There is a big charity function at the house of Mrs. Cheyney and a lot of society is present. With her rich husband, deceased, rich old Lord Elton and playboy Lord Arthur Dilling are both ... See full summary »
Count Armalia believes that the luck of birth is all that separates the rich from the poor. To test his theory, he sends Anni, who is a singer in a dive, to a ritzy resort for two weeks. ... See full summary »
Criminal Ace Connors agrees to return to New York and stand trial for stealing $500,000 worth of bonds so he can serve a light five-year sentence and enjoy his loot (safely stowed away in ... See full summary »
Mrs. Fay Cheyney, a rich American widow, insinuates herself into London society. Two men in particular -- middle-aged Lord Kelton and Lord Arthur Dilling, a young playboy -- pursue her. All are present at a large weekend house party, and though both men press their suit, Fay seems to favor Kelton. Then Dilling sees Fay's butler lurking in the gardens, recognizes him as a jewel thief who was apprehended in Monte Carlo, and realizes that Fay is probably after the hostess's pearls. Fay does get hold of the pearls -- but before she can pass them to her accomplice, Dilling gets hold of her.Written by
Tony Fontana <firstname.lastname@example.org> and Determined Copy Editor
Standing on deck, Fay is trying, unsuccessfully to light the cigarette in her holder with a lighter. she is seen by Nigel Bruce, who lights it for her. Later, when offered a cigarette by Lord Dilling, she states, "....you know I don't smoke." Since the characters have speculated about her, wouldn't Lord Dilling know that his friend lit her cigarette aboard ship? See more »
Many earlier reviewers have said the Crawford was "mis-cast" as Mrs. Cheyney. I have to disagree. It is not her best performance (for her best acting, see her small but scene-stealing role in The Women and for a Crawford feast, see her Oscar-winning turn in Mildred Pierce), but it is far from her worst. The blame cannot be entirely placed on Crawford either. Nor can it be placed on the director. It must be placed on the production code administrators who sheared Hollywood scripts after 1934, cutting out anything considered "risqué." The original play by Fredric Lonsdale is a surprisingly hilarious and fresh send-up of the class sytem in England. Butler and footmen who are actually thieves in disguise get to act veddy propper and then (when the guests leave) get to drop their phony apparel. Its really quite funny. In the play, when Crawford's would-be suitor catches her at robbery, he forces her to spend a night in the closet with him. This was wonderfully handled in the 1929 Norma Shearer original of this picture. But the production code said that thieves had to always be punished, and sexual actions could not be forced or blackmailed. Thus, this is an extremely bowdlerized version of the play. It is interesting to watch the stars interplay, and I'm a bit surprised that it flopped so largely in 1937. Seeing some of the junk that goes over big nowadays, one would think that with a cast like this and high production values, it would have at least made its mark. See the Norma Shearer version, if you can find it. Unfortunately, its very rare (there is a laser disc version of it on The Dawn of Sound Volume III), but totally worth it. It is risqué and hilarious. Or see Trouble In Paradise, another early pre-Code comedy about jewel thieves, who in that film, don't have to face punishment for their actions.
24 of 27 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this