Two Against the World

What an Odd Ending. This Entertaining Poke at the Snobbish Elite who Go about Their Detached, Uncaring, Whimsical Ways in the Throes of the Great Depression and much Human Suffering is Average or slightly above.

Constance Bennett's Natural Acting is in full Command and the Supporting Cast Lead by Neil Hamilton are OK. The Film is Professionally Handled and the Social Concerns of the Time are Given Appropriate Due.

But, there isn't anything Outstanding here and it's kind of Pedestrian and the Ending is "Out to Lunch" at a Diner, Eating Beans. However, Fans of Bennett and Early Talking Cinema might Want to Check this one out. Just Don't Expect any Great Shakes. Pass the Ketchup.

Two Against the World (1932)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Rich socialite Adele Hamilton (Constance Bennett) begins dating an honest lawyer (Neil Hamilton) but soon she's mixed up in a murder, which her brother committed. Trying to shield her brother, everything goes as planned until the lawyer becomes the prosecutor on the case. TWO AGAINST THE WORLD is a fairly entertaining courtroom drama that's certainly far-fetched but the performances make it worth sitting through. Obviously, it would be nearly impossible for the lawyer to have to go up against a woman he's been dating and seen with socially but we'll just pretend that doesn't matter. What works the best with this film is that Bennett gives an extremely good and believable performance as the rich woman who is constantly just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I liked how the screenplay made her a very strong woman who believed in doing what it takes to protect those around her and I really enjoyed the final showdown in the courtroom. Again, it's far-fetched but the charm and toughness of Bennett really comes across. Hamilton is also very good in his role as the good-hearted lawyer who finds himself in a tough situation. The supporting players include nice performances from Roscoe Karns, Galvin Gordon and Helen Vinson. Director Archie Mayo could handle this type of film in his sleep so obviously he has no problem keeping it going at a very good pace. At just 70-minutes the film never seems too long and instead it flows at a good pace.

Although very vaguely based on the infamous (at the time) Francis Donaldson 'honour' murder case just like MGM's UNASHAMED was, this is nothing whatsoever like that other film. Whereas that MGM picture is a sombre and serious re-imagining of a disturbing true story, this is just a typical Warner Brothers romantic melodrama.

That's not to say this is inferior: it's not got the punch of MGM's offering but it's more enjoyable, entertaining and fun. If you like a madly contrived melodrama with all the trimmings then this is your cup of chai. The 'honour killing' aspect is essentially just a plot device that's quite cleverly used to give this story a happy ending. Besides being more enjoyable because it's a bit lighter in mood, thanks to Archie Mayo's non-spectacular but always reliably professional direction, it's one of those astonishingly short movies which still manage to pack in three hours of story into one hour of film.

Constance Bennett is rather lovely in this but the role hardly stretches her acting skills, she does however model a different dress every seven minutes - but why not, she's Constance Bennet! The characters are the ubiquitously lazily drawn stereotypes Warners seemed to put in so many of their pictures which intended to show their working class audiences that they were on their side, they were struggling with them through the depression....oh, and paying Constance Bennett $30,000 per week! We've got the usual spoilt rich heiress, the heartless rich folk in their top hats and the young working class hero fighting for justice. Corney - yes. Contrived - yes. But bad Picture - definitely not, it was a tried and tested formula which Warners had honed to perfection.

They did however miss a trick with this one. Considering the emotionally charged pictures Warners made campaigning for social justice, it is a little disappointing that they missed an opportunity for any social commentary with this. It's watchable, it's reasonably engrossing and surprisingly tense and exciting as it reaches its climax but it doesn't emotionally engage or enrage you like a lot of their films did. Maybe they simply thought that because the MGM film that was inspired by that murder case was so depressing, people simply needed cheering up?

I never cease to be amazed at how in the early 1930s they were able to pack twice as much plot, action, social comment and ideas in 70-minute movies than exist in today's movies that are twice as long.

This one was very loosely inspired by a contemporary scandal about a murder committed by a rich socialite "defending his sister's honor" as they used to say in the era of the sexual double standard that underlies so many plots in those days.

Yes, as some have pointed out, some of the main characters are spoiled rich people. So are some of the main characters in novels by Tolstoy, Henry James and Edith Wharton. If it bothers you, go back to your Spiderman movies.

The plot revolves about a budding romance between Constance Bennett, one of the more spoiled idle rich and a member of the family involved in the scandal, and Neil Hamilton as a socially conscious attorney formerly from her social class.

The pace is so fast that it takes some time to sort all the characters out, which may deter you at first but it all becomes clear eventually. The film takes jabs at sensationalistic tabloids, the double standard and our justice system's bias towards the rich, but like everything else in the movie, doesn't linger on these any longer than needed to make its point.

Not to say that the movie is at all preachy. There's plenty of comedy and snappy dialogue along the way.

If you seek uplift, Bennett's character gains much insight into her own nature and lifestyle as the film advances but, again, the point isn't belabored.

Bennett and Hamilton both charm in their roles and the whole cast is excellent.

This film was made right after the successful What Price Hollywood, which was a departure from Bennett's string of confession stories that made her the highest paid actress in the business. In this film, Bennett is even better. The plot is familiar - the only surprise being that Bennett's wastrel brother doesn't get what he deserves - but the plot doesn't matter. This is the story of a girl who meets the man she can happily live with for the rest of her life, though there is a big bump enroute to the happy ending. Bennett is reteamed with Neil Hamilton - her love interest in What Price Hollywood - and he proves that he's the man who can tame this privileged rich girl, who thinks traffic signs and no smoking in the elevator don't apply to her.

In 1932 Bennett was getting bad press for her high-hat ways and big spender habits, so the scriptwriters wrote a scene in Hamilton's law office where she gives $100 to his destitute client with a promise of more to come. Hamilton says approvingly, "That was a very nice thing for you to do", which the audience could hardly fail to approve of as well, thereby softening her image.

Bennett/Dell is confident and flirtatious, a young woman who goes after what she wants, and it's immediately evident that she wants the not rich Hamilton, who is smitten with her at first sight. Bennett is gorgeous, stunning in her furs and hats and gowns. Her acting throughout is spot on, and in the climatic courtroom scene she is impressive. Her moods on the witness stand shift from haughtiness to fear to relief and then to suspense as prosecutor Hamilton stares at her for a nerve wracking minute before speaking.

Bennett had a wider range than she's reputed to have, wider than Shearer and Crawford, neither of whom could do comedy. This film should have been the beginning of a long career with one triumphant film following another. Instead, it was the beginning of the end of her stardom. And why Hamilton didn't become a major star like Bennett's frequent movie partner, Joel McCrea, is another mystery.