Beijos a Esmo

Do note that my high rating is mainly for lovers of precode. If you're not familiar with the genre I'd start elsewhere to get acquainted with it. Norma Shearer has two suitors in this one. Neil Hamilton plays a real heel here as globe-trotting career-obsessed Alan Harlow who talks the talk of romance yet has feet blocked in ice when it comes to commitment. Robert Montgomery is the "good suitor" yet he is playing his perpetual playboy character here who is always somewhat tipsy and never serious about anything. He proposes marriage probably because he hasn't thought it through in terms of what it means as far as him curtailing his nightlife. He provides a reliable shoulder for Norma when she needs one. It's no wonder that Norma comes to the disillusioned conclusion that neither one of these guys is "the answer to her maiden's prayer" as she puts it. Actually, although as others have said, you'll walk away wondering just exactly what it is this movie is trying to say, the viewing experience was a pleasurable one for me. The main reason for that is that the characters will surprise you with both their words and actions. The destination of the film is probably where you guessed it will be, but the journey has some interesting twists and turns. I'm not giving too many details here because any description at all of the plot's trajectory would probably spoil it. I will say that Robert Montgomery gets the best lines in this one. His character is more sober than he would have you think.

Do note an uncredited part by Ray Milland as one of Norma's admirers in Europe who has just one interesting precode line - "she changes her men with her lingerie".

I give this film a 6 only because it contains the ever elegant Norma Shearer swanning about in those great clothes of the 1930s. The plot borders on the ludicrous......well, maybe I should say the ending is ridiculous but the rest of the film is pretty well done.

Basically, it tells the story of a "modern" woman who believes that marriage is for chumps and proceeds to make a fool of herself over Neil Hamilton(!??!), while her faithful and always tipsy pal Robert Mongomery waits patiently in the wings in hopes of winning her hand. Hamilton is extremely unlikeable and after a long affair with Shearer, he deigns to tell her that he already has a wife in Paris but the marriage doesn't mean a thing. Does she care?....nooooo. But she takes up a life of "loose morality" and globe trots through most of cafe society while never forgetting her love for Hamilton. Robert Montgomery, always close by, pulls her irons out of the fire and brings her back to the United States to start over. Then, in the last few minutes of the film, the story descends to sheer melodrama and unbelievablitly. Who shows up but Hamilton, now divorced, and he and Shearer are seen walking out of the theater on their way to a happy life together. Give me a break!!! The attitude of the main protagonists toward man/woman relationships is rather hard to take in this day and age.......but with that said, it is still worth seeing this pre-Code slice of history. Nobody ever looked better on the screen than Mrs. Thalberg.

This movie was pure soap opera for 1931 audiences. Today it's rather "talkie" and the moral standards of the film by today's liberal standards are laughable. But the great Norma Shearer is always fun to watch, and Norma never looked better on the screen. Her Adrian designed gowns are breathtaking and she is nothing short of ravishing.

The pre-Code talkies included many movies in which women led an independent life and refused to submit to the sexual double standard. This one tries to be bold but ends up in a lot of tortuous moral tangles that not only negate the vaunted sexual freedom but make no sense.

The starring free spirit is Norma Shearer, that triumph of hard work (and being married to the boss) over beauty and talent. Though she wears the divine gowns of Adrian, Shearer has no class of her own. Coy, affected, arch, she gives a performance that is a patchwork of tricks and gestures. There's the head flung back, fingers fluttering at her forehead; the hands clasped at one side of her waist while she leans against a door frame; the high-pitched stuttering mirthless laugh (as Rebecca West put it, "out of an all-star revival of Sheridan").

Hardest of all to take is Neil Hamilton as Shearer's Great Love. True, he didn't write the ridiculous dialogue, but he hardly overrides it, with his impersonal, stuffy delivery and bunched-up, prissy features and little mustache.

In the scene in which Shearer encounters Robert Montgomery after a two-year absence, look out for Ray Milland, standing on the right of a row of admirers. Now, he is REALLY cute! But Norma has no eyes for him, only for some slimy type who speaks broken English. Some girls just DON'T want to have fun!

I find much to agree with in all of the comments made about this film. The hypocritical morals are obvious. The disparity between Norma Shearer's acting style, nurtured in silent films, and Robert Montgomery's style, which does anticipate a more modern approach, is also apparent. The costumes and sets are marvelous and capture the milieu with authenticity and panache. But not being a great fan of Miss Shearer, I did, indeed, grow weary of seeing her throw her head back in laughter. I wholeheartedly agree that Robert Montgomery steals the show.

The content of this film makes it racy in any era. The montage of scenes depicting Shearer with man after man makes the point clearly enough without being as explicit as a contemporary film. In fact that method of story telling is one of the key distinctions between films from the Golden Age of Hollywood and contemporary cinema. This method either appeals to an individual's tastes today or doesn't (and it is that bias which often forms the basis of comments found in forums such as this). For the record, I appreciate a less explicit approach to cinema.

The only point I would like to make more explicit is that I found it impossible to see what: 1) Miss Shearer's character saw in her caddish married lover or 2) what Mr. Montgomery's character saw in Miss Shearer's character. The only person who seemed the slightest bit attractive was Montgomery's character (despite his penchant for the bottle), who nobody found desirable.

Filmed today, this movie would probably explore the rejected woman's past, searching for psychological explanations for her preference of an abusive mate over a warm, caring one. This film, therefore, might have been an interesting psychological study and made a little more sense. But filmed in 1930, cinema had a long way to go before really delving into such explorations. Even Bette Davis' landmark portrayal of Mildred in 1934's "Of Human Bondage" is not so much an exploration as a portrait.