Strangers in Love

I recently saw Strangers in Love. I believe Fredric March was particularly good at playing double-role: Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde docet.

He plays Buddy and he plays Arthur two twin brothers so physically alike and so different in behaving, interests and attitudes.

Arthur is posh, snob and envious about his brother Robert who is so easy thinking, good at sports, having no money, living away from his brother . He's everything but snob. One day Buddy meets his brother again in order to ask for some money and Arthur says it all about his feelings for Buddy.

During this fight, Arthur dies because of a heart attack and Buddy takes his place, pretending to be Arthur him self.

From now on, the movie turns out to be quite nice, elegant, and also ironic. Fredric March is irresistible, witty, funny and he's the one who makes the difference in terms of talent, presence, ability and humor. Fredric March makes the movie.

He was not a matinée idol: he was an actor.

A nice product of US cinematography in the 30's.

Kay Francis and Fredric March are "Strangers in Love" in this 1932 film.

Kay is Diana Merrow, who reluctantly works for Arthur Drake (March), an expert in Egyptian artifacts. Not only does he sexually harass her, but he's mean and stingy.

Later on, we see Stan (Stuart Erwin) looking longingly at food through a restaurant window. He's with his friend Buddy (March). They are both down and out.

Buddy goes to his twin brother, whom he hasn't seen in 12 years, for a handout, since it seems their father disinherited him. Arthur hates Buddy, who led a freewheeling life and was good at sports. While they're fighting, Arthur, who has a heart condition, has an attack and dies.

Buddy decides to take his place, and "Buddy" is declared dead, with Buddy becoming Arthur. He is completely clueless about everything in Arthur's life - he doesn't even know Diana's name. He asks how she spells her name, hoping for a clue, and she says, "two r's."

As the story goes on, we see that Diana is working with the DA to try to get evidence against Arthur, who cheated her father. However, after Buddy's death, she sees a new Arthur - easygoing, friendly - he says he's turned over a new leaf.

Fredric March is again in a double role as he was in Jekyll and Hyde. He's very good as both characters.

This was billed as a comedy. It's a very light one with no big laughs. It's pleasant and enjoyable. And in the end, we find out a few secrets.

The plot to "Strangers in Love" is clearly the sort of Hollywood plot that would never happen in real life. My advice is to watch the film...and try to look past the implausibility of the story.

When the film begins, you see that there are identical twin brothers (both played by Frederic March) who are nothing like each other in personalities or their lifestyles. Arthur is a bitter and unlikable Egyptologist who doesn't seem to care about others. Buddy is a poor guy who is more a 'normal Joe'. And, it seems that when their rich father died, he inexplicably gave his entire fortune to the bitter Egyptologist.

One day the poor brother goes to see his brother. The Egyptologist is cold and nasty and tells his poor brother that when he dies, he's leaving his money for Egyptological research and giving him nothing! But, after telling him this, the nasty brother suffers a fatal heart attack. So, the nice brother, Buddy, pretends to be his brother and tells authorities that Buddy had died...and he assumes the nasty brother's life. Can he maintain this ruse? After all, the nasty brother's friends, research, associates and girlfriend are all unknown to Buddy. And, will there be any complications? And, could the brother's life actually be worse than poor Buddy's?

If this plot seems familiar, well...it is. Later Bette Davis films like "A Stolen Life" and "Dead Ringer" cover the same sort of material. However, unlike the Davis films, "Strangers in Love" has a more comedic bent.

Overall, I think I prefer this movie to the Davis films. I think the main reason is the writing, as "Strangers in Love" is more lighthearted and doesn't take itself so seriously. Plus, while Davis is a fantastic actress, Frederic March wasn't exactly a slouch when it came to acting!

By the way, don't let your head explode when Buddy calls his maid 'Snowball'. Yes, it is VERY demeaning and wrong, but was a sign of the times in which the movie was made.

Soldier of fortune Fredric March returns to the home he grew up in. His father is long dead, and his identical twin brother -- also played by March -- tells him he was a lifelong disappointment to the old man, and he hated him too, blessed with good health, while he, cursed with a weak heart, had to become an expert on Linear A and inherit the kit and kaboodle. His weak heart gives out, whereupon the healthy brother decides to say that the wanderer kicked off, and he is the one who inherited everything. However, as pal Stu Erwin points out, it's more than looking alike. He can't even sign a check that will pass, not to mention some shady dealings with mistress Juliette Compton, and his secretary, Kay Francis, searching for proof that he swindled her father, George Barbier, out of a fortune.

It's a rather far-fetched story from a novel, that screenwriters Grover Jones and George Slavens McNutt -- gotta love that name -- deal with by acknowledging the absurdities. Director Lothar Mendes seems to have given March his head, who responds by acting in three different personas. With Earl Foxe, Lucien Littleifeld, and Sidney Toler, who performs without an noticeable accent.

This is one crazy film! You don't expect a film from 1932 to make you laugh but surprisingly this did. Although it's unbelievably daft, I think I'd go as far as describing it as a cleverly written, superbly directed sophisticated comedy.

Fredric March pretends to be his dead, rich nasty brother without knowing anything about him. Yes it's that silly but being acted like a straight drama makes this properly funny. OK, it's not quite acted like a straight drama, Fredric March enjoys himself really hamming this up but it works well here. As March hopelessly tries and inevitably fails to fit into that other life our bemused hero draws you into the whirlpool of his confusion. Corny, cliched, predictable yes but also just brilliant!

Maybe only fans of Kay Francis' unique style of over-acting could appreciate her contribution to this. She was definitely a personality, a scandalous 'it girl' rather than an actress, possibly the best worst actress in Hollywood and that made her perfect in a subtle comedy like this. This was her last picture for Paramount and she couldn't have wished for a better swan song. Comedy was clearly her forte, Miss Francis is so much better in this than in those dire 'women's pictures' she became associated with.