Strangers May Kiss

This is a precode movie starring Norma Shearer, who looks gorgeous in all the gowns (and is that the way people dressed for a football game in the '30s?).

Shearer plays a free spirit who doesn't believe in marriage and instead cavorts and travels with a reporter. Of course, she's kidding herself, and she wanted the wedding ring all along - when he announces he's been married the whole time and then breaks up with her, she takes up with every man she meets.

This is never actually stated, which makes it kind of fun. Robert Montgomery says, "Boy, what I heard about you in Paris." Shearer: "You didn't believe it, did you?" Montgomery: "Not the first 6 or 700 times."

Montgomery easily steals the movie as her funny, charming, ever-drunk good friend. It's the best role and holds up today. The other roles don't - the story is too melodramatic, acted in an old-fashioned, hand on the forehead style that dates it.

Added to that, the reporter character of Alan, played by Neil Hamilton, is despicable, making the film a frustrating experience for the viewer.

As an artifact and for the clothes and sets, you can't beat it, though.

Do note that my high rating is mainly for lovers of precode. If you're not familiar with the genre I'd start elsewhere to get acquainted with it. Norma Shearer has two suitors in this one. Neil Hamilton plays a real heel here as globe-trotting career-obsessed Alan Harlow who talks the talk of romance yet has feet blocked in ice when it comes to commitment. Robert Montgomery is the "good suitor" yet he is playing his perpetual playboy character here who is always somewhat tipsy and never serious about anything. He proposes marriage probably because he hasn't thought it through in terms of what it means as far as him curtailing his nightlife. He provides a reliable shoulder for Norma when she needs one. It's no wonder that Norma comes to the disillusioned conclusion that neither one of these guys is "the answer to her maiden's prayer" as she puts it. Actually, although as others have said, you'll walk away wondering just exactly what it is this movie is trying to say, the viewing experience was a pleasurable one for me. The main reason for that is that the characters will surprise you with both their words and actions. The destination of the film is probably where you guessed it will be, but the journey has some interesting twists and turns. I'm not giving too many details here because any description at all of the plot's trajectory would probably spoil it. I will say that Robert Montgomery gets the best lines in this one. His character is more sober than he would have you think.

Do note an uncredited part by Ray Milland as one of Norma's admirers in Europe who has just one interesting precode line - "she changes her men with her lingerie".

This movie was pure soap opera for 1931 audiences. Today it's rather "talkie" and the moral standards of the film by today's liberal standards are laughable. But the great Norma Shearer is always fun to watch, and Norma never looked better on the screen. Her Adrian designed gowns are breathtaking and she is nothing short of ravishing.

This film is profoundly confused about what kind of morality it's embracing.

Norma Shearer plays a modern young woman, having an affair with a dashing foreign correspondent (Neil Hamilton, in his first role with MGM). Her long-time friend Steve (the eternally effervescent Robert Montgomery), who has an inclination towards drink, has been in love with Shearer all their lives, but she won't give him a tumble (she actually uses that hoary old line, "I love you, but I'm not in love with you"). Shearer and Hamilton have no interest in marrying, but prefer their open relationship. Shearer's aunt extols the joy of marriage one evening, but when she sees her husband of 12 years kicking up his heels with a bimbo, she goes home and kills herself.

Shearer and Hamilton head off for Mexico, where Hamilton reveals that he actually has a wife back in Paris (so apparently he DID once believe in marriage...). He leaves for Rio and refuses to take Shearer. She proceeds to sleep her way across Europe in order to drown her grief, which, of course, is one way of dealing with it. Montgomery finds her two years later in Spain where, despite her string of dalliances, he still tries to marry her. But Shearer gets a cable from Hamilton who has now divorced his French wife and is waiting in Paris, willing to marry. By the time Shearer responds, however, Hamilton has heard about her past two years of affairs, and is so repulsed that he never wants to see her again. He claims she should have WAITED for him, DESPITE her not knowing if she would EVER see him again. And...she AGREES. The level of double standard is staggering.

Montgomery, however, STILL wants to marry her. Hamilton claims that a marriage to Shearer would leave him haunted by those "shadows on the wall," but Montgomery says, "What wall?" But Shearer says no. She says, in fact, that his wanting to marry her knowing of her promiscuous past proves that he doesn't actually love her.

A year or so later, Montgomery and Shearer are at the theater, when they run into Hamilton. Time has mellowed him a bit, and he tells Shearer that they belong together. Montgomery watches her go, observing wryly that at least he'll always have a champagne bottle waiting for him.

So, first, let's establish that I'm a huge fan and avid watcher of pre-Code film, and I'm not trying to judge this movie with a 21st-century sensibility. But let's figure out what the film is telling us:

1) marriage isn't necessary if there is true love (Shearer and Hamilton, at the beginning)...2) marriage can only lead to heartbreak, because the man will inevitably cheat (Shearer's aunt and uncle)...3) men can abandon wives and go off with lovers and embrace free love and that's OK (Shearer and Hamilton in Mexico)...4) women can't (Shearer and Hamilton in Paris)...5) men who love women who've had promiscuous pasts don't really love them (Shearer and Montgomery)...6) women should wait forever for the man they love, through all the misunderstandings and rejections, and never ever get involved with anyone else, on the off chance that the man they love will decide they belong together (throughout)...7) a man who wants to marry a woman despite her promiscuous past can't actually love her, although a man who has punished and heaped contempt on said woman and then finally decides he wants to marry her despite it DOES actually love her

Well. This film sends so many mixed signals, you need an air traffic controller.

Interestingly, in the novel on which this film is based, the Shearer character eventually commits suicide after years of waiting in vain for the Hamilton character to return to her. So, the mixed signals may come from the Frankenstein-like effort of fusing a happy-ending head onto the original tragic body.

Montgomery is, as always, charming and natural, which shows up in stark contrast with Shearer's silent-movie-born overacting. You may want to stab yourself in the eye after watching Shearer throw back her head and laugh gaily for the umpteenth time. Hamilton does a serviceable job in a thankless role, but it's always difficult to keep from visualizing Police Commissioner Gordon when he's on screen.

I found this movie almost unbearably frustrating--but that's just me. Others, clearly, were more open to it. But I prefer a film that obeys its own internal logic, no matter how screwy it may be in relation to "reality." "Strangers May Kiss" doesn't carry that off.

I find much to agree with in all of the comments made about this film. The hypocritical morals are obvious. The disparity between Norma Shearer's acting style, nurtured in silent films, and Robert Montgomery's style, which does anticipate a more modern approach, is also apparent. The costumes and sets are marvelous and capture the milieu with authenticity and panache. But not being a great fan of Miss Shearer, I did, indeed, grow weary of seeing her throw her head back in laughter. I wholeheartedly agree that Robert Montgomery steals the show.

The content of this film makes it racy in any era. The montage of scenes depicting Shearer with man after man makes the point clearly enough without being as explicit as a contemporary film. In fact that method of story telling is one of the key distinctions between films from the Golden Age of Hollywood and contemporary cinema. This method either appeals to an individual's tastes today or doesn't (and it is that bias which often forms the basis of comments found in forums such as this). For the record, I appreciate a less explicit approach to cinema.

The only point I would like to make more explicit is that I found it impossible to see what: 1) Miss Shearer's character saw in her caddish married lover or 2) what Mr. Montgomery's character saw in Miss Shearer's character. The only person who seemed the slightest bit attractive was Montgomery's character (despite his penchant for the bottle), who nobody found desirable.

Filmed today, this movie would probably explore the rejected woman's past, searching for psychological explanations for her preference of an abusive mate over a warm, caring one. This film, therefore, might have been an interesting psychological study and made a little more sense. But filmed in 1930, cinema had a long way to go before really delving into such explorations. Even Bette Davis' landmark portrayal of Mildred in 1934's "Of Human Bondage" is not so much an exploration as a portrait.