Los ricos están con nosotros

All these rich people and no one seemed to know a Depression was on.

Ruth Chatterton, George Brent, and Bette Davis star in "The Rich Are Always With Us." from 1932.

Then ten-year marriage of Caroline Van Dyke (Chatterton) and Greg Grannard is falling apart. It's one of those things where everyone flirts openly no matter if the spouse is standing right there or not.

Julian (Brent) is mad for Caroline, but she resists him, and, sensing Greg may be on his way out, pushes the issue. She says no and leaves for Paris, intending to file for divorce.

Julian follows her. Greg is having a hard time financially - I guess the Depression did hit him. Caroline returns to the U.S. to help -- she's filthy rich and always has been.

And so it goes, with Malbro (Davis) in love with Julian as well.

Elevated by the performances. Bette Davis is so young and fresh, she's marvelous. Brent looks very elegant in his dress clothes and plays the bachelor well.

And Ruth Chatterton - I can never figure out why I love her so much. Although forty at the time, she plays a thirty-year-old, which she often did. And I think they could have helped her a little by not giving her such awful clothes. She came from a stage background and really had a way with a line. Very natural, and yet somehow manages to be sophisticated at the same time. The whole film has a level of sophistication one doesn't see today.

Okay film - see it for the performances, particularly the early Davis, who nearly walks away with the film. And check out Brent lighting two cigarettes and giving one to Chatterton - guess that preceded Now, Voyager by a few years.

Rich Are Always with Us, The (1932)

** (out of 4)

A nice cast can't save this tiresome drama about boring rich people and their boring, pathetic lives. Ruth Chatterton plays Caroline who has the great fortune of being the richest woman in the world but this doesn't stop her husband from leaving her for a "normal" woman. She has a man (George Brent) who wants to marry her but there's another rich woman (Bette Davis) after him. All three remain friends as their money and personal lives continue to grow frantic. I can't imagine this film going over too well in 1932 considering what the country was going through at the time. It's hard to imagine poor folks lining up for this thing and enjoying what was in front of their eyes because even when viewed today these characters are all one-note and rather boring. The screenplay is a major bust because there's not a single character written that you'll care for or want to see happy at the end. I'm sure great movies could be made about unhappy rich people but this here isn't it. It's never too clear what the film is trying to accomplish because on one hand it wants us to feel sorry for these people but on the other why should we? The screenplay doesn't give them any personality and in the end it's just impossible to care for them, which is a major problem in a movie like this. Director Green should also be taken to task because you can't tell anyone was behind the camera. There's not an ounce of energy to be found anywhere as there's no atmosphere and the look of the film is quite flat as well. The one saving grace are some fine performances by a more than good cast. Chatterton was always good at playing this type of woman but the screenplay really lets her down. Both Brent and Davis are good in their roles but the screenplay doesn't help them either. THE RICH ARE ALWAYS WITH US isn't one of the worst films ever made but once the end credits come up there's really no purpose in the entire film.

Although the film reads as a fairly typical marriage / divorce romance film, Bette Davis stands out as a feisty third wheel to George Brent and Ruth Chatterton. She is at her most playful and spirited in the scene in Brent's apartment before he leaves for Europe. Wonderful stuff.

It seems odd that so many films made during the Depression were about rich, pretty and sophisticated people. After all, with 20% of the population out of work and wages incredibly low, you'd think the patrons in the theaters would grow sick and tired of these fancy stories. But, despite this, the major studios made tons of films involving the lives of the rich and successful. Perhaps it was all escapism....with the average folks looking at what life COULD be like if.

In the case of "The Rich Are Always With Us", the film not only is about these rich folks but has a very healthy dose of Pre-Code sensibilities as well. What I mean is that before July, 1934, the studios often made movies with incredibly adult themes. Adultery, abortions, insanity, homosexuality and many topics which became taboo with the new Production Code had been pretty common in the years leading up to 1934. For example, the film actually uses the word 'sex'--very unusual even in the Pre-Code era....and it also treats marriage in a rather cavalier manner...one not allowed in films only two years later.

Caroline is an incredibly rich woman who is married to Greg. Despite this, she hangs out a lot with her male friend, Julian (George Brent) and Greg hangs around with Allison. The difference is that Caroline and Julian see it all as harmless flirtation...but Greg and Allison are actually lovers. When Caroline discovers this, she is incredibly understanding (too much so!) and encourages the pair to marry...and she's soon off to France to get a divorce and get Greg out of her system. Following the divorce, Julian arrives in France and asks Caroline to marry him...though she hesitates and he leaves. He's not about to beg her and is going to get on with his life. He ends up spending much of his time with another lady on the rebound (Bette Davis). And as for Caroline, it's difficult to say WHAT she wants. She ends up persuing Julian...but also starts spending time with Greg! What's to become of this...especially when Greg's new (and incredibly jealous) wife gets involved?!

As you watch the movie, it's very likely you'll feel like the characters are all being too polite and sophisticated. Normally, you'd expect divorcing people to hate each other or harbor SOME ill feelings....but not during most of this film. Caroline later DOES show some feelings....and keeps them to herself. After all, it wouldn't be polite to get angry!

So it this any good? Well, although it's hard to connect with and care about these people, the acting and direction were very good. Also, the ending is pretty limp....and really seemed a bit contrived. Overall, just an okay time-passer....and it should have been much better.

There are 3 short clips at the start of this movie, set in 1900, 1920, and 1930, respectively, taking place in powder rooms where high society women gossip about Caroline Grannard, lead character, 'richest woman in the world', played by Ruth Chatterton; she is born, gets married, and lunching with writer Julian Tierney (George Brent). Interior decoration, dress, and even background music, are all period appropriate. While Warner Brothers probably had these sets and dresses and extras lying about from other movies, and whole thing cost very little, question that interest me is why all that for a simple exposition that would have taken two lines of dialogue in the movie proper? Did the director and producers wanted filler to pad up something so insubstantial that it cannot even stand on its own for 1 hour and 10 minutes? Seems so.

Plot here involve romantic and marital entanglements of rich society people, mainly on who the lead character really loves, her (soon ex) husband she 'mothers', or the writer who she keeps hanging without deciding (to the annoyance of a rather spoiled society girl (Bette Davis) who is in love with him). Nothing else, there is no higher purpose, no socio political commentary, no deep psychology, no insight into human nature and relationships, no simple enjoyable love story/villainy even. While there is no absolute requirement that movies should have some of that, absence do make them rather boring.

However, this is not boring, mainly because of the acting. Chatterton is so good that i want to see more of her movies. As others have noted, in this movie she has a way of repeating and even stammering some dialogue that is so naturalistic that i initially wondered whether they had run out of takes and used the least bad. But it happened frequently enough, and there were similar stuff with her gestures, that it was soon clear it was deliberate. She comes from a stage background, but when modern 'method actors' use similar techniques, you can spot them right away. Almost all the others were rather good too, though from a different style. Brent as usual underplays his part. Energetic Davis (3 years before her breakthrough role in 'On Human Bonadge') in that phase of career when Warner tried to make her blond, sexy, and glamorous (successfully in my opinion though she herself thought otherwise), found the right foil in Brent (with whom she was to star in quite a number of her best movies), as demonstrated by her scene with him in his apartment. John Miljan, who plays husband, and Adrienne Dore as his lover, were also good.