Ex-Lady

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.

Good acting and a slightly snappy script keep your interest afloat for this light sex comedy about marriage and early woman's lib. Decadent 30's New York is the background for this I-was-checking-out-while-she-was-checking-in (thank you, Don Covay!) tale of wavering fidelity.

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.

I saw this on TCM one day & was so delighted I actually recorded it. It is a rare gem and I found the screenplay and acting both believable and enjoyable. As many reviewers have noted, it is Pre-Code, meaning that women are allowed cleavage and men and women were portrayed in a natural way- that is sleeping in the same bed. (I actually remember asking my mom one time why Ricky Ricardo & Lucy slept in separate beds if they were married? What did they do, squeeze into that tiny bed the night Ricky, Jr. was conceived?! Preposterous! As most of the post-code was.)

But the 2 main strong points of the movie are Bette (of course) and the dialog. Bette plays Helen Bauer, a successful commercial artist and Gene Raymond plays Don Peterson, a successful advertising manager. There's a part early on in the movie when Helen & Don are discussing their relationship and it goes like this:

Don: "I'm just about fed up with sneaking in... let's get married so I'll have the right to be with you." Helen: "What do you mean 'right'? I don't like the word right." Don: "Let's not quibble about words." Helen: "No, I'm not quibbling, right means something. No one has any rights about me, except me."

And it's the WAY she says it, that means so much. She is able to say it and really mean it- without offending him.

Her character believes that women have the same rights as men. This is something I've always believed in very strongly myself, so I admit this is part of the reason the movie appeals to me so much. She also believes that she doesn't *have* to get married. And there's one part of the movie where she actually says the "dread" line, "I don't want babies." I look for the smelling salts as I write this! All kidding aside- good luck finding a female character this independent nowadays. I have to be honest- if more people thought like her, there would be less divorce. Her point is well taken- you should only really enter into marriage if you really want to. People marry for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with it. Helen's character even holds to her beliefs in the face of a very disapproving father. Even in the confrontation scene, she maintains her dignity and her beliefs without criticizing her parents' beliefs. There's another bit of dialog that shows how she thinks:

Gene: "You're a successful woman; I ought not to like it." Bette: "You're a pretty successful man; I ought not to like it." Gene & Bette in unison: "I'm a man!"

--- and Bette's body language says it all- she conveys the strength of will without robbing the man of his- something she has always been able to do so well and enigmatically. This also shows she's realistic- she's knows the times she lives in. And people that think that way will always be modern and contemporary. It definitely gives viewers a reason to watch something this amazing- especially considering it was made in 1933!

The rest of the cast if good and her partner in the movie played by Gene Raymond does a very nice job. They have a good chemistry on screen. As this is a pre-code movie and early Bette, I suppose those 2 reasons alone would make it worth watching- but the script and acting are also really good.

• update: I was looking at this movie today on IMDb and saw that 5 out of 10 people found my review helpful....what? did I hit a nerve with baby comment? or was it the one about only entering into marriage for love? I dunno but I thought I reviewed the movie and gave info that would help someone decide if it's the kind of movie they want to watch. Isn't that what the reviews are here for? to help?

Then I noticed ALL the reviews are like that (12 out of 24, 5 out of 10) so I guess somebody out there just doesn't like this movie. Maybe a post-code mentality?? ;)