Vivi ama e impara

I can imagine Robert Montgomery's quandary circa 1935. "Here's a script where I am a handsome boat builder who refuses to live off his rich theatrical agent wife's money! Here's another where I am handsome artist who refuses to live off his rich socialite's money! How about this one, where I am a handsome advertising executive who refuses to live off his madcap heiress wife's money! Which one should I choose? God, they're all so exciting!" And so it was with "Live, Love, and Learn." Rosalind Russell is a socialite who gives it all up for bohemian artist Montgomery, because he has nonvulgar ideals and his idea of success is more than just making money, and it doesn't hurt that he's a full-on hottie. They meet cute (she flies off her horse and directly through his canvas) and in the next scene are standing before a justice of the peace while Bob tries to talk Roz out of it. Clearly, some time has gone by, but wouldn't it be funny if this were just hours later? Maybe in 1930 but not 1937.

I saw some in-jokes here that I must comment upon. Bob brings Roz home to his starving-artist garret. His drunken friend comes by to pay his matrimonial respects and passes out. They bundle him onto a couch, push him out into the hall, and cover his face with a painting rag. Bob says, "Now he looks like a decapitated corpse," which, in fact, was much the plot of "Night Must Fall," which Bob and Roz played the next year (I wonder which was filmed first?). Later, the couple sneak behind a group of journalists trying to get an interview with the now-infamous artist. They are listening to his blustering friend (Robert Benchley, mostly wasted here). When the journalists notice, Benchley says "He wants to be alone," which even in 1938 was associated with Garbo. Helen Vinson is good fun as the "friend" who promotes the artist's work but also wants him in the Biblical sense.

I did love the scene where the trio, tired of reporters trying to get an interview with the artist (who caused a riot in Central Park), mistake Monty Wooley (great here as he always would be), a genuine art critic, for one of them and proceed to play comic assault upon him. Later, when Bob gets true success, Roz still wants him to play the foolish zany and start cutting suspenders at a showing of his work, where all the people seems fake to her. He resents her implication that his work is not legitimate enough to be truly good. He feels his success will enable him to finally support her in the style she deserves. She thinks he's sold out for a quick buck and is quite happy to live in the garret and put up with his continually dropping-in friend. (By the way, I can also imagine Roz's complaints to the makers of the picture: "Women don't clean in heels and a dress. Please! Can't I wear something more appropriate?" "Roz, baby, people don't pay good money to see Rosalind Russell clean her hubby's hovel in rags! They want to see her in a dress, even when it doesn't make sense! After all, this is MGM!") Somewhat disturbing to our 21st century minds in the scene where Bob arranges with a flower seller on the street to take her son home to paint him. Of course, she's Italian (must have those stereotypes) and she says, "What color?" He takes the kid home and attempts to capture his free spirit by dressing him up in a fig leaf configuration and posing him with a lamb. The pedophilic overtones of this are truly shudder-inducing. I suppose in 1937 this was not given another thought…

Anyway, the central theme of this picture is, I suppose, that one can live and love easily but it is somewhat harder to adjust to the expectations of those we do love. This isn't a bad film but a mediocre one, and the actors are simply hampered by the inane story. Roz would later go on to great success in sharply written screwball comedies and I suppose this was a baby step in that direction. Bob, though, was continually hampered by the noble, handsome lover roles he did so well in the early 30s and was still playing in the late 30s. He must have fought hard to play the psychotic killer in "Night Must Fall," but it didn't seem to lead to other worthy roles. It is truly lamentable that he didn't latch on to, say, a role like Nick Charles in the Thin Man series. He would have done smashingly in something like that. Getting back to this film, he and Roz have great chemistry together and make it a pretty enjoyable 90 minutes.

Although Robert Montgomery and Rosalind Russell are two of my favorite performers, I couldn't accept most of what was happening onscreen. The writers tried hard to make this a zany romantic comedy, and it starts out that way, as artist Montgomery meets socialite Russell when she takes a spill while on a fox hunt, right into his easel, and faints after some exchange of words. In the very next scene they're at a justice of the peace getting married! The writers didn't believe in long (or even short) courtships. They are both penniless (Russell throws her purse out of the window of a bus to be at Montgomery's poverty level) and have to extort groceries from grocer Charles Judels, by threatening to yell from the rooftops that he overcharges his customers. So what do they do when her rich uncle sends a $2,000 check, afraid she could not cope with poverty? They frame it and use it for a dartboard. What starving artist would do that? Robert Benchley is sort of a hanger-on, seeming to live with them and drunk most of the time. He's in the film for his witty comments, but seems witless most of the time. After Montgomery's painting causes a riot by sailors and marines in Central Park, gallery owner Monty Woolley (in his first film) becomes interested in Montgomery's work and goes to see him. But the trio has been so inundated by reporters because of the riot, they think he is one of them. In perhaps the funniest scene in the film (if you can ignore its viciousness), they snip his tie, cut his suspenders and pour a pitcher of water on his head. Still, Woolley makes him famous with a special showing of his work, and Russell's friend, Helen Vinson, gets him commissions to make him rich. Russell, however, is unhappy at the change she sees in Montgomery. I winced (as did Montgomery) when she suggests at the gallery showing that they start snipping ties of the patrons. He doesn't paint anymore for pleasure, she complains, but sold out his principles for crass commercialism. She asks for a divorce and leaves him, but they are both unhappy. Well, Montgomery lived and loved, but will he ever learn that making money is not as important as doing what you enjoy most?

Since I love Robert Montgomery, and since he has such great chemistry with Rosalind Russell, it's a cinch that I'd rent all five of their movies together. Live, Love and Learn may have given me terrific eye candy, but it ended up being so silly, it seemed like one of those terrible Doris Day comedies from the 1960s. You might want to just watch the first half hour and turn it off before it gets bad.

The first scene is incredibly cute. Bob is painting a landscape in the countryside, and a foxhunt passes him by. Roz is on horseback, and when she topples, she accidentally knocks over his canvas. They argue, and in the midst of their argument, the scene cuts to their wedding ceremony! Roz is giving him moony eyes, but all through their vows, Bob is constantly trying to talk her out of it, vowing she'll be sorry for ruining her life if she goes through with it. They do go through with it, and the rest of the movie follows their early years as he continues to be a starving artist and she gives up all her money and finery. They live in a studio apartment with loud, obnoxious neighbors and a live-in moocher, Robert Benchley, who refuses to leave even though he knows he's dampening their newlywed bliss.

The main problem with the movie is that although he's extremely handsome and charming, Bob's character isn't very likable. He never tries to better Roz's life, he pulls rude pranks on total strangers, picks fights when people don't like his artwork, and then, when he gets a whiff of success, he turns into an egotistical snob. There's only so far good looks can take a person, and unfortunately, his don't take him to the end of the movie. If you do decide to rent it, you'll see Monty Woolley as an art dealer, Helen Vinson as Roz's snobby pseudo-friend, and Mickey Rooney for about fifteen seconds as one of the neighbor kids. You'll also see that Bob and Roz could have easily been cast in the adorable Rag-winning comedy Third Finger, Left Hand.

While the MGM comedy "Live, Love and Learn" is perfectly charming, its 'kooky' tone initially seems like a put-on (these characters are so gay and frivolous, one wonders if the plot is going to amount to anything). Long Island gal from a wealthy brood--whom she apparently finds boring--meets and marries a penniless artist from Greenwich Village in record time; she doesn't even mind his "fire trap" apartment nor his half-sloshed roommate. But, when the artist is discovered and has a showing of his work, he lets the complimentary palaver delivered by the idle rich go to his head, alienating his spouse and best friend. It's at this point the sneaky screenplay (credited to Charles Brackett, Cyril Hume and Richard Maibaum, although others reportedly worked on it including Herman Mankiewicz) gets a bit edgy and catches us off-guard--this isn't all about cut-ups living the Bohemian lifestyle. George Fitzmaurice's direction is smooth and his trio of players--Robert Montgomery, Rosalind Russell, and an adorable Robert Benchley--are a very cute team. There are some wayward moments here (too much of a little boy sitting in as Montgomery's model), but the running gags are funny and the writing is smart and stylish. Does it capture the real Greenwich Village of 1937? Probably not, but the sheer attempt at a scratchy-yet-slick scenario reaps its own rewards, and the performers are nicely attuned to the material. *** from ****

"Live, Love and Learn" is a 1937 MGM film starring Robert Montgomery, Rosalind Russell, Robert Benchley and Monte Wooley. Surprisingly, it's not very good. Russell is an heiress who marries poor artist Montgomery, only to see him become successful and interested in money -the very thing she was trying to escape.

With better direction and a stronger script, this film might have had more of a "Holiday" feel to it, but it doesn't. It's part comedy, part drama, and because it doesn't know what it's supposed to be, neither does the audience. The two forms aren't integrated enough.

One scene that shows the innocence of the times is one in which Montgomery hires a little boy to pose for him in a loincloth. A very discomfiting scene when watched today, yet then, it was supposed to be funny. However, this is toward the end of the movie, which had dragged on too long, so the scene wasn't terribly amusing.

The acting was okay. Frankly, it's kind of a waste of time, despite the good cast.