Spätere Heirat ausgeschlossen

I saw this on TCM one day & was so delighted I actually recorded it. It is a rare gem and I found the screenplay and acting both believable and enjoyable. As many reviewers have noted, it is Pre-Code, meaning that women are allowed cleavage and men and women were portrayed in a natural way- that is sleeping in the same bed. (I actually remember asking my mom one time why Ricky Ricardo & Lucy slept in separate beds if they were married? What did they do, squeeze into that tiny bed the night Ricky, Jr. was conceived?! Preposterous! As most of the post-code was.)

But the 2 main strong points of the movie are Bette (of course) and the dialog. Bette plays Helen Bauer, a successful commercial artist and Gene Raymond plays Don Peterson, a successful advertising manager. There's a part early on in the movie when Helen & Don are discussing their relationship and it goes like this:

Don: "I'm just about fed up with sneaking in... let's get married so I'll have the right to be with you." Helen: "What do you mean 'right'? I don't like the word right." Don: "Let's not quibble about words." Helen: "No, I'm not quibbling, right means something. No one has any rights about me, except me."

And it's the WAY she says it, that means so much. She is able to say it and really mean it- without offending him.

Her character believes that women have the same rights as men. This is something I've always believed in very strongly myself, so I admit this is part of the reason the movie appeals to me so much. She also believes that she doesn't *have* to get married. And there's one part of the movie where she actually says the "dread" line, "I don't want babies." I look for the smelling salts as I write this! All kidding aside- good luck finding a female character this independent nowadays. I have to be honest- if more people thought like her, there would be less divorce. Her point is well taken- you should only really enter into marriage if you really want to. People marry for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with it. Helen's character even holds to her beliefs in the face of a very disapproving father. Even in the confrontation scene, she maintains her dignity and her beliefs without criticizing her parents' beliefs. There's another bit of dialog that shows how she thinks:

Gene: "You're a successful woman; I ought not to like it." Bette: "You're a pretty successful man; I ought not to like it." Gene & Bette in unison: "I'm a man!"

--- and Bette's body language says it all- she conveys the strength of will without robbing the man of his- something she has always been able to do so well and enigmatically. This also shows she's realistic- she's knows the times she lives in. And people that think that way will always be modern and contemporary. It definitely gives viewers a reason to watch something this amazing- especially considering it was made in 1933!

The rest of the cast if good and her partner in the movie played by Gene Raymond does a very nice job. They have a good chemistry on screen. As this is a pre-code movie and early Bette, I suppose those 2 reasons alone would make it worth watching- but the script and acting are also really good.

• update: I was looking at this movie today on IMDb and saw that 5 out of 10 people found my review helpful....what? did I hit a nerve with baby comment? or was it the one about only entering into marriage for love? I dunno but I thought I reviewed the movie and gave info that would help someone decide if it's the kind of movie they want to watch. Isn't that what the reviews are here for? to help?

Then I noticed ALL the reviews are like that (12 out of 24, 5 out of 10) so I guess somebody out there just doesn't like this movie. Maybe a post-code mentality?? ;)

I saw this film expecting an early Bette Davis effort of somewhat questionable value. Instead I found a highly entertaining film which made an artistic mark. The acting by Davis is, of course, always worth watching, but what really set this film apart was the script and the mise-en-scene.

The script, while not a masterpiece, is considerably above the norm. It is witty, and understanding of the desires, pride and foolishness of young, intelligent people in love. Bette plays it superbly with a slightly bored, worldly-wise exterior, and a passionate but somehow innocent interior. She is the focus of the film, the other actors being mainly satellites around her. They do a competent job, but the show is all hers.

The Deco sets were designed by someone with an obvious artistic talent and a flare for that style. Just looking at the sets and the costumes is worth the price of seeing the film. What is a real surprise is that the director used Bette as a kind of art object. The way she would pose and slouch, the style and color of her hair, the way she would hold her cigarette, her glass, the way she would arrange her body, and her expression so completely complement these lavish sets as to be a art display in themselves. This movie would be entertaining if you turned off the sound track and just watched the visuals - it is that good.

I am completely unfamiliar with the director, Robert Florey. In looking over the names of his films, none stand out for me as films of importance. Apparently he was awarded a French medal for his contributions to Cinema. If this film is any indication, and if he is truly responsible for the artistic elements in this film, then he is a very overlooked and important director.

Good acting and a slightly snappy script keep your interest afloat for this light sex comedy about marriage and early woman's lib. Decadent 30's New York is the background for this I-was-checking-out-while-she-was-checking-in (thank you, Don Covay!) tale of wavering fidelity.

100 years after her birth, in 2008, to the credit of the greatest actor of the 20th century, it's impossible to separate the personal empowerment of Bette Davis' viewers from societies becoming more gender & sexually egalitarian.

"Ex-Lady" is the film version of an unperformed (1931) play "Illicit." By 1933, the blatant sexuality of "Ex-Lady" was close to being considered censor-able. Warner Bros'. production explores the subject of open marriage way before it was popular. Brazen director, French Robert Florey accentuates the acute blend of delicious dialog, succinct script, on-point performances & sensual cinematography.

Helen Bauer (Bette Davis at 25yo) is a sexy, fashion illustrator. Don Peterson (Gene Raymond at 22yo) is an advertising executive who's proposed marriage to Helen; but, she initially refuses not wanting to give up her independence. Much to the chagrin of Helen's overly moralistic father, Adolphe Bauer (Alphonso Ethier), the unwed couple is obviously having a live-in sexual relationship. Had this film been released later, these sexual aspects of an unwed relationship would've been censor-able due to the Hayes Code.

What's more, after Miss Bauer eventually becomes Mrs. Peterson, Helen's reluctance to marry comes across like the woman has intuition, when her husband begins a sexual flirtation with the bored, flapper wife, Iris Van Hugh (Claire Dodd), of his alcoholic business rival, Hugo Van Hugh (Frank McHugh). When Helen tries to platonically date a handsome rouge, Nick Malvyn (Monroe Owsley), he unsuccessfully attempts to make an adulteress of her!

Several examples of delightful dialog make my points plain:

Don (Raymond): "I'm just about fed up with sneaking in...let's get married so I'll have the right to be with you." Helen (Davis): "What do you mean 'right'? I don't like the word 'right'." Don: "Let's not quibble about words." Helen: "No, I'm not quibbling, 'right' means something. No one has any 'rights' about me, except me."

Helen soft & sincerely conveys what Bette Davis believed: women are men's equals. Part of the reason such films appeal(ed) to Davis' audiences so much is because she portrays empowered women. Helen 'says without saying' that she has the 'right' not to get married & enjoy her sexuality, too (in 1933!).

When Helen (Davis) says: "I don't want babies," Davis commented later in her life (1971), there'd be fewer divorces if couples didn't marry simply to have sex & babies. If her point, that couples who get married ought to do so because they are very strongly committed to one another, hasn't been socially adopted in the US yet, & couples still wed for moralistic reasons, Davis' Helen conveys a higher moral reason for marriage: a feminist one that holds very heavy weight today, since equality between women & men is all the more prevalent, as this early 20th century dialog reveals:

Don (Raymond): "You're a successful woman; I ought not to like it." Helen (Davis): "You're a pretty successful man; I ought not to like it." Don & Helen simultaneously: "I'm a man!"

As usual, Bette Davis' unique set of physical & verbal expressions convey a woman's power; this time without disempowering her man. This remains her appeal to women & men: as a woman's role model who is eventually actualized & an independent woman who men do love. In this sense, Bette Davis' characters, as role models of empowered women, have far reaching effects upon changing the social status of women to be equal to men and reveals that men do like it.

'Ex-Lady's' reviews here are mixed, some liking/loving it and others not caring for it. Both sides understandable. My main reasons for seeing it were for Bette Davis (whoo always was a great actress, her performance in 'All About Eve' in particular is a favourite), in an early role when her career was more variable, and for the unconventional and ahead of the time subject matter (back when films got away with more before the code was enforced) which would be an interest point really for any film buff.

By all means 'Ex-Lady' is not one of Davis' best films, nowhere near close, she herself did not think so. To me though, it is still a very interesting film (one of her more interesting early films) and a very enjoyable one that does deserve to be better known, if mainly for curiosity and historical value. Both as a Davis completest, or at least trying to see as many of her films as possible, and to see how films were pre-code and were able to take more risks.

Did think that it was a bit stagy in spots and that the drama could have opened up more.

Also Kay Strozzi overdoes it dreadfully, not funny or endearing at all and quite annoying. The ending felt a bit on the pat side.

However, Davis, although she would give much better performances later when the quality of her films became more consistent in a good way, shows a deft comic touch and totally at ease with her material. Gene Raymond shares a witty but also surprisingly tender at times chemistry with her and although his presence isn't quite as arresting he is certainly not as bland as he could be. Frank McHugh brings a lot of energy to his role as does a wonderfully snide Monrow Owsley. The direction is hardly indifferent and makes great use of Davis.

The dialogue is full of snap and sizzle, witty but also sophisticated, while the story makes the most of the unconventional subject with a fair share of daring moments, in a way one is surprised that such an early film got away with what it contains. The production values are tasteful and elegant, though the photography could have been a little more refined in places, standing out especially are Davis' clothes which are things of beauty.

Overall, not great but enjoyable fun and wonderfully ahead of its time. 7/10