Vivamos hoy

Despite a fairly lukewarm critical reception, that a great director and an immensely talented cast were reasons enough to see 'Today We Live'. Really like to love quite a lot of Howard Hawks' films, he was a gifted director and a versatile and influential (certainly for other directors) one with one of his more distinctive touches being how he portrayed his female characters. Joan Crawford, Gary Cooper and Franchot Tone promise a lot individually, imagine how they would fare together.

Which actually for me was a bit of a mixed bag. In a rather strange mixed bag of a film. Not awful and watchable in a way when it finally picks up, but all involved have done and been in so much better (Crawford though did do a lot worse as well) than 'Today We Live'. Good things there are definitely, but a lot of things also could have been done a lot better. The idea was not a bad one, but the execution was on the other hand rather patchy.

'Today We Live' has good things. It looks good and is well shot in particular. William Axt's score is suitably moody. Hawks' direction does pick up when the action comes in in the second half, where he is more in his comfort zone.

Furthermore, the second half is better than the first. More confident with more story, and the action is well staged and excites. Some of the atmosphere is somewhat dream-like in a surreal sort of way. The cast are a mixed bag, but a couple are good. With a likeable Tone coming off best. He has good chemistry with Crawford, who has some affecting moments.

As well as some rather over-compensated and bland ones. Robert Young does his best but his character once again is underwritten. Gary Cooper looks rather lost and there is not much chemistry between him and Crawford. Hawks' direction doesn't seem very engaged or at ease in the early stages.

One of the worst things, maybe the worst thing, is the script. The clipped awkwardness is really quite painful and it sounds in dialogue and line delivery pretty stilted and like there wasn't much of a script at all. The story has its moments in the second half but is dull, almost drawn out in the less eventful scenes, and bland in the first. There is also some serious suspension of disbelief needed as the whole film is full of credibility straining.

Concluding, a strange mixed bag of a film. 5/10

This early Hawks' film has many of the themes that will frequently appear in all his filmography, like friendship between men or the professional skill as a mean of survival in dangerous situations. After a weak start the movie takes off during the plane and boat attacks, when Joan Crawford's character is somehow left aside. All in all, her character appears more like a nuisance than anything else. Her first appearance during the tea scene is promising but from there on she'll lack the mannish qualities of other Hawks' females. It is clear that the love interests all through the film are between Cooper, Tone and Young. Claude's blindness reminds other physical impediments of Hawksian heroes. This film, however, closes with a display of self sacrifice and heroism seldom seen in the director's universe. There's also some unusual appearance of religious elements. Although a film "d'epoque", Hawks cannot help turning the material into a modern piece. Some fine scenes, like the aviator instructing the neophyte gunman about the dangers of throwing up, or the wake of the dead cockroach are a true landmark of the director's imaginary, and a clear proof of his ability to turn any material into his own.

This film was hopelessly miscast. Why have Americans playing Brits especially when none can master the accent? But, that is one of the reasons to watch especially as Miss Crawford often forgets, or doesn't even try to attempt to be English, in places... sometimes in mid sentence. You can also laugh at the stilted attempts at English Dialogue - "Sister, Mine". "Officer now. Navy. Now I can ask her.". "Feelings Anne. Can't change love.". There's also some clumsy scenes but this was made in 1933 so we were only just out of the silent age so some over dramatic, over egged, over acted scene's are to be expected.

Yet, and despite this being a pot-boiler of a love triangle with war and Anglos-American relations as it's background, it is enjoyable for some still superb acting, the way the three main characters a loved by the camera and are give back warmth and honesty in return. Never been a big fan of Joan Crawford but she looks good and (if we forget she is supposed to be British) gives a good performance.

The sort of film you watch to look at both the good and the bad of cinema at the time and it gives you plenty to talk about later. And remember Crawford and Franchot Tone met for the first time when making this film. he became her second husband two years later.

And hubba hubba, one of those men is tall, gorgeous Gary Cooper. End of discussion! This is a very melodramatic film with a lot of World War I action scenes.

Apparently the role that Joan plays, Diana, Ronnie's sister, was added to the script and does not appear in the Faulkner novel. Ronnie is Franchot Tone, and he and Crawford met and fell in love during this film.

Diana is engaged to Claude (Robert Young) and in fact, one of the major moments of the film is when they decide to sleep together though they're not yet married. Diana, however, soon falls in love with the man who took over her family home, Richard (Cooper) who is also a soldier and winds up in the same division as Ronnie and Claude.

For a time, he is presumed dead, but when he reappears, problems arise for Diana, especially when Claude is badly injured and Richard realizes that she is living with him.

The film is very dated. The acting is pretty good except that all these people are supposed to be British. Apparently in order to give a clipped British sound to the dialogue, it goes something like this throughout the film: "Bad thing. Told him. Going away."

Cooper is handsome and likable, Young is fine, Crawford is pretty good, and Tone is excellent. There are many rainy action scenes and a very dark atmosphere throughout.

All right. Franchot and Crawford. In love.

Ponderous, miscast slog of a film. The performers try their best but only Cooper's character is believable. Crawford, Young and Tone are all supposed to be British born, none speak in anything but refined American accents. Their parts should have been played by Diana Wynyard, Ronald Coleman and Leslie Howard all truly English actors actively working in Hollywood at the time, the film would probably still have been a bore but at least it would have felt grounded in some kind of reality. MGM was trying to move Joan away from the shop girl roles that were her bread and butter at the time but this was an ill advised vehicle for her. Missing Hawks customary economy of timing and pace and a lacking any visual sense of time or place, Joan's clothes in particular are inappropriate and at times bizarre-one outfit looks like she has an ironing board attached to it!, you'd be better served to seek out other work by all involved.