Sin Takes a Holiday

This pre-Code comedy is more interesting for its decor and reflection of the morals of the day than for its acting or story. The plot revolves around three characters, each in love with the one who isn't in love with her or him. Things work out in a way--two characters find each other and the third is left to move on. All this happens in an atmosphere of wealth, where amoral dalliance is both expected and titillating. An unfortunate effect is that the three characters come off as facile and, ultimately, unlikeable, the comedic talents of Bennett and the imposing presence of Rathbone notwithstanding. Despite the dismissal of a group of morally repugnant friends at the end, I didn't believe in the couple's future happiness--nor in the morally bankrupt world they inhabit and seem to enjoy. And I felt sorry for the one left out. He seemed the only character with a conscience. The always delightful presence of Zazu Pitts should be noted, though she plays a small role in the plot development. Enjoy this film for the marvelously fantastic Art Deco sets and wonderful period gowns. But ultimately, the resolution of the plot leaves one unsatisfied.

SIN TAKES A HOLIDAY is the story of a divorce lawyer who comes up with the idea of having a wife in name only for his convenience. In other words, because he has a wife, it's a lot easier to rebuff the advances of his lonely female clients. He asks his faithful secretary (Constance Bennett) and at first she refuses. Part of this is obvious to the viewer--she secretly loves this lawyer. But when he behaves boorishly towards her, she decides to take him up on it because she can travel and have anything she wants...except her boss.

Unfortunately, there are two major problems with the film. The story has been done many times before in various forms and is very predictable. The other problem is that the "dramatic transformation" of Miss Bennett from a dowdy secretary to a ravishing socialite is just too unbelievable. She looks pretty much the same in both roles other than the clothes. But, like when Clark Kent removes his glasses, you are expected to believe in this miraculous change--it just isn't that miraculous as Bennett just isn't that desirable or different.

Overall, an interesting film where the actors try their best--it's just that the material isn't that interesting and is a disappointment in light of the salacious title! It's a pleasant romantic time-passer and that's about all.

Lightweight froth featuring an early role for Basil Rathbone as a playboy who falls for newlywed Constance Bennett after learning that her marriage to businessman Kenneth MacKenna is a sham. Rathbone's ok, but, outside of the Sherlock Holmes movies, it's strange to watch him behaving reasonably honourably. Bennett looks a knockout, even when she's supposed to be dowdy.

Not great, but certainly I enjoyed watching this fun little oldie. I'll probably forget about it a week from now, so I'd better review it while it's still fresh! I enjoyed the (sometimes) witty dialogue which often had double-entendres or hidden meanings. Constance Bennett had some of the best lines.

A group of four well-off men (Gaylord (Kenneth MacKenna), Reggie (Basil Rathbone), and two others) socialize together, each with a beautiful girl on their arm. The two married men are seeing single girls (possibly call girls? it seemed to hint at that only very briefly at the beginning of the film), and the two single men go for married women. Reggie actually only dates women in Europe -- he goes there to "play" but in his home city of New York remains unencumbered, truly a no-strings-attached bachelor/playboy.

Gaylord's married girlfriend is itching to get a divorce and snag Gaylord as husband #3 or #4. Gaylord has no desire to get married, and so to solve this problem he gets married (yes I wrote that sentence correctly!) -- he enters into a loveless, marriage of convenience with his secretary so that he can't be snagged into marriage by his girlfriend. He then sends his wife/secretary off to Europe with a tidy sum of money for her troubles so that he can continue his playboy ways.

It was interesting to see the morals (or lack thereof!) that so many of the characters exhibited as well as what the "rules" of the day were regarding divorce. As there was no such thing as a 'no fault divorce' back then, often elaborate excuses needed to be fabricated (as we see Gaylord, a divorce attorney himself, rattling off to his secretary regarding his various female clients who need new excuses for their third or fourth divorces). Another way out of marriage was proved infidelity - emphasis on proved - and this involved naming a "correspondent", i.e., the person with whom the cheating married spouse was having an affair. One part I didn't quite understand was when one of Gaylord's married male friends told him that the best way to fool around with married women was if you were married yourself, that way you couldn't be named correspondent in a potential divorce. So, only *single* men (or women) could be named correspondents??? I didn't understand if that was indeed true for real life at the time, or if it was just some not-very-well-explained plot device for getting Gaylord to enter into his sham marriage in order to set up the main plot of the movie.

Well, that's just a little sidebar tangent I went off on. The main plot of the movie involves a love triangle (square?) of sorts between Gaylord, his wife/secretary (Sylvia, played by Constance Bennett), and Reggie. Seems like Sylvia loves Gaylord, or at least would like him to love her; Reggie pursues Sylvia (he's a raging playboy so is it just the challenge of the conquest or does he really love her?); and then there's Gaylord who seems to be interested in his wife, but only after he's sent her off to Europe and he sees pictures in the newspaper society section of his lovely transformed wife hanging out at the races with Reggie. Throw Gaylord's married girlfriend into the mix and you've got a love "square" instead of triangle.

The above sets the movie's plot into motion; the remainder of the movie is to see who will be honest with whom and how all these people and couplings will end up.

I enjoyed Basil Rathbone in this flick -- I've never seen him in his most famous incarnation as Sherlock Holmes, I've only seen him in two other movies, where he played a real b*st*rd in both (David Copperfield and Anna Karenina), so it was nice to see him in a different type of role here. Constance Bennett was pretty good -- she plays better at lighter comedy, this seemed just a tad too sophisticated for her, but she did a good job nonetheless; no complaints really. And I really enjoyed Kenneth MacKenna, although judging from his resume here on IMDb, it looks like I probably won't be seeing him in any other movie any time soon, unless TCM pulls something really obscure out of its vault. I wonder why Mr. MacKenna made so few films -- he was a nice enough looking man in this flick and handled the acting fairly well. Hmmm, who knows. He lived into the 1960s. With the exception of 3 films in the last three years of his life, IMDb shows his film career as non-existent between 1933-1960. Maybe he decided the movie biz wasn't for him.

Overall score: 6/10

Edited 9/21/06 to add: I am reading a book on Kay Francis and was interested to learn that Kenneth MacKenna was married to Kay for about 3-4 years in the early 30s (they were divorced in early 1934). He preferred being behind the camera directing rather than out in front, so that explains his disappearance from film acting after 1933.

Gaylord (Kenneth MacKenna) quickly arranges a marriage of convenience to his secretary, Sylvia (Constance Bennett) to avoid the advances of his socialite friend, Grace (Rita le Roy). Gaylord draws up a 1 year contract with Sylvia so that there is an understanding about how they can both behave and he encourages her to travel to France and do her own thing. However, after spending time in France with Reggie (Basil Rathbone), Sylvia returns to Gaylord to ask what he truly feels....

This is a fun film. No-one is correct - everyone behaves atrociously. The men are ultimately revealed as cads or blind to their actions while the women are calculating and far more deliberate and nasty in their actions. It's interesting to watch to see who Sylvia will end up with........she ain't no angel.....don't be fooled by her apparent innocence. She's just as much of a bitch as Grace as her behaviour demonstrates. We have a confrontation at the end between all the characters involved which is what we have been anticipating and the dialogue is very entertaining.

A mention about the character Gaylord. Well..........there's his name first of all...and then there is the fact that he doesn't seem interested in any women.....GAY....or maybe not, eh? I also think that they needed to make Constance Bennett far more plain in the first half of the story so that her transformation into a babe is believable. As it is, she looks good before and after. No change there.

An enjoyable film.