Ange

Ernst Lubitsch was an incredibly talented director, who to me rarely made a dud, with his best films even being masterpieces. Even his lesser films are worth a look, even if just once, and better than a lot of directors at their worst.

'Angel' is not among his best films, being not in the same league as 'The Merry Widow', 'Ninotchka', Heaven Can Wait', 'The Shop Around the Corner' and especially 'Trouble in Paradise'. It is however, for all its imperfections, one of his more overlooked films. Some may say 'Angel' is a gem, others may say it's a rare dud. To me, it's neither but is much better than its reputation suggests.

By all means it could have been better. It does lag in places, not helped by a story being a bit thin for the running time, with some of the romantic melodrama laid on too thickly at times. Herbert Marshall, who is more capable of giving a good performance but has also given some dull ones, is rather somnolent in his role. A few of the secondary roles are underwritten, Edward Everett Horton while still being very funny in particular is under-utilised.

With those being said, while just lacking the famous "Lubitsch touch", being on subdued form and lacking the risqué edge, Lubitsch does direct with his customary class and subtlety. He also has some beautiful visual touches, in a lovingly photographed and designed film that clearly loves Marlene Dietrich, judging by now positively luminous she looks.

Music is appropriately whimsical in places while also sweeping without being overbearing. The script does have some sparkling humour in the supporting roles and typically sophisticated with a warm charm. The story is less than perfect but has some fun and charming moments.

Dietrich is as aforementioned luminous, has a class and elegance and gives her character good comic timing and pathos. In the supporting roles, Horton and Ernest Cossart are particularly entertaining with their back and forth standing out of the comedy.

In conclusion, could have been better but overlooked. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Lubitsch is recognized as one of the great directors of the 30s, and yet this wonderful film is not on any of the usual critical lists of notable films. Perhaps it was too modern for its time. It is perhaps Dietrich's best English performance (though even here she could be a bit more subtle), but the real star is the director, shining in the shots he composes and performances he coaxes from his actors. Lubitsch is a master of subtlety, and when he places important moments off-screen, it is in such a way as to heighten their impact. Since the censorship code is in effect, the sexual elements are cleverly concealed. For example, Halton and Barker discover that in Paris they both visited the same... seamstress. The naive Hays Office must have thought that was the joke, but the real joke is on them for it is clear--at least today--that the two did not visit her to get their sewing done. The sophistication of the film is unusual for its time.

Pages could be written about this film. Suffice it to say that if you like 30s film at all, see this. In certain moments, it feels perfect. Probably one of the top 25 of the decade.

Immediate promise of romance and flourishes of drama to flavor light humor and amusement: it's very easy to simplify 'Angel' to the most basic description - but also foolish. This is a wonderfully enchanting and entertaining picture, rich with detail in so many ways. The costume design of Travis Banton is exquisite and fetching, as well as the set design and decoration. Much credit to Charles Lang's vibrant cinematography that, in combination with fine lighting, only serves to further amplify star Marlene Dietrich's already irrepressibly radiant beauty and natural charm (as well as make every scene, generally, very pleasing to the eyes). And even these only just match the brilliant wit and intelligence of the adapted screenplay concocted between Samson Raphaelson and Frederick Lonsdale. 'Angel' distinctly declines the sort of robust comedy and absurdism that we recognize in many of director Ernst Lubitsch's other pictures, but in its stead we're treated to sharp cleverness in the craft of every word of dialogue, every character, and every scene. It's marvelously absorbing and immediately rewarding as a viewer, and just as fully engaging as any more outrageous romp or dire drama.

The very arrangement of each moment, on paper and on film, is bursting with such barely restrained anticipated tension, but is also so tremendously perfect, resonant, fluid, and organic that the picture could only be described as mellifluous in its presentation. And that quality is a fine reflection, of course, of the performances given by the cast. This goes for everyone, even Edward Everett Horton and Ernest Cossart in smaller supporting parts as Graham and Mr. Wilton, but nonetheless exhibiting outstanding and gratifying presence, poise, and delivery. Herbert Marshall and Melvyn Douglas equally command terrific nuance and precise personality as Frederick Barker and Anthony Halton respectively, splendidly calming and electrifying at the same time as the two men both build the unspoken pressure and keep it under control with their charisma. Above all, Dietrich demonstrates stupendous range tempered with fabulous, very deliberate subtlety, and is marked with an irresistible gracefulness and allure that heightens all these facets of her acting. Well and truly, every portrayal here is spotless, pristine as any comparison our imagination may conjure for the word.

The most lofty of descriptors can only do so much to begin to convey the great elegance and refined artistry of this movie. Why, I haven't even touched on the story here, though suffice to say that it handily stays in step with every other piece of praise I've proffered. I began watching with no foreknowledge save for the names involved, and perhaps I already had high expectations based certainly on Lubitsch's direction, but also Douglas and Dietrich's attachment. And still any presumptions I may have had before watching were far exceeded - this is an impeccable, striking feature, an exemplar of the sublime skillfulness and aesthetic techniques of film-making that can be applied even to more common narratives that eschew experimental or avant-garde ambitions. I have watched many lovely, captivating pictures, but can recount very few that have been so readily, completely bewitching. Viewers should know the genres the title plays with before committing to it, but otherwise I'd have a hard time believing this couldn't be enjoyed by all, nor thinking of anyone I wouldn't recommend it to. 'Angel' is a phenomenal slice of 30s cinema that stands tall with the very best of both previous years and subsequent decades, and is well worth seeking out wherever one may find it.

Fans of Lubitsch have always been disappointed in this 1937 film, the last one Marlene made under her Paramount contract and a failure at the box office. Perhaps because it is not one of the director's champagne comedies, although it has its occasional comic moments. It is, unlike most of the director's later works, a serious drama about a neglected woman, dutiful wife of a workaholic English diplomat, who has a brief fling in Paris with an attractive American playboy and chooses to forget about it until... Marlene is absolutely superb in this demanding psychological role, radiantly beautiful and flirtatious at times, glacially cold at others. The men, Herbert Marshall as the stiff upper class Brit, and Melvyn Douglas as the frivolous Yank out for pleasure, are exactly right as men of the world without the slightest notion of what a woman might be. Films like this about adultery were rarely made after the Pre-Code era and, as to be expected, Lubitsch displays his genius for erotic suggestion. He never shows us what he knows we can imagine. Filmed entirely on the Paramount Hollywood lot in the golden age, it is filled with gorgeous sets and furniture, Dietrich in Travis Banton gowns, underscoring by Fredrick Hollander, and glamorous back-lighting by Charles Lang-all dedicated to creating a world of sophistication that never existed other than in Hollywood. This is a major Lubitsch film, among his most complex efforts.

The Lubitsch touch is omnipresent in this relatively unknown but extraordinary romantic comedy. The theme of a potential marital infidelity of a disaffected upper class wife (a gleaming Marlene Dietrich) is dealt with unusual sophistication and insight, building up slowly to a brilliant denouement, while the core dilemmas and the predicament of the main character are continuously and subtly underscored. The confrontations between the characters are a delight of restrained pathos, whereas Lubitsch, unsurprisingly, perfectly recreates a confined world of rigid social norms that suppresses any emotional profusion. All the performances are top notch, the secondary characters are equally memorable and the whole film is pervaded by the genius of one of cinemas most charismatic directors, Ernst Lubitsch. One wishes that modern romantic comedies had only maintained even a fraction of the wit and incisiveness that Lubitsch established as a norm in the 30s.