Illicit

The naming of this film must have been just to attract Depression era audiences, because there is nothing really illicit about it. However, it is a very modern look at romance and marriage considering it was made in 1931. Barbara Stanwyck plays Anne Vincent, a modern woman who is afraid that her relationship with boyfriend Richard Ives will be changed by marriage. She bases her beliefs on watching her own parents and her friends. In her parents' case she says that she knows they loved each other, but divorced anyways, and she is sure that separation from one another is what killed them. However, social pressures prevail and the two do get married.

Anne's fears become realized as Richard seems to only be interested in going out when it involves other people, not just Anne. She sees him out with another woman one night when he is supposed to be working, and she decides what the two need is a trial separation from one another - to become individuals again. Throw Ricardo Cortez into the mix as someone who wants Anne's marriage to not work out, and you have the makings of an above average potboiler from the precode era.

This film is mainly interesting because of Stanwyck. Without her abilities this would be a pretty forgettable film. And those fashions! With all of the ermine and feathers, this film has Barbara Stanwyck venturing into Kay Francis territory. Also lending good support is Charles Butterworth as the seldom sober friend to the young couple, and the always wonderful Joan Blondell as Anne's close friend.

In 1931, Stanwyck was still a young girl, with her LONG hair, child-like innocent manner, and round kid face. As Anne Vincent, she wants to stay single and happy, while her beau Dick (James Rennie) wants to get married. Along for fun is Charles Butterworth as George, Dick's sidekick. He tells the couple that they have been discovered, and totters off, for more drinks... Ricardo Cortez is also here as the ex-boyfriend Baines to stir things up; Stanwyck and Cortez had worked together on three films together in the 1930s. Look for a 25 year old Joan Blondell as Helen Childers, Anne's friend, in one of her early roles. Will things stay the same if they get married? That's the big question. Kind of a statement of the times, and even more so in a couple years when the production code will keep everything on the up and up, even when they aren't. This was Darryl Zanuck's 12th film as producer. Towards the middle of the version shown on Turner Classics, there are scratches or wear marks on the right side of the screen, not surprising for such an old film. Interesting to watch, but no big surprises.

it is the man in a so-called "illicit" relationship who longs to get married and avoid a reputation, while Ann, played by Barbara Stanwyck holds out. She doesn't have much faith in marriage. But she is eventually convinced, in part by her lover's father. Will she be happy, or proved right, that is the question of the film.

Barbara looks lovely in this film, with darker hair (even though tight satin gowns are very unforgiving). She plays a modern woman, and does so with charm, instead of stridency. As newlyweds, they are blissfully happy, with plenty of money, travels and a beautiful townhouse in Manhattan. But hubby (James Rennie, who was married to Dorothy Gish for a while) is still a bit of a stiff....he complains when Ann turns on the music after a dinner out. She wants to go dancing, he whines about the late hour. Besides he might be catching a cold. Boo hoo. Yet when his friends call up, suddenly he is raring to go. And Ann knows why-he is still carrying a torch for a former girlfriend.

Joan Blondell is smart and chic in a small role.

(One of the most unrealistic lines is when Ann tells her husband she is going to move back to her old place for a while, tonight, right away. Try that in NYC...)

Am somebody that doesn't mind in any way melodrama, and there are many great ones from the classic film era (name from the 40s and 50s), as long as the film in question is done well. The story sounded really good on paper, even if it is melodramatic personified, and have always loved Barbars Stanwyck as an actress. When it came to melodrama during the "classic film" era, she was one of the greats when it came to actresses, Joan Crawford was another good example.

'Illicit', a very early film for Stanwyck, has been inevitably compared to its "remake" made two years later 'Ex-Lady'. It is not very often where there has been personal preferences for remakes over their originals (David Cronenberg's 'The Fly', from personal opinion, is one of the finest examples of preferring the remake over the original), but to me 'Ex-Lady' is the better film. Found it to be wittier, more daring, that it didn't take itself as seriously and that it has held up better. Am not saying by any stretch that 'Illicit' is a bad film, it isn't and it is definitely worth a look if only once perhaps but that is dependent on one's taste. It is namely to be seen if you want to see Stanwyck in an early role pre-stardom and if you want to see every film of hers in existence.

There are good things here. It is nicely photographed and the period detail in all senses is truly opulent. Absolutely love Stanwyck's clothes and she looks great in them. There are some amusing and moving moments.

Most of my mixed feelings rating though is for the acting, which, excepting a bland and quite stiff James Rennie in a nothing role, is very good. Stanwyck is wonderful with all the things that made her a great actress at her peak emerging here and the main reason to see 'Illicit' (will confess to having to give it less than a 5 if she wasn't as good as she was). Charles Butterworth is the other standout and is an amusing presence, and Joan Blondell is always worth watching. Ricardo Cortez is fine too.

Unfortunately, 'Illicit' comes over as very creaky and stage bound today. Or at least that's my perspective. The pace can be quite dreary and the drama that the quite thin story has feels too much of a very over-heated (a danger with melodrama) filmed play. 'Illicit' has more of a serious tone compared to 'Ex-Lady', so serious that it comes over as a little too glum in places. The sound is quite primitive and has an awkward flow at times.

Did find 'Ex-Lady' (really sorry for the comparison) to be better scripted, just preferred the wittier tone and the tauter pace of it and also found it more daring as said. Anything that may have shocked in 'Illicit' back then is reasonably tame now, whereas you could see much better how 'Ex-Lady' was ahead of its time. Although the acting is good, as said Rennie fails to make much of an impression and a large part of it is down to that his character is very sketchy.

All in all, worth a look but a bit of an oddity. 5/10

Barbara Stanwyck and James Rennie are ultra-modern 1930s lovers who shun conventional trappings such as marriage. She is afraid that marriage will kill the romance. Who has not had these fears? He is eternally patient, but his father maneuvers her into a commitment. Their marriage stumbles (whose hasn't) and the ex-girlfriend and ex-boyfriend enter the scene. Soon this thoroughly modern couple are acting like typical married folk and Barbara declares that the marriage has indeed killed the love. Stanwyck exhibits skills as an actress that will make her famous in better films later. Claude Gillingwater's portrayal of the father is excellent and serve as a good role model. Charles Butterworth (the faithful friend) was really quite a wit and succeeds in stealing a scene or two. I can overlook any technical flaws in the movie because I think that the central issues are still relevant today. Who has to compromise more in a marriage? The husband or the wife? Will each of the lovers do what is necessary to save the marriage when they know they have problems? All is not revealed until the final scene whose outcome is by no means certain. Good movie, not a great one, but good entertainment for a couple that talk to each other. I say watch it (if you can find it) and see if this pre-Code movie does not warrant your appreciation and was worth your time.