Ex-Lady

Bette Davis is a free-spirited, cool-as-a-cucumber commercial artists who keeps rebuffing marriage proposals from her boyfriend, the owner of an advertising agency. Why? Because she thinks marriage will lose its spark. Complacency and boredom will settle in, and then what. Bette's character eventually relents, but her reservations prove accurate. Gene Raymond plays the love interest, and he's quite good, a character who is serious and has gravitas.

The cast includes Frank McHugh as a stuffed shirt seemingly oblivious to the attentions of his gorgeous wife, played by Claire Dodd. Monroe Owsley and Kay Strozzi also give good turns as glamorous society types who come between Davis and Raymond. Ex-Lady is not so much sexually suggestive as sexually obvious. Even by pre-code standards, not much is left to the imagination. Bette Davis looks beautiful; cinematographer Tony Gaudio captures her ethereal beauty, something Warner Brothers boss Jack Warner failed to appreciate. Clocking in at 67 minutes, Ex-Lady doesn't overstay its welcome.

Going into Ex-Lady I really didn't expect Bette Davis to have that much chemistry with Gene Raymond, who has never been a particular favorite of mine; I always considered him too feminine a leading man, with that blonde hair and non-threatening, laid back physique. However in this film I was pleasantly surprised: I think working with dynamo Bette made Gene a much better actor. I get the feeling he really went to school watching her, and gave a performance to match. I like him a lot better here than in Red Dust, for instance.

The plot of Ex-Lady dances around a provocative subject quite deftly, with witty dialog and great pacing. Bette plays a successful commercial artist who is in love with a fellow who wants to marry her, but she is unwilling to take the plunge. She'd rather live in sin with her beloved. Even when confronted by her parents she defies tradition. However eventually she decides to marry her lover so that she doesn't lose him. The marriage has some jittery ups and downs, and in the interim we are treated to some fine character actors playing mischief makers popping in and out of the couple's life, creating mayhem.

Frank McHugh is quite funny and breezy as their ultimate matchmaker - even though he has his own secret yen for the artist, he does what he can to resolve the situation sacrificially. Monroe Owsley ("Private Number") is a leering confrontative distraction to Bette. Striking Kay Strozzi makes her play for the husband too desperately for her own good. All this makes for wonderful fun. However once again, as with most precode films, we have a traditional, conservative ending to our story. This may be realistic, it may not, to each his own. I prefer happy endings myself.

9 out of 10.

If the script of this movie was a little better this could have really been something. The force of Bette Davis in this film is captivating. Consider this is 1933 as the code nears and she is prancing around in plunging necklines in nightgowns while in bed with her co-star Gene Raymond. The subject matter of this film considers illicit affairs and to understand this Warner Brothers film a little better it helps to know the director was French. Still, the script was American and for The Great Depression the scenes of the high-ceiling city apartments with the flashy gowns and suits and costumes and nightlife must have seen so foreign and glamorous to audiences at the time. To think that 90 years later I can watch this movie and feel the same way as most of America did looking at this film - such a foreign place, time and atmosphere that we may never get back. In many ways, I wonder if this film was ahead of its time or a reflection of the 1920's good times or a mix of Hollywood selling fantasyland to a depressed America. No matter which way you take this movie, the energy of Bette Davis is always something to behold. Interesting that Raymond, who married MGM star Jeanette McDonald, is not better remembered. He reminds me of Paul Henreid, and shows some good chops here. As I say, if this script was a point or two better, this film could have been an 8 but I give it a 7 primarily for the great acting of Davis, the solid performance by Raymond, the great costumes and to be frank - the shock value of how scandalous this seems to me now putting the film in the context of its time and place.

Bette Davis plays Helen Bauer, a woman who does not want to get married and be tied down to one man. However she does have a lover named Don Peterson(Gene Raymond). He persuades her to marry him. They do and things rapidly fall apart.

Once considered pretty shocking this is tame by todays standards. The discussions about love and sex are actually quite funny in this day and age. But the movie moves quickly (it's only a little over an hour) and Davis and Raymond play off each other very well. Davis in later years bad-mouthed this film but it's actually pretty good. Worth catching.

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.