The Rich Are Always with Us

When I first got this movie, I didn't watch it right away, thinking that, most probably it was a light comedy drama movie, but the actors interested me, especially George Brent and Bette Davis. Knowing that, in this movie, starring Ruth Chatterton, who was married with George Brent at that time, was happened to be the movie where Bette Davis and George Brent fell in love, appealed to me. Later on Chatterton and Brent would divorce but Brent and Davis never married although they kept a relationship for quite long.

But when I saw this movie I realized what a great actress Ruth Chatterton was. And for a time when actors and actresses would say their line the best right and straight forwarded way, Ruth Chatterton speaks in such natural way, at times repeating one or two words in a sentence, as if there was no camera at all. Something that nowadays actors do, at times not so naturally.

Bette Davis still not being "caught" by the clever camera, appears very glamorous, beautiful and determined, but her eyes, alas, the camera doesn't really focus the moment she is sitting on a couch and looking to the right, slowly... what would made her later on "Bette Davis' eyes". Anyhow she is so wonderful here that Davis fans will really love her play.

The romantic scenes are very well filmed, and because everything seems so naturally sophisticated, Brent kisses and embraces with a great gentleman's style. What he was in real life.

This movie's plot is very simple, but it is very well portrayed and love has a great importance as a meaning, like in so many classic movies. Only that in this one, love goes beyond "you and me"

An EARLY bette davis film that no-one has ever heard of. she had only been in hollywood about a year. This one stars Ruth Chatterton and George Brent. The rich get in and out of marriage, almost on a whim. Hijinx follow.... history remade, since chatterton and brent actually WERE married for a bit. Great trio of lead actors. Davis WON a couple oscars over the years, chatterron was nominated a couple times, and brent was pretty good himself. It's a silly little pre-code talkie, a fun, fluffy little period piece, taking place over thirty years. Directed by Alfred Green, who had started in the silent films. This one must not be shown very often, as it doesn't have many votes on imdb.

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.

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.

Where in the world did the screenwriters come up with such a first name? It is attached to the flirty character very well played by Bette Davis.

Ruth Chatterton was always good. She and Davis are both rich (though exactly what the origin of the axiom in the title is, I'm not sure.) She is married to an insufferable stuffed shirt. George Brent is also interested in her. Why she wants to stay with her husband is unclear. It's not as if he's faithful.

Chatterton is not well served by the film. She is costumed and made up in a highly unflattering way. Superb film actress though she was, even in 1932, she was no spring chicken. And the movie is filmed in a way that accents this.

The situations are a tiny bit racy but don't accept an ooh-la-la sort of pre-Code movie. It's a drawing room comedy of a second- or third-tier. Davis's character's name is probably the most memorable thing about it.