in tone radically and boldly. The character MALLARE, whom Noel Coward plays, expresses the psychology of the dark side of humanity in times of love. He articulates what few rarely say, and this makes the dialog exceptional. The perception of human nature. Hecht wrote the pseudo-decadent Huysmans homage FANTAZIUS MALLARE some years before, hence the character's name, I'd imagine. The movie dialog is rich, baroque and sardonic as well. The poet's works were clearly inspired by maxwell Bodenheim's poetry and persona and are hilarious. A real treat.
Scoundrel or Lecher - it bombed in 1935 and would today
SimonJack10 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Many reviewers of "The Scoundrel" to date seem to be somewhat enamored just of Noel Coward's presence in this film as Anthony Mallare. His cynical, acerbic movie character seemed to emulate the real Coward. Those ratings are mostly very high. But, one ought to critique a film on all aspects - the plot and the story, the cast and their performances, the screenplay and script, the direction and editing, the sets and filming, and related technical aspects. On that basis - the sum of all of these, this film is not that good.
The film was written by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur who collaborated on a handful of plays and films. They also co-directed this film. It's a drama, morality play, and a fantasy that becomes apparent only in the last third of the film. The scenes of Mallare's redemption are conflicting. Repentance is missing and sorrow by someone else as a means of a good eternal judgment is a novel idea but not very believable. The movie won an Academy Award for most original story. None of the four films nominated that year are memorable but the others had fair to good box office sales. The Hollywood voters would have known the writers, and some probably saw the film. But it's Oscar win may have surprised many movie audiences who would not have seen the film or even heard of it.
Most of the story's characters were supposedly based on real people in the publishing and writing fields. Considering that fact, and the cast that was assembled for this film, and its being made in 1935, it's not very likely that many movie audiences would be familiar with the actors or the real people their characters were based on. Indeed, contrary to a couple of previous reviewers who inferred the success of this film, it must have flopped. This film isn't mentioned in any of the Hollywood and movie books in my library. I couldn't find any box office info on it, even though it won an Oscar and was distributed by Paramount, a major studio of the day. It doesn't appear at all in the Ultimate Movie Rankings list of 195 films from 1935. So, it must have bombed at the box office.
The movie was shot in a New York studio - a carryover from the silent film era when New York was the first mecca of movie-making. The only print or online historical reference I could find was a TV Guide article that said the film "was a favorite of sophisticates, pseudo-sophisticates, and anyone who could recognize the real-life people upon whom the screenplay was based." Well, that assessment pretty much reduces the likely film audiences. And, since this was smack dab in the middle of the Great Depression, it's hard to imagine a mostly grotesque downer movie such as this having much public appeal
There's just too much else that's not good about this film. The first thing that struck me was how stagy it is. The sets look like stage scenery. The screenplay is heavily dialog with no action or movement. And, the characters overall are mostly stilted and wooden. Coward, himself, is the most obvious - the worst at this. With the exception of Cora Moore (Julie Haydon) - but just some of the time, all of the cast utter their lines expressionless and emotionless. Any middle school class of students could read the lines of this play as well as this cast delivers them. That isn't acting - its sitting for a bland monologue reading.
Although Coward was a very diversified and talented artist, he is most known and will be forever renowned for the great body of his screenplays. He was not much of a screen actor, and certainly not a leading man. This was just the second of 19 films he made, and first of just two leading roles. Only two more of this cast are actors that movie audiences even in 1935 would have recognized. They are Eduardo Ciannelli as Maurice Stern and Lionel Stander as Rothenstien.
The other technical aspects were rudimentary to poor. The camera work is second rate. Oh, there is the tricky over-imposing of scenes for the effect of Tony's death at sea, but even that seemed crude. Mallare's office setting seems almost grotesque. And the music is awful in places.
Where the title and references to Anthony Mallare are of a scoundrel, it would be much more accurate to label him and the film, a lecher. He is a lecherous, cold-hearted, self-centered, egotistical cad. But his long cynical and ego-centric lines of dialog soon wear very thin and become grating. The script quickly takes on an aura of nihilism. There's too much that's weak about this drama. The witticism of the writers in the script is lost or drowned out by tedious cynicism and sarcasm. And the narcissistic pale of the play takes its toll in eliminating anything to enjoy about this film. The redemption at the end is conflicting and doesn't work to salvage the film.
Here are some sample lines from the film.
Cora Moore, "Why did you lie to her? It's painful to be lied to." Anthony Mallare, "My dear, women shoot you or drag you into court if you refuse to lie to them and pretend that you still love them."
Cora Moore, "You look so evil with a glass in your hand."
Anthony Mallare, "Would you say, my dear, that Mr. Decker was madly in love with you?" (Cora nods her head.) Mallare, "That settles it. I'm not. I never will be. The most I can offer you is one month's diversion and six months of farewell."
Anthony Mallare, "I don't approve of child labor as a rule, but so much depends on the child."
The film was written by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur who collaborated on a handful of plays and films. They also co-directed this film. It's a drama, morality play, and a fantasy that becomes apparent only in the last third of the film. The scenes of Mallare's redemption are conflicting. Repentance is missing and sorrow by someone else as a means of a good eternal judgment is a novel idea but not very believable. The movie won an Academy Award for most original story. None of the four films nominated that year are memorable but the others had fair to good box office sales. The Hollywood voters would have known the writers, and some probably saw the film. But it's Oscar win may have surprised many movie audiences who would not have seen the film or even heard of it.
Most of the story's characters were supposedly based on real people in the publishing and writing fields. Considering that fact, and the cast that was assembled for this film, and its being made in 1935, it's not very likely that many movie audiences would be familiar with the actors or the real people their characters were based on. Indeed, contrary to a couple of previous reviewers who inferred the success of this film, it must have flopped. This film isn't mentioned in any of the Hollywood and movie books in my library. I couldn't find any box office info on it, even though it won an Oscar and was distributed by Paramount, a major studio of the day. It doesn't appear at all in the Ultimate Movie Rankings list of 195 films from 1935. So, it must have bombed at the box office.
The movie was shot in a New York studio - a carryover from the silent film era when New York was the first mecca of movie-making. The only print or online historical reference I could find was a TV Guide article that said the film "was a favorite of sophisticates, pseudo-sophisticates, and anyone who could recognize the real-life people upon whom the screenplay was based." Well, that assessment pretty much reduces the likely film audiences. And, since this was smack dab in the middle of the Great Depression, it's hard to imagine a mostly grotesque downer movie such as this having much public appeal
There's just too much else that's not good about this film. The first thing that struck me was how stagy it is. The sets look like stage scenery. The screenplay is heavily dialog with no action or movement. And, the characters overall are mostly stilted and wooden. Coward, himself, is the most obvious - the worst at this. With the exception of Cora Moore (Julie Haydon) - but just some of the time, all of the cast utter their lines expressionless and emotionless. Any middle school class of students could read the lines of this play as well as this cast delivers them. That isn't acting - its sitting for a bland monologue reading.
Although Coward was a very diversified and talented artist, he is most known and will be forever renowned for the great body of his screenplays. He was not much of a screen actor, and certainly not a leading man. This was just the second of 19 films he made, and first of just two leading roles. Only two more of this cast are actors that movie audiences even in 1935 would have recognized. They are Eduardo Ciannelli as Maurice Stern and Lionel Stander as Rothenstien.
The other technical aspects were rudimentary to poor. The camera work is second rate. Oh, there is the tricky over-imposing of scenes for the effect of Tony's death at sea, but even that seemed crude. Mallare's office setting seems almost grotesque. And the music is awful in places.
Where the title and references to Anthony Mallare are of a scoundrel, it would be much more accurate to label him and the film, a lecher. He is a lecherous, cold-hearted, self-centered, egotistical cad. But his long cynical and ego-centric lines of dialog soon wear very thin and become grating. The script quickly takes on an aura of nihilism. There's too much that's weak about this drama. The witticism of the writers in the script is lost or drowned out by tedious cynicism and sarcasm. And the narcissistic pale of the play takes its toll in eliminating anything to enjoy about this film. The redemption at the end is conflicting and doesn't work to salvage the film.
Here are some sample lines from the film.
Cora Moore, "Why did you lie to her? It's painful to be lied to." Anthony Mallare, "My dear, women shoot you or drag you into court if you refuse to lie to them and pretend that you still love them."
Cora Moore, "You look so evil with a glass in your hand."
Anthony Mallare, "Would you say, my dear, that Mr. Decker was madly in love with you?" (Cora nods her head.) Mallare, "That settles it. I'm not. I never will be. The most I can offer you is one month's diversion and six months of farewell."
Anthony Mallare, "I don't approve of child labor as a rule, but so much depends on the child."
Miracles can be expected
Perception_de_Ambiguity14 July 2013
Damn you Hecht and MacArthur, forcing me again to write a review for a sadly neglected film after the equally magnificent 'Crime Without Passion'.
I had already gotten ready to write 'The Scoundrel' off as a little dialogue-driven romantic drama with by far the smartest dialogue of any film of its time (from what I've seen), but then in the last third it's like somebody suddenly turned the whole thing up to 11 and the film enters the realm of magic realism while still feeling consistent with the tone and intentions of the rest of the film, it becomes very emotional in a - dare I say without sounding pretentious - transcendental way. But I should probably begin at the start.
Again like in 'Crime Without Passion' what's maybe the most remarkable aspect of the film is that the protagonist - here it is the head of a book publishing firm - is an intelligent but highly unsympathetic character who nevertheless is taken seriously by the filmmakers as a figure to identify with, and at least for me very successfully so. When this seemingly irredeemable character finally gets his chance of redemption it is after such a traumatic event and at such a high price that this turn is wholly believable and more than welcome on my part.
'Crime Without Passion's lawyer Lee Gentry and 'The Scoundrel's book publisher Anthony Mallare are actually quite similar characters in general. Both are talented in their chosen field and successful at their job in which they are their own bosses. More importantly both are proud about their wit, pitiless and unabashedly self-centered to the point that they have no real use for friends. The people at his firm he calls his friends acknowledge his brilliance but otherwise mostly talk in negative terms about him which Mallare is totally fine with. About them he says: "I call everybody who is clever enough to see through me a friend." Again you have to look no further than the lines that introduce us to Anthony Mallare to get an idea of who this man is. Here are two more samples:
Colleague: "What did you think of Mrs. Robinson's book?" Mallare: "It rrreeks of morality." Colleague: "You are not rejecting it..." Mallare: "Certainly! To the lions with it." Colleague: "I thought it had a lot of sales value." Mallare: "Undoubtedly. But I refuse to make money improving people's morals. It's a vulgar way to swindle the public. Selling them things they least need. Virtue and dullness."
Colleague: "I don't understand you, Tony, with all the money you throw away on advances, refusing old Slezack." Mallare: "I refuse to be blackmailed. Especially by the lame, the halt, and the blind." Colleague: "And pity - that most vile of virtues - has never been known to you, eh?"
Like Gentry he is looking for the right woman for himself. I guess the key difference is his environment. Gentry was an intelligent man surrounded by "common folk" while the people that Mallare surrounds himself with are not unlike him educated and cynical people who hardly get into contact with people outside their own little circle. Mallare merely is the most extreme of them, but also the most brutally honest and most consistently true to himself and his ideals. After cruelly finishing an unlucky relationship with a smart life-affirming young poet who initially seemed like a great match for him he remains without pity except for himself and actually admits that he doesn't even like himself. Mallare gets ready to lower his expectations and settles for a woman who is very much his cold female counterpart. Tragically even this attempt fails in its infancy making it doubtful that a man like him ever could find his heart's desire or even a real friend let alone a soul mate. And this is when the up to this point very dialogue-driven film takes an unexpected turn and becomes something very different.
In this romantic drama about literates the characters don't just talk like your Average Joes and Plain Janes with a few quotes from classic pieces of literature thrown in (although naturally they do that too) but they actually speak quite like real well-educated people, well, maybe in an idealized form, it is a movie after all and as mentioned a smartly written one at that. The acting also is pretty understated and has an authenticity that is quite unlike anything from that era. I can't really describe it, it just has to be seen, and it probably isn't everyone's cup of tea, if you don't get where those characters are coming from you might not get into it at all.
I was very surprised to find out afterwards that the screenplay actually won the Oscar that year, I would expect this film to have a difficult time finding the right audience, viewers expecting high emotion, sentimental romance and "entertainment" will largely be disappointed and just plainly turned off by the unlikeable protagonist while and the more high-brow crowd would probably find its ambitions to be aiming too low and its romantic tendencies difficult to fully embrace. Up until the last third it's basically a series of dialogue scenes and filmmaking-wise or even storytelling-wise it's nothing special. The less than stellar copy that I had to watch might be deceiving regarding the cinematography, though, and all this changes after the turning point when it becomes more comparable to something like 'Portrait of Jennie' or 'Liliom' but I won't give away any more. Watching 'The Scoundrel' miracles can be expected.
I had already gotten ready to write 'The Scoundrel' off as a little dialogue-driven romantic drama with by far the smartest dialogue of any film of its time (from what I've seen), but then in the last third it's like somebody suddenly turned the whole thing up to 11 and the film enters the realm of magic realism while still feeling consistent with the tone and intentions of the rest of the film, it becomes very emotional in a - dare I say without sounding pretentious - transcendental way. But I should probably begin at the start.
Again like in 'Crime Without Passion' what's maybe the most remarkable aspect of the film is that the protagonist - here it is the head of a book publishing firm - is an intelligent but highly unsympathetic character who nevertheless is taken seriously by the filmmakers as a figure to identify with, and at least for me very successfully so. When this seemingly irredeemable character finally gets his chance of redemption it is after such a traumatic event and at such a high price that this turn is wholly believable and more than welcome on my part.
'Crime Without Passion's lawyer Lee Gentry and 'The Scoundrel's book publisher Anthony Mallare are actually quite similar characters in general. Both are talented in their chosen field and successful at their job in which they are their own bosses. More importantly both are proud about their wit, pitiless and unabashedly self-centered to the point that they have no real use for friends. The people at his firm he calls his friends acknowledge his brilliance but otherwise mostly talk in negative terms about him which Mallare is totally fine with. About them he says: "I call everybody who is clever enough to see through me a friend." Again you have to look no further than the lines that introduce us to Anthony Mallare to get an idea of who this man is. Here are two more samples:
Colleague: "What did you think of Mrs. Robinson's book?" Mallare: "It rrreeks of morality." Colleague: "You are not rejecting it..." Mallare: "Certainly! To the lions with it." Colleague: "I thought it had a lot of sales value." Mallare: "Undoubtedly. But I refuse to make money improving people's morals. It's a vulgar way to swindle the public. Selling them things they least need. Virtue and dullness."
Colleague: "I don't understand you, Tony, with all the money you throw away on advances, refusing old Slezack." Mallare: "I refuse to be blackmailed. Especially by the lame, the halt, and the blind." Colleague: "And pity - that most vile of virtues - has never been known to you, eh?"
Like Gentry he is looking for the right woman for himself. I guess the key difference is his environment. Gentry was an intelligent man surrounded by "common folk" while the people that Mallare surrounds himself with are not unlike him educated and cynical people who hardly get into contact with people outside their own little circle. Mallare merely is the most extreme of them, but also the most brutally honest and most consistently true to himself and his ideals. After cruelly finishing an unlucky relationship with a smart life-affirming young poet who initially seemed like a great match for him he remains without pity except for himself and actually admits that he doesn't even like himself. Mallare gets ready to lower his expectations and settles for a woman who is very much his cold female counterpart. Tragically even this attempt fails in its infancy making it doubtful that a man like him ever could find his heart's desire or even a real friend let alone a soul mate. And this is when the up to this point very dialogue-driven film takes an unexpected turn and becomes something very different.
In this romantic drama about literates the characters don't just talk like your Average Joes and Plain Janes with a few quotes from classic pieces of literature thrown in (although naturally they do that too) but they actually speak quite like real well-educated people, well, maybe in an idealized form, it is a movie after all and as mentioned a smartly written one at that. The acting also is pretty understated and has an authenticity that is quite unlike anything from that era. I can't really describe it, it just has to be seen, and it probably isn't everyone's cup of tea, if you don't get where those characters are coming from you might not get into it at all.
I was very surprised to find out afterwards that the screenplay actually won the Oscar that year, I would expect this film to have a difficult time finding the right audience, viewers expecting high emotion, sentimental romance and "entertainment" will largely be disappointed and just plainly turned off by the unlikeable protagonist while and the more high-brow crowd would probably find its ambitions to be aiming too low and its romantic tendencies difficult to fully embrace. Up until the last third it's basically a series of dialogue scenes and filmmaking-wise or even storytelling-wise it's nothing special. The less than stellar copy that I had to watch might be deceiving regarding the cinematography, though, and all this changes after the turning point when it becomes more comparable to something like 'Portrait of Jennie' or 'Liliom' but I won't give away any more. Watching 'The Scoundrel' miracles can be expected.
Sophisticated wit.
jennyp-23 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** It's easy to see why the script for this film won an Oscar. At least during the first half. My head was spinning from all of the snappy lines whizzing by. Noel Coward plays a New York publisher (`Why don't you publish books that you like?' - `What? And corrupt the public?') who charms and manipulates his many hangers-on. Then he dies in a plane crash and the story turns into a bizarre Flying Dutchman take-off in which Coward must find someone who truly mourns him before his soul can rest in peace. Very enjoyable until it gets bizarre. Viewed at Cinefest in Syracuse in March 2003.
Noel Coward turning into a ghost
clanciai20 September 2019
Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur had an academy award for best script, and no wonder. The story is very much related with Ferenc Molnar's "Liliom" (filmed a number of times even by Fritz Lang and even turned into a musical) and tells about the same story of redemption. Noel Coward is as excellent here as Charles Boyer in Fritz Lang's film. He is an unbearable snob and as vicious as a serpent as an unscrupulous publisher who decides to couple with a young poetess who is already engaged. There is more than one duel as a consequence in this film. When Cora finally sees through Noel Coward and rejects him, she curses him by hoping for him to have an aircrash accident, which he has. Then he turns into a totally different character.
The music is also very well chosen for this picture, wildly romantic at times, and finally turning into Rachmaninov's second piano concerto (but without piano) .like in Noel Coward's perhaps most personal drama and film, "Brief Encounter" with David Lean 1947. It's the scipt above all that deserves momentous credits for its sustained wit and intelligence. All the characters are convincing, from the innocence of Cora to the bathos of Paul Dekker and all the parasites around Coward. It could be seen as a major effort of Noel Coward, in making this character, to prove himself human after all, in which he succeeds.
The music is also very well chosen for this picture, wildly romantic at times, and finally turning into Rachmaninov's second piano concerto (but without piano) .like in Noel Coward's perhaps most personal drama and film, "Brief Encounter" with David Lean 1947. It's the scipt above all that deserves momentous credits for its sustained wit and intelligence. All the characters are convincing, from the innocence of Cora to the bathos of Paul Dekker and all the parasites around Coward. It could be seen as a major effort of Noel Coward, in making this character, to prove himself human after all, in which he succeeds.
Disappointing failure
F Gwynplaine MacIntyre25 February 2002
Because so many talented people worked on "The Scoundrel", it pains me to say that this film doesn't work and some parts of it are laughably bad.
Noël Coward plays a character based on Horace Liveright, a (real-life) New York publisher and playboy who was a vicious S.O.B. and an inept businessman; Liveright died broke and friendless. That's not quite what happens to Coward in this movie.
"The Scoundrel" is a fantasy, but we don't find this out until about halfway through the film ... and in a flashback, worse luck. Coward dies and comes back as a ghost, and (unlike in "The Sixth Sense") he KNOWS he's a ghost. After returning from the dead, the first thing he does is go back to his office and perform a long dull dialogue scene with his employees, without bothering to tell them that he's dead. I haven't given away any spoilers here, because this film has very little worth spoiling. Coward delivers all of his dialogue in a slow lugubrious tone. He spends the second half of the movie as a ghost, but he's equally lifeless in the first half.
"The Scoundrel" has a low budget and several continuity errors. It was filmed in New York City (at the Astoria studio) but there are no vintage shots of NYC locations; one street scene is a painfully obvious interior set.
The notorious drama critic Alexander Woollcott appears in a tiny role (basically playing himself), but he's on screen just long enough to prove he's no actor. Lionel Stander (better known as Max from "Hart to Hart") shows up briefly to sip champagne with Coward. This makes Lionel Stander the only actor who worked with both Noël Coward and Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle. I don't recommend "The Scoundrel" unless you're intensely interested in any of the actors or writers who worked on this film ... all of whom did better work in other films.
Noël Coward plays a character based on Horace Liveright, a (real-life) New York publisher and playboy who was a vicious S.O.B. and an inept businessman; Liveright died broke and friendless. That's not quite what happens to Coward in this movie.
"The Scoundrel" is a fantasy, but we don't find this out until about halfway through the film ... and in a flashback, worse luck. Coward dies and comes back as a ghost, and (unlike in "The Sixth Sense") he KNOWS he's a ghost. After returning from the dead, the first thing he does is go back to his office and perform a long dull dialogue scene with his employees, without bothering to tell them that he's dead. I haven't given away any spoilers here, because this film has very little worth spoiling. Coward delivers all of his dialogue in a slow lugubrious tone. He spends the second half of the movie as a ghost, but he's equally lifeless in the first half.
"The Scoundrel" has a low budget and several continuity errors. It was filmed in New York City (at the Astoria studio) but there are no vintage shots of NYC locations; one street scene is a painfully obvious interior set.
The notorious drama critic Alexander Woollcott appears in a tiny role (basically playing himself), but he's on screen just long enough to prove he's no actor. Lionel Stander (better known as Max from "Hart to Hart") shows up briefly to sip champagne with Coward. This makes Lionel Stander the only actor who worked with both Noël Coward and Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle. I don't recommend "The Scoundrel" unless you're intensely interested in any of the actors or writers who worked on this film ... all of whom did better work in other films.
The script got the Academy Award
emlombard3015 July 2014
I've seen this film listed somewhere as "Boxoffice poison" It's one of my favorite films and always has been. Ben Hecht was famed as the "script doctor" who was called in when a script needed fixing. MacArthur was actress Helen Hayes' husband. These folks belonged to the Algonquin Club. The film "The Man Who Came to Dinner" featured Monte Wooley who played Alec Woolcott of that club. I was 10 when "The Scoundrel " came out in a local third run theater and saw it six times that week. Forty years later, the UCLA film archives let me see "The Scoundrel" once more. I still appreciate it. My favorite actors: Anton Walbrook and Conrad Veidt and favorite film is "The Red Shoes". Everything gets dated particularly in the arts and at moments, "The Scoundrel" does too. I wonder if the theme has something to do with Coward's possible sexual "perversion" guilt at that time.
One for the connoisseur!
JohnHowardReid24 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Filmed at Paramount's Astoria Studios, New York. Copyright 6 June 1935 by Paramount Productions, Inc. New York opening at the Radio City Music Hall, 2 May 1935 (ran one week). Australian release: 14 August 1935. 8 reels. 76 minutes.
SYNOPSIS: In this unusual but extremely well-acted film, Hecht and MacArthur explore the twilight world of book publishing. The script is loaded with literary allusions and inside jokes.
NOTES: Academy Award, Original Story, Hecht and MacArthur (beating Broadway Melody of 1936 and The Gay Deception).
3rd of the Hecht-MacArthur movies (preceded by Crime Without Passion and Once in a Blue Moon; followed by Soak the Rich).
COMMENT: A typically off-beat Hecht-MacArthur production. Though it's a bit dated today and seems only half as clever as it did in 1935, it's still a dazzling and fascinating film. Not only is it brilliantly acted, but its bizarre script gives rise to some marvelous photographic effects (like Coward's silhouette outlined against the storm- battered window). Music is effectively employed to enhance the grotesque atmosphere and all other technical credits are likewise first-class. But, as usual, it's the acting that's the most interesting aspect of the movie. Making his first American appearance (if we exclude his participation in Griffith's Hearts of the World, made in Europe in 1918),
Noel Coward is caustically perfect as the ultra-cynical publisher. He is more than ably supported by Julie Haydon (star of Max Reinhardt's fabulous Broadway production of A Midsummer Night's Dream),* Alexander Woollcott, the famous critic and commentator (immortalised by playwrights Kaufman and Hart as The Man Who Came to Dinner), Lionel Stander, Stanley Ridges, Harry Davenport, Eduardo Ciannelli (his second talkie, his first being Sidney Franklin's Reunion in Vienna in 1933), and Ernest Cossart, whose role here is entirely different from the obsequious butler/valet which later became his special forte. Here he uses his natural voice for possibly the only time in his screen career.
It's impossible to overstate the dramatic effect that the combined acting of all these comparatively new faces had on 1935 audiences. If The Scoundrel is no longer the innovative masterpiece which dazzled 1935 with its wit and cynicism, its intellectualism and sophistication, that is our loss.
* Julie Haydon had bad luck in Hollywood, ending up as Andy Hardy's older sister in A Family Affair, after which she returned to the stage, making only one more movie, Citizen Saint, in 1948. Contrast her ill-fortune with the success achieved by the star of Reinhardt's Hollywood Bowl production of the same play, — Olivia de Havilland!
Few of Hollywood's "ethnic" character actors used their natural voices in their screen impersonations. The "funny" voices adopted by Leo Carrillo and John Qualen are two of my special hates.
SYNOPSIS: In this unusual but extremely well-acted film, Hecht and MacArthur explore the twilight world of book publishing. The script is loaded with literary allusions and inside jokes.
NOTES: Academy Award, Original Story, Hecht and MacArthur (beating Broadway Melody of 1936 and The Gay Deception).
3rd of the Hecht-MacArthur movies (preceded by Crime Without Passion and Once in a Blue Moon; followed by Soak the Rich).
COMMENT: A typically off-beat Hecht-MacArthur production. Though it's a bit dated today and seems only half as clever as it did in 1935, it's still a dazzling and fascinating film. Not only is it brilliantly acted, but its bizarre script gives rise to some marvelous photographic effects (like Coward's silhouette outlined against the storm- battered window). Music is effectively employed to enhance the grotesque atmosphere and all other technical credits are likewise first-class. But, as usual, it's the acting that's the most interesting aspect of the movie. Making his first American appearance (if we exclude his participation in Griffith's Hearts of the World, made in Europe in 1918),
Noel Coward is caustically perfect as the ultra-cynical publisher. He is more than ably supported by Julie Haydon (star of Max Reinhardt's fabulous Broadway production of A Midsummer Night's Dream),* Alexander Woollcott, the famous critic and commentator (immortalised by playwrights Kaufman and Hart as The Man Who Came to Dinner), Lionel Stander, Stanley Ridges, Harry Davenport, Eduardo Ciannelli (his second talkie, his first being Sidney Franklin's Reunion in Vienna in 1933), and Ernest Cossart, whose role here is entirely different from the obsequious butler/valet which later became his special forte. Here he uses his natural voice for possibly the only time in his screen career.
It's impossible to overstate the dramatic effect that the combined acting of all these comparatively new faces had on 1935 audiences. If The Scoundrel is no longer the innovative masterpiece which dazzled 1935 with its wit and cynicism, its intellectualism and sophistication, that is our loss.
* Julie Haydon had bad luck in Hollywood, ending up as Andy Hardy's older sister in A Family Affair, after which she returned to the stage, making only one more movie, Citizen Saint, in 1948. Contrast her ill-fortune with the success achieved by the star of Reinhardt's Hollywood Bowl production of the same play, — Olivia de Havilland!
Few of Hollywood's "ethnic" character actors used their natural voices in their screen impersonations. The "funny" voices adopted by Leo Carrillo and John Qualen are two of my special hates.
Should Have Been A Radio Show
GManfred14 May 2012
Unlike children, "The Scoundrel" should be heard and not seen. This very disappointing movie has a terrific script, containing dialogue delivered the way only Noel Coward could deliver it. Those familiar with his witty, supercilious delivery are in for a treat, and the team of Hecht-MacArthur have spread enough to go around to the entire cast.
Having said that, the acting in this picture was so bad as to be almost embarrassing, overwrought to the point of ham. Coward himself seems uncomfortable when not reciting his lines and seems to say them unnaturally, as though from memory and not as an actor would. The rest of the cast follows suit and seems bedazzled by his presence.
I find it astounding that this picture won an Academy Award (Worst Idea For A Motion Picture?) as the film starts out OK but quickly descends into goofy fantasy and ultimately into maudlin burlesque. Several actors are miscast and flounder about, except for Stanley Ridges, who plays the boyfriend of the girlfriend. "The Voice", Lionel Stander, as a poet? Come on. A hit-man, maybe, but not a poet. Ditto Eduardo Ciannelli. The best that can be said, apart from the dialogue, is that it is mercifully short at 76 minutes - but bring a blindfold.
Having said that, the acting in this picture was so bad as to be almost embarrassing, overwrought to the point of ham. Coward himself seems uncomfortable when not reciting his lines and seems to say them unnaturally, as though from memory and not as an actor would. The rest of the cast follows suit and seems bedazzled by his presence.
I find it astounding that this picture won an Academy Award (Worst Idea For A Motion Picture?) as the film starts out OK but quickly descends into goofy fantasy and ultimately into maudlin burlesque. Several actors are miscast and flounder about, except for Stanley Ridges, who plays the boyfriend of the girlfriend. "The Voice", Lionel Stander, as a poet? Come on. A hit-man, maybe, but not a poet. Ditto Eduardo Ciannelli. The best that can be said, apart from the dialogue, is that it is mercifully short at 76 minutes - but bring a blindfold.
adored it
editortwo6 April 2009
i saw this film over 20 years ago and still remember how much i loved it. it really touched me, and i thoroughly enjoyed noel coward's work in it. highly recommended: atmospheric and touching.
i think of this film from time to time, and am disappointed it hasn't enjoyed as much of a revival as many classic films. hadn't realized til i searched for it today that it won an academy award for best original story for ben hecht and charles macarthur.
basically it involves a nasty character who destroys another's career and is cursed because of it. he dies, but is allowed redemption if he can convince someone to shed a tear over him. the bulk of the movies shows him in pursuit of this goal. well written and lovely. i had known him for his plays so i was surprised to see him in this role on TV late one night in new york. a must see if you ever have the opportunity.
i think of this film from time to time, and am disappointed it hasn't enjoyed as much of a revival as many classic films. hadn't realized til i searched for it today that it won an academy award for best original story for ben hecht and charles macarthur.
basically it involves a nasty character who destroys another's career and is cursed because of it. he dies, but is allowed redemption if he can convince someone to shed a tear over him. the bulk of the movies shows him in pursuit of this goal. well written and lovely. i had known him for his plays so i was surprised to see him in this role on TV late one night in new york. a must see if you ever have the opportunity.
Nights of the Round Table
jozefkafka14 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
It's a unique film, as it gives us our only chance to see the young Noel Coward in all his ironic glory. Because he seems so reserved & detached he's perfect for the role of an unloved cad who matter-of-factly uses all those around him. However in the deadly serious (no pun intended) last act, when Coward must make like the Flying Dutchman, he's much less comfortable.
But his way with an epigram is peerless, and Hecht & Macarthur have given him some gems (Macarthur, really -- he was the wit of the pair).
The film is superbly lighted by the great Lee Garmes, but has little camera movement aside from a storm sequence. Hecht and Macarthutr cared about one thing -- getting their dialogue on screen. (NOTE: H&M themselves have blink-and-you'll-miss-'em cameos as bums in the flophouse scene).
The most notable supporting player is the one and only Alexander Woolcott, notorious Broadway columnist and close friend of both Macarthur and Coward, who appears as one of the bitchy authors always kept waiting in the reception room of publisher Coward.
Curious that Woolcott would agree to do a film that clearly lampoons the legendary Algonquin Round Table, of which he was a founder, and Macarthur something of an auxiliary member.
The Scoundrel actually won an Oscar for best story, though that victory is probably due more to Coward's imposing presence than any brilliance in the plot. It's Coward, Woolcott, and the dialogue you remember...
But his way with an epigram is peerless, and Hecht & Macarthur have given him some gems (Macarthur, really -- he was the wit of the pair).
The film is superbly lighted by the great Lee Garmes, but has little camera movement aside from a storm sequence. Hecht and Macarthutr cared about one thing -- getting their dialogue on screen. (NOTE: H&M themselves have blink-and-you'll-miss-'em cameos as bums in the flophouse scene).
The most notable supporting player is the one and only Alexander Woolcott, notorious Broadway columnist and close friend of both Macarthur and Coward, who appears as one of the bitchy authors always kept waiting in the reception room of publisher Coward.
Curious that Woolcott would agree to do a film that clearly lampoons the legendary Algonquin Round Table, of which he was a founder, and Macarthur something of an auxiliary member.
The Scoundrel actually won an Oscar for best story, though that victory is probably due more to Coward's imposing presence than any brilliance in the plot. It's Coward, Woolcott, and the dialogue you remember...
Who will give a care for Tony Mallare?
bkoganbing27 June 2020
An Oscar was given to the creators of The Scoundrel, Broadway playwrights
Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur for their original story and screenplay. It is
one of the few films where you can see Noel Coward at the height of his career.
Oddly enough and sadly not in one of his own works, but Hecht and MacArthur caught Coward's witty, ascetic, and acerbic personality completely.
Coward plays publisher Tony Mallare who has a put down for all occasions, especially for the authors who depend on him for their livelihood. They in turn have to take and like the guff that Coward hands out as does the rest of the human race.
In Inherit The Wind a the end there's a scene where lawyer Henry Drummond puts down cynical writer E.K. Hornbeck saying no one will give a damn about him once he dies. That's what Coward faces after he dies in a plane crash,an eternal fate of loneliness unless he can find just one among the living who cares about him.
Coward who was a pretty cynical fellow himself in his life gives a wonderful performance as Mallare. Coward who was cynical knew the pitfalls of cynicism and the story that Hecht and MacArthur created is a wonderful life lesson.
Do not miss this if broadcast.
Oddly enough and sadly not in one of his own works, but Hecht and MacArthur caught Coward's witty, ascetic, and acerbic personality completely.
Coward plays publisher Tony Mallare who has a put down for all occasions, especially for the authors who depend on him for their livelihood. They in turn have to take and like the guff that Coward hands out as does the rest of the human race.
In Inherit The Wind a the end there's a scene where lawyer Henry Drummond puts down cynical writer E.K. Hornbeck saying no one will give a damn about him once he dies. That's what Coward faces after he dies in a plane crash,an eternal fate of loneliness unless he can find just one among the living who cares about him.
Coward who was a pretty cynical fellow himself in his life gives a wonderful performance as Mallare. Coward who was cynical knew the pitfalls of cynicism and the story that Hecht and MacArthur created is a wonderful life lesson.
Do not miss this if broadcast.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
