Ex-Lady

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.

'Ex-Lady's' reviews here are mixed, some liking/loving it and others not caring for it. Both sides understandable. My main reasons for seeing it were for Bette Davis (whoo always was a great actress, her performance in 'All About Eve' in particular is a favourite), in an early role when her career was more variable, and for the unconventional and ahead of the time subject matter (back when films got away with more before the code was enforced) which would be an interest point really for any film buff.

By all means 'Ex-Lady' is not one of Davis' best films, nowhere near close, she herself did not think so. To me though, it is still a very interesting film (one of her more interesting early films) and a very enjoyable one that does deserve to be better known, if mainly for curiosity and historical value. Both as a Davis completest, or at least trying to see as many of her films as possible, and to see how films were pre-code and were able to take more risks.

Did think that it was a bit stagy in spots and that the drama could have opened up more.

Also Kay Strozzi overdoes it dreadfully, not funny or endearing at all and quite annoying. The ending felt a bit on the pat side.

However, Davis, although she would give much better performances later when the quality of her films became more consistent in a good way, shows a deft comic touch and totally at ease with her material. Gene Raymond shares a witty but also surprisingly tender at times chemistry with her and although his presence isn't quite as arresting he is certainly not as bland as he could be. Frank McHugh brings a lot of energy to his role as does a wonderfully snide Monrow Owsley. The direction is hardly indifferent and makes great use of Davis.

The dialogue is full of snap and sizzle, witty but also sophisticated, while the story makes the most of the unconventional subject with a fair share of daring moments, in a way one is surprised that such an early film got away with what it contains. The production values are tasteful and elegant, though the photography could have been a little more refined in places, standing out especially are Davis' clothes which are things of beauty.

Overall, not great but enjoyable fun and wonderfully ahead of its time. 7/10

Bette Davis plays Helen Bauer, a woman who does not want to get married and be tied down to one man. However she does have a lover named Don Peterson(Gene Raymond). He persuades her to marry him. They do and things rapidly fall apart.

Once considered pretty shocking this is tame by todays standards. The discussions about love and sex are actually quite funny in this day and age. But the movie moves quickly (it's only a little over an hour) and Davis and Raymond play off each other very well. Davis in later years bad-mouthed this film but it's actually pretty good. Worth catching.

I saw this film expecting an early Bette Davis effort of somewhat questionable value. Instead I found a highly entertaining film which made an artistic mark. The acting by Davis is, of course, always worth watching, but what really set this film apart was the script and the mise-en-scene.

The script, while not a masterpiece, is considerably above the norm. It is witty, and understanding of the desires, pride and foolishness of young, intelligent people in love. Bette plays it superbly with a slightly bored, worldly-wise exterior, and a passionate but somehow innocent interior. She is the focus of the film, the other actors being mainly satellites around her. They do a competent job, but the show is all hers.

The Deco sets were designed by someone with an obvious artistic talent and a flare for that style. Just looking at the sets and the costumes is worth the price of seeing the film. What is a real surprise is that the director used Bette as a kind of art object. The way she would pose and slouch, the style and color of her hair, the way she would hold her cigarette, her glass, the way she would arrange her body, and her expression so completely complement these lavish sets as to be a art display in themselves. This movie would be entertaining if you turned off the sound track and just watched the visuals - it is that good.

I am completely unfamiliar with the director, Robert Florey. In looking over the names of his films, none stand out for me as films of importance. Apparently he was awarded a French medal for his contributions to Cinema. If this film is any indication, and if he is truly responsible for the artistic elements in this film, then he is a very overlooked and important director.

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?? ;)