Erros do Coração

... in which even "the poor writer" (George Brent as Julian Tierney) has posh roomy quarters and a full time servant in the person of Max (Sam McDaniel, Hattie Mc Daniel's brother).

In 1932 Warner's capitalized on their recent raid of Paramount's talent to put one of those stars (Ruth Chatterton) in the kind of drama that she did so well - playing a woman of means in the Great Depression that the average person could relate to and even find likable. Here Ms. Chatterton plays Caroline, born "the richest girl in the world". At age 20 she marries successful stock broker Greg Grannard (John Miljan). Then the film fast forwards to ten years later. Caroline is enjoying a rather robust flirtation with writer Julian. Julian wants it to be more, but you get the feeling that Caroline, although fond of Julian, is just doing this to feed her vanity and assure herself that she is still desirable, that she doesn't really want to upset her life as she has been living it all of these years.

It would never occur to her that her husband might feel the same way. He too is carrying on with someone else - the bratty Allison, who, unlike Julian, is not respecting of her lover's desire to leave things as they are. She lures Greg into an embrace where Caroline is sure to spot them and it leads to Greg being granted the divorce that Allison wants him to get so she can get her hooks into him. Complicating matters is Bette Davis as Malbro (wherever did they get that name???) as a socialite who wants Julian at any price and I mean that literally. One of Malbro's selling points to Julian is that if he married her he wouldn't have to work anymore.

I found the story interesting and the performances superb. Chatterton especially shines in the scene where she, her husband, and Allison are discussing how to go forward - divorce, open marriage, end the affair - after she spots Allison and Greg together. She gives the part and the scene the dignity and the subtlety it requires to be believable. All through the film, even after the divorce, she struggles with her desire for continuity - represented by Greg who is still very much in her life - versus her desire for passion, represented by Julian, who wants her to cut off ties with Greg entirely and marry him.

Even in such a small part you see can see what made Bette Davis great. When she turns into a ball of fire on screen in the few scenes she had center stage you can see how she blew the frost right off the first generation of talking film actresses. An interesting aside - the iconic moment in "Now Voyager" where Paul Henreid lights two cigarettes in his mouth and passes one to Davis was actually done here first. This time it is in a moment shared between George Brent and Ruth Chatterton.

Where in the world did the screenwriters come up with such a first name? It is attached to the flirty character very well played by Bette Davis.

Ruth Chatterton was always good. She and Davis are both rich (though exactly what the origin of the axiom in the title is, I'm not sure.) She is married to an insufferable stuffed shirt. George Brent is also interested in her. Why she wants to stay with her husband is unclear. It's not as if he's faithful.

Chatterton is not well served by the film. She is costumed and made up in a highly unflattering way. Superb film actress though she was, even in 1932, she was no spring chicken. And the movie is filmed in a way that accents this.

The situations are a tiny bit racy but don't accept an ooh-la-la sort of pre-Code movie. It's a drawing room comedy of a second- or third-tier. Davis's character's name is probably the most memorable thing about it.

When I first got this movie, I didn't watch it right away, thinking that, most probably it was a light comedy drama movie, but the actors interested me, especially George Brent and Bette Davis. Knowing that, in this movie, starring Ruth Chatterton, who was married with George Brent at that time, was happened to be the movie where Bette Davis and George Brent fell in love, appealed to me. Later on Chatterton and Brent would divorce but Brent and Davis never married although they kept a relationship for quite long.

But when I saw this movie I realized what a great actress Ruth Chatterton was. And for a time when actors and actresses would say their line the best right and straight forwarded way, Ruth Chatterton speaks in such natural way, at times repeating one or two words in a sentence, as if there was no camera at all. Something that nowadays actors do, at times not so naturally.

Bette Davis still not being "caught" by the clever camera, appears very glamorous, beautiful and determined, but her eyes, alas, the camera doesn't really focus the moment she is sitting on a couch and looking to the right, slowly... what would made her later on "Bette Davis' eyes". Anyhow she is so wonderful here that Davis fans will really love her play.

The romantic scenes are very well filmed, and because everything seems so naturally sophisticated, Brent kisses and embraces with a great gentleman's style. What he was in real life.

This movie's plot is very simple, but it is very well portrayed and love has a great importance as a meaning, like in so many classic movies. Only that in this one, love goes beyond "you and me"

There are 3 short clips at the start of this movie, set in 1900, 1920, and 1930, respectively, taking place in powder rooms where high society women gossip about Caroline Grannard, lead character, 'richest woman in the world', played by Ruth Chatterton; she is born, gets married, and lunching with writer Julian Tierney (George Brent). Interior decoration, dress, and even background music, are all period appropriate. While Warner Brothers probably had these sets and dresses and extras lying about from other movies, and whole thing cost very little, question that interest me is why all that for a simple exposition that would have taken two lines of dialogue in the movie proper? Did the director and producers wanted filler to pad up something so insubstantial that it cannot even stand on its own for 1 hour and 10 minutes? Seems so.

Plot here involve romantic and marital entanglements of rich society people, mainly on who the lead character really loves, her (soon ex) husband she 'mothers', or the writer who she keeps hanging without deciding (to the annoyance of a rather spoiled society girl (Bette Davis) who is in love with him). Nothing else, there is no higher purpose, no socio political commentary, no deep psychology, no insight into human nature and relationships, no simple enjoyable love story/villainy even. While there is no absolute requirement that movies should have some of that, absence do make them rather boring.

However, this is not boring, mainly because of the acting. Chatterton is so good that i want to see more of her movies. As others have noted, in this movie she has a way of repeating and even stammering some dialogue that is so naturalistic that i initially wondered whether they had run out of takes and used the least bad. But it happened frequently enough, and there were similar stuff with her gestures, that it was soon clear it was deliberate. She comes from a stage background, but when modern 'method actors' use similar techniques, you can spot them right away. Almost all the others were rather good too, though from a different style. Brent as usual underplays his part. Energetic Davis (3 years before her breakthrough role in 'On Human Bonadge') in that phase of career when Warner tried to make her blond, sexy, and glamorous (successfully in my opinion though she herself thought otherwise), found the right foil in Brent (with whom she was to star in quite a number of her best movies), as demonstrated by her scene with him in his apartment. John Miljan, who plays husband, and Adrienne Dore as his lover, were also good.

It seems odd that so many films made during the Depression were about rich, pretty and sophisticated people. After all, with 20% of the population out of work and wages incredibly low, you'd think the patrons in the theaters would grow sick and tired of these fancy stories. But, despite this, the major studios made tons of films involving the lives of the rich and successful. Perhaps it was all escapism....with the average folks looking at what life COULD be like if.

In the case of "The Rich Are Always With Us", the film not only is about these rich folks but has a very healthy dose of Pre-Code sensibilities as well. What I mean is that before July, 1934, the studios often made movies with incredibly adult themes. Adultery, abortions, insanity, homosexuality and many topics which became taboo with the new Production Code had been pretty common in the years leading up to 1934. For example, the film actually uses the word 'sex'--very unusual even in the Pre-Code era....and it also treats marriage in a rather cavalier manner...one not allowed in films only two years later.

Caroline is an incredibly rich woman who is married to Greg. Despite this, she hangs out a lot with her male friend, Julian (George Brent) and Greg hangs around with Allison. The difference is that Caroline and Julian see it all as harmless flirtation...but Greg and Allison are actually lovers. When Caroline discovers this, she is incredibly understanding (too much so!) and encourages the pair to marry...and she's soon off to France to get a divorce and get Greg out of her system. Following the divorce, Julian arrives in France and asks Caroline to marry him...though she hesitates and he leaves. He's not about to beg her and is going to get on with his life. He ends up spending much of his time with another lady on the rebound (Bette Davis). And as for Caroline, it's difficult to say WHAT she wants. She ends up persuing Julian...but also starts spending time with Greg! What's to become of this...especially when Greg's new (and incredibly jealous) wife gets involved?!

As you watch the movie, it's very likely you'll feel like the characters are all being too polite and sophisticated. Normally, you'd expect divorcing people to hate each other or harbor SOME ill feelings....but not during most of this film. Caroline later DOES show some feelings....and keeps them to herself. After all, it wouldn't be polite to get angry!

So it this any good? Well, although it's hard to connect with and care about these people, the acting and direction were very good. Also, the ending is pretty limp....and really seemed a bit contrived. Overall, just an okay time-passer....and it should have been much better.