उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

Constance Bennett is a disillusioned socialite in "Our Betters," based on Somerset Maugham's play. Bennett plays a beautiful woman (in absolutely knockout gowns) who, on her wedding day, discovers that her husband has a mistress, a Charles-Diana-Camilla thing. Bennett's got the cash, and the girlfriend's poor. Constance, who plays Lady Pearl, throws herself into the London social scene, where nobody behaves. Her husband is always off with his girlfriend, and she has a lover who keeps her since her husband went through her money. And everyone else behaves the same way. The only thing that matters is knowing the right people, having money, getting invited to the right parties, and marrying titles. When Pearl's sister arrives from America, she's dazzled by the life and brushes off an old beau, played by Charles Starrett, who is the moral voice of the movie.

This was the world of Elliot Templeton in "The Razor's Edge" and it's visited here fully with a brittle humor but not a great deal of energy. Bennett is perfect in her role. There are some scenes between Violet Kemble, who plays Minnie, and her much younger gigolo boyfriend, Gilbert Roland, where he manipulates her, that are overly long but quite funny. The final scene, with the dancing Ernest, is the best in the film.

Constance Bennett plays Pearl, an heiress bride who, on her wedding day immediately after the ceremony, overhears her new husband tell his lover that he married Pearl only for her money as he and his lover are penniless. However, he does have a British title, and Constance goes to live in Britain with him, with their lavish lifestyle at first financed by her money. When that runs out, she has a lover who supplies her with cash.

I generally watch these old films to escape the cynicism of today's world, and this film fails in that respect. The entire cast behaves in a despicable and inhuman manner like something out of ancient Rome, with the exception of Pearl's young sister Bessie, who is a wide-eyed innocent about to make the same mistake as Pearl did when she married her faithless husband. We all figure that Pearl behaving like a manipulative pleasure-addicted ice queen is rooted in her husband's betrayal, but nothing is said about motivation at all until the end of the film. George Cukor generally did a great job in these "women's films", especially if Katharine Hepburn was starring. But then Kate was such an excellent actress that she could get her motivation across without the use of explicit dialogue. Constance Bennett usually could do so too, so why things don't pan out here theatrically I have no idea.

As an aside, it is interesting that Gilbert Roland and Constance Bennett play lovers in this and one other film from 1933 - "After Tonight" - yet don't marry until eight years later. I wonder if there's a story there?

American hardware heiress Constance Bennett marries English lord Alan Mowbray. Then she overhears him remarking to his mistress he only married her for her money. She's heartbroken, but becomes a pillar of British society. When her sister, Anita Louise, comes to visit, Miss Bennett engineers a breakup with Miss Louise's American fiance, and an engagement to a British nobleman.

This definitely pre-code movie is based on a W. Somerset Maugham play, with lots of snide business and the sort of arch comments that passed for wit in a post-Oscar Wilde theater. Director George Cukor has mediocre success in convincing his cast that this is no longer being performed on the boards. The result is that the Americans are rather quiet, while the British are over the top... which may have been a deliberate choice, given that at this time, British movies seemed to have a lot of appearances by Finlay Currie as an American (invariably named 'Hiram' or some such), flattening his vowels with a sledge hammer and being obnoxious about money. Minor Watson is outstanding as an admirer of Miss Bennett, and Tyrell Davis is flamboyant as he teaches Violet Kemble Cooper to dance.

The pre-code Hollywood film "Our Betters" deals with an idle set of upper-crust society types who while away their time with teas, card games, and gossip. While sipping hot cha, they chat about their sexual dalliances, discarded spouses, and kept lovers. Based on a play by Somerset Maugham, the well-written dialog is often ripe and bitchy, and a fine cast, headed by Constance Bennett, makes the lighter-than-air fluff more entertaining than it should be.

If that were the sum total of "Our Betters," then the film would be a harmless entertainment, viewed with amusement, and forgotten faster than a buttered scone. However, a character that is referenced early in the film appears on screen in the final scene and transforms the film into prime evidence of the vile gay stereotyping that Hollywood pursued before all gay portrayals on screen were prohibited by the production code.

A dance instructor named Ernest, played by Tyrell Davis, arrives at Bennett's country manor in time to delay the departure of the duchess, deliciously portrayed by Violet Kemble Cooper. Ernest is not only dressed like a dandified pouffe, but he has thickly rouged lips that form a rosebud beneath his tiny clipped mustache. His broad effeminate mannerisms would embarrass a drag queen, and perceptive viewers can smell the lavender perfume that reeks from the screen. If Bogart rolled his eyes after a whiff of gardenia off Peter Lorre, he would pass out cold if Ernest minced into his office. Like Stepin Fetchit to African-Americans, Ernest is patently offensive to gays. He is the stereotyped concept of a bigoted society; he is a badly drawn cartoon image created by a studio system that profited from the talents of gays, but vilified their public images.

However, as offensive as Ernest's characterization is, the film should be preserved and shown to illustrate the advances that on-screen portrayals of minorities have made. While the earlier drawing room scenes are light and forgettable, Ernest is an indelible image that should not be forgotten or repeated.

Tyrell Davis is an uncredited actor in the movie, showing up in the last 5 minutes.

The old Henry James theme of American innocence vs European (in this case, English) corruption is creakily and stagily brought to the screen by George Cukor. Dialogue's witty and occasionally perceptive, though, as you would expect from a Maugham play, and Constance Bennett, a most under-rated actress, is fun to watch in a Bette Davis- like role. (Or was Davis Bennett- like?). Give it a C plus.

Pearl is a rich American who is marrying into British royalty. However, on her wedding night, she learns that her husband has no interest in her--just her money. And, he has a lover. So, instead of leaving him and asking for an annulment, she decides to dive into the decadent lifestyle of these idlers. She flaunts morality and lives for fun and her own sexual conquests. All in all, her friends are a very vacuous crowd.

At first, I thought all this was quite interesting and a nice commentary about the British aristocracy. However, after a while it all began to drag because the film was so very talky and mannered. Too many people talking as if they are in an amateur acting class on 'let's do British accent day'. All in all, it became a bore and lost me. One of the worst of these silly performances was by Duchess Minnie (Violet Kemble Cooper)--and it often lacked realism. Of course, this could also be said about several others in this dull film. Yes, it has its moments--but not nearly enough to make it worth seeing--even the chance to see Ernest near the end of the film!

By the way, about a decade after this film, Bennett and Gilbert Roland (who was also in this film) were married. They made two films together--both in 1933--"Our Betters" and "After Tonight".

W Somerset Maughan, the influential English writer and playwright, was a man that knew a lot about the upper crust society of England. His delightful play about rich people living privileged lives, serves as the basis of this movie that is not seen often. The film is greatly helped by the direction given by George Cukor, a man who was in his element eliciting excellent performances of his cast.

Best of all is Constance Bennett, a luminous presence in the movies of those days that was at the height of her popularity when "Our Betters" was made. Ms. Bennett had a beautiful figure and she could act. In the film she plays Lady Pearl Grayston, an American living in London.

The other extraordinary performance is given by Violet Kemble, who as Minnie, the Duchess of Surae, shows quite a range as the silly old woman in love with a young playboy. Ms. Kemble is enormously funny at one point, then, when she discovers her Pepi's infidelity, she is quite crossed with her hostess for taking such a step right in front of her.

The others in the cast are quite good. Phoebe Foster, the gorgeous Anita Louise, Gilbert Roland, Alan Mowbray, and in an over the top performance in the last sequence by Tyrell Davis who, as a flighty Ernest, shows up made up and with all the best intentions to make the Duchess learn how to dance the tango.

A delightful comedy thanks to Mr. Maughan and Mr. Cukor.

Fascinating, richly-textured morality play by the great Somerset Maugham, acted to perfection by a first-rate cast including Constance Bennett at her absolute peak. George Cukor directed with a master's touch, Max Steiner provided the score, and David O. Selznick's production was polished. Constance Bennett plays the disillusioned American wife of a British aristocrat, who finds out on her wedding day that her husband married her only for her money. She decides to take life on their terms, and becomes a cunning seductress among a large group of wealthy and cynical people. Her scheming, combined with the sharp, cynical dialog worthy of Oscar Wilde, and the general irony of the whole affair, makes for an amusing and intelligent film. The witty one-liners are to be cherished, as are the fabulous gowns, and the glowing beauty of Constance Bennett. The film was also one of the first to feature an openly gay character. It's a great treat to view the film 75 years later. Although society may have changed, human behavior has not.

I wonder how this played in 1933, when it opened, the bottom of the Depression? It's not clever. It's just a lot of very spoiled aristocrats or American nouveaux-riches pretending to be aristocrats, filling up their days with empty chatter and not much else. Occasionally one is hurtful, but not cleverly so. You could never mistake this for good Oscar Wilde. (I wonder if the original play, which had a success on Broadway, is any more interesting?) It reminds me of nothing so much as the sort of English drawing-room drama spoofed in *Auntie Mame* (I think it was called *Midsummer Madness* there.)

Constance Bennett is very beautiful, but that's about all I can find to recommend here.

In an Oscar Wilde play, cynicism is a pose that allows characters to utter amusing epigrams and paradoxes. In Our Betters, the characters are themselves cynical, and their remarks are therefore depressing and ugly. There's much about how society will put up for any kind of bad behaviour provided the culprit has bags of money, how marriage and "love" are based on the search for money and rank, and especially a great deal on extra-marital affairs as normal and accepted, even expected, provided society can pretend they don't know about them. Everyone seems to be manipulating everyone else. Pretty awful stuff.

There's a good deal of people striding about and striking poses with long cigarette holders in the way the magazines of the day portrayed them.

A long scene of women walking into a room and curtsying before the King and Queen seemed pointless and unnecessarily drawn-out

Gilbert Roland as a petulant, kept man (in his pre-moustache days) does an awful, a truly painful bit of amateur acting.

I didn't understand the relationship between Pearl and the older gentleman. He was giving her money on a regular basis, declared his love for her repeatedly, and when he found out she'd had an affair, he said he felt betrayed. Are we to understand that she was sleeping with him? Yuk. Was she that mercenary?

It's worth watching as a period piece and out of curiosity for its being by Somerset Maugham, but other than that I didn't find any pleasure in it.

Here we have a comedy about 3 American heiresses who married into British aristocracy and how they coped with their loveless marriages. Of the 3, Pearl/Bennett has coped especially well, having made herself the leader of the Smart Set. But her success as a titled lady of leisure is a lot of hard work. While Maugham's story is passe today, as it may have been in 1933, still, it's very entertaining, loaded with laughs and chuckles. Bennett is superb. She is so much fun to watch as she gets herself into trouble and then, against the odds, gets herself out. Drawing-room comedy suits her and is the direction she should have continued to travel. Bennett would have been wonderful as Amanda in Coward's "Private Lives", but MGM's Thalberg owned the rights, and in 1931, while Bennett was playing suffering womanhood, Shearer played Amanda.

Gilbert Roland was cast as the gold digger and did very well in a role that others, including Bennett's frequent costar, Joel McCrea, would have found impossible to play. The Duchesse demonstrates that furs and a little tricorn hat produce the illusion of beauty, if not youth.

Ernest, necessary to the plot, makes a surprise appearance at the end of the film, in a scene exactly as Maugham wrote it. However, while Maugham's stage directions describe Ernest as "overwhelmingly gentlemanly . . . speaks in mincing tones" it does not say that his face was a smear of eye shadow and lipstick. What possessed Cukor anyway? Ernest is a likable character and doesn't need garish makeup to deliver the very funny lines Maugham wrote for him.

The opening 2 scenes with husband George were not in the play. Apparently they were added to provide motivation as to why Pearl is the way she is and to make Pearl/Bennett sympathetic to audiences. Was this ruse successful? Variety's reviewer wrote, "Miss Bennett goes wicked early and stays that way to the finish. That she shows no sign of repenting or changing her ways will be difficult to justify with many of her best customers." Bennett's box-office popularity was slipping away. She had to escape the baby formula that made her a Star and change her image in order to attract new fans without losing her old fans. This was a difficult problem which Our Betters did not solve.

This film will not get boring with repeat viewings. In spite of its imperfections, I intend to watch it repeatedly. After 82 years, the comedy and Bennett are still bright. Therefore, it rates a 10.

How is it that in 1933 Hollywood was already stale and out of new ideas? How many movies can they make about rich fools and their money and their relationships? It seems Hollywood wanted to try every combination--different actors and actresses, different venues, different movie genres, etc., and they all amount to the same old garbage: this one is married to this one but in love with this one or some variation of that.

In "Our Betters" Pearl (Constance Bennett) married George Grayston (Alan Mowbray), a duke or something. The man was so unscrupulous he was "making love" (pronouncing his love for) his mistress in the other room on his wedding day!!! Pearl saw them then did the ladylike thing which is to discreetly walk away and pretend you know nothing. That way she can dispose of herself how she likes while remaining married.

This exact same thing occurred in "Unfaithful" (1931) or was it "Charming Sinners?" It doesn't matter because something similar has happened in more movies than I can count. I stopped "Our Betters" a little over halfway through the movie because I've already had my fill of stuffy accents, frivolous conversations, and wanton infidelity. If you've seen one you've seen them all and I've seen dozens; now it's just white noise.

Free on Internet Archive.

No, it's not brilliant, although it has the woman-friendly stamp of director George Cukor all over it. If for nothing else, in fact, watch it for Hattie Carnegie's exquisite gowns, worn to perfection by the exquisite Constance Bennett. But if you give it half a chance, you might find yourself quite caught up in this tale of upper-class English morality, and the success it can bring to an early-disillusioned woman. Like "What Price Hollywood?" this is a collaboration of director Cukor, writer Jane Murfin, and star Constance Bennett, and they all shine. Bennett is especially adept at conveying the brittle facade that her character has constructed to hide the pain of an empty life.

The dialogue is as crisp as it gets in the 1930s. Oh, and don't miss that final line. Too fab!

This is a delightfully bitter and witty play by Maugham, adapted to film almost exactly as it appeared on stage. Kemble as Minnie steals the show. And the last scene, between Minnie and the dance instructor, is simply hilarious. Charles Starrett, later a Western star in "B" movies, is wooden, and poor Gilbert Roland doesn't have a lot to work with in the script. But the others sparkle and shine, telling us what sophisticated light comedy can be at its best. What a shame this has not appeared on VHS.

This movie haunts me in a way and fills me with questions. Why did Selznick make this screen version of a 1917 Maugham play right in the middle of the Great Depression in America? I wonder what was on his mind -- to make people angry enough to bring their friends for another look? To let them scoff at the foibles of the impossibly idle rich? This movie primarily is about American expats who've found a place among a jaded British aristocracy (which, at the time of Maugham's stage play, were, with the rest of England, at the height of a bloody world war that would cost Britain almost an entire generation of its young men). But this film version was brought to the screen in 1933, at the height of a crushing Depression that left so many millions jobless and homeless and lucky to have the price of a night at the movies. Contrast that with the sly comic turnings of a very young Gilbert Roland as the Chilean idler Pepi, whose pouty side-glances as he manipulates his very rich and titled benefactress were elegantly applied and flawlessly aimed, no doubt, at enraging most any Depression-oppressed American of the day. I'm sure Roland (no idler himself) and Cukor had a lot of fun filming Pepi. I loved the steady Grant Mitchell, elegantly playing a happy snob who unashamedly admits that he'd come to England from Ohio, and has "lost any trace of an American accent." No apologies from his character, who lends the picture a decorum and good-humored tolerance, all in the cause of maintaining these high-blown dodgy "friendships," deftly working to keep things on a happy note, despite bothersome indiscretions. Others have written here of the remarkable performance of Violet Kemble Cooper as the Duchess, and I heartily agree. And what a happy surprise was the very late entrance in the picture of Tyrell Davis (one of the famous tailors from Wellman's "The Public Enemy" two years earlier) as the unabashedly delightful pouffe Ernest, brought in by Bennett's character to salvage a nearly wrecked country weekend. Ernest was summoned hastily from a busy Sunday schedule in London, still attired in his city-best, flawlessly coiffed, with dark heart-shaped lip rouge, more eye shadow than Bennett, and powdered like a pastry. He carried his look as proudly, happily and effortlessly as did the elegant Bennett in her timelessly smashing Hattie Carnegie gowns. Across the Channel, he'd have been exterminated by the Nazis, but in his place among a protective British aristocracy, Ernest was obviously a most happy man, allowed to act out himself completely and taking his place as a favorite among the ladies. I'm astonished that Davis, whose Ernest hilariously capped the picture and who uttered its naughty closing line, was not credited for this fresh and pleasing (or shocking) performance. Have you ever seen such a face in the movies? Or anywhere else? Such a happy individualist in a society that outlawed some of his assumed after-hours behavior. Without the protection of the aristocracy, Ernest, like Wilde, likely would have spent part of his life in prison. This picture contains some dated stage business and moves a bit too slowly for us today, but I'm so happy that it survives. I still wonder, though, what was the aim of making this movie at this time in the American experience? Hughes and Selznick wanted and expected an audience and a profit, after all. Was a Maugham play burning a hole in their pockets? Were generous eyes-full of Constance Bennett in clingy satin gowns enough to draw 'em in? I suspect there was a social aim here, but I'm not sure what it is.

Our Betters (1933) Constance Bennett, Violet Kemble Cooper, Anita Louise, Alan Mowbray, Gilbert Rowland. A Somerset Maugham play, directed by George Cukor about the Lords and Ladies of British society, is amusing and biting at the same time. They have parties and weekends at someones estate, and gossip about who is sleeping with who, and learn all the latest dance steps. Lady Greystone has been 'educated' in her betters ways by her titled husband who she learned too late married her only for her money. While he spends all his time with his mistress, she gives lavish parties for her "betters." Soon she is the top hostess among the titled and idle set. Some wicked humor by Maugham, who was an invited guest to many of the same sort of places among the same sort of people. Bennett is dazzling in her wardrobe by Hattie Carnegie and Cooper is too funny trying to keep her gigolo from straying. And the final scene with a rouged and mincing dance instructor is very funny. As in any hard times, the depression era movie goer wanted something light and amusing and not deep and real. They saw 'real' everyday in their homes and on the streets. Kind of like today. 8/10

Must confess I scored it a Ten to raise the average. By all rights this one should rate an average of 8-9.

The bad prints and dated stage business cannot diminish the ethereal beauty of Constance Bennett and Anita Louise, the biting satire of Somerset Maugham, and an over-the-top pas de deux finalé between a lecherous duchess and a "dancing queen" that embellishes one of the most comically smashing dénouements in film history.

Our Betters, and Connie Bennett, as well as W.Somerset Maugham, even Elsa Maxwell, make this flick an absolute romp of wordy fun and peel back the norms and accepted behaviour of a bygone era. Was so delighted when I found this, I search it out when and wherever I can. Pay close attention for the energy between Gilbert Roland and Ms Bennett. A cameo near the end will certainly challenge your views on 1933. Watch for it. And him.

The whole Princess Diana drama was a remake of Our Betters (1933), which was based on the 1923 play of the same title by W. Somerset Maugham. The play, movie and the live-action fake-news drama were designed to make the English aristocracy look like harmless, passionate poseurs actively dissipating themselves and their fortunes. Maugham was just another homosexual intellectual acting for the British Secret Intelligence Service and up to his neck in preparing the world for the October Revolution. Maugham's The Magician pushes the Blavatsky/Crowley/Theosophy project, as did his later Razor's Edge. His Of Human Bondage is a primer for Libido Dominandi and The Moon and Sixpence is his ode to the Modern Art project.

Maugham's works are the basis for 45 films, the motion picture industry being the primary vector for propaganda throughout the 20th century. So while you are laughing at the antics of Our Betters, know that you are in the grip of a master.