If I Were Free

Two desperately unhappy people, both trapped in loveless marriages, meet one night by chance in Paris...

IF I WERE FREE is a fine example of what could be done with a soap opera plot when given the advantages of excellent acting & good production values. In less expert hands the film could have easily become awkward & mawkish; instead, the viewer is given slightly over an hour of solid entertainment.

Irene Dunne & Clive Brook are first rate as the sensible lovers who enter a relationship with their eyes wide open. Some clever scenes with sophisticated dialogue - going through her childhood books, visiting his favorite old church - makes their interaction a delight.

Considerable contributions are also given by the supporting performers: Henry Stephenson as Brook's jolly legal friend and Vivian Tobin as his pixilated wife are very amusing. Laura Hope Crews as Brook's free spirited mother & Tempe Pigott as Dunne's Cockney housekeeper add their own style of drollery to the proceedings.

Silent film star Nils Asther scores in the small role of Dunne's caddish husband. His celebrity had considerably dimmed with the arrival of talking pictures, but given a decent role this actor could still deliver the goods.

Movie mavens will recognize an uncredited Halliwell Hobbes as Brook's butler.

If a soap opera (romantic melodrama, if you prefer) were deprived of its intricate plot complications and convoluted relationships, what would be left? Probably something on the order of this picture, a mild, conventional story of a love affair whose development is at least honest and somewhat touching - until its resolution is brought about through extraneous matters, rather than the characters and their aspirations.

Irene Dunne does not have quite the command of this role that she usually displays. Clive Brook offers his familiar jaded ennui (just right, if a very dry martini is your drink), and dear old Henry Stephenson once again tries to do right by everyone.

There are assuredly worse ways to spend sixty-five minutes than with this picture, but why its producers bothered to make something so bland is not easily explained.

Irene Dunne fans will probably like the film. Clive Brook is absolutely wooden. What a poor choice for Dunne's leading man.

Brook's facial expression hardly changes, whether he's supposed to be happy or sad, whether he's speaking of his despair or whether he's making love to Dunne. His kissing is positively mechanical. He spends most of the film looking away from his fellow actors or looking down at the floor. In fact, he was much older (about 46) than his character was supposed to be (38), and he looks it.

The plot now seems tired. The plot of a later film, "In Name Only", bears a lot of similarities to this film: (1) Man in unhappy marriage meets his "soul-mate"; (2) Wife won't give him divorce; (3) Sickness in hospital with man calling out for his paramour rather than his wife. This begs the question—which of the authors copied the other? This film hasn't aged well. Since it was made pre-code, they could have spiced this up, but didn't. There are many other films of this vintage which we still enjoy seeing today, but in my opinion, this film isn't one of them.

Warning: Before watching this film, you might want to give your dogs a sedative, as the sound of Irene Dunne singing might otherwise trigger them into howling fits! Yes, I know Dunne sang in such films as SHOWBOAT and ROBERTA, but never was it more piercing and high-pitched as it was here! I warned you. Fortunately, however, she doesn't sing that often.

As for the film, it's a soap opera that would not have been likely to have been made just a year later. In 1934, a tougher Production Code was enacted. It strongly censored films and many topics that were common in the pre-Code days were either forbidden completely or were forced to be so sanitized that it's tough understanding what the film might be implying--as they could not directly address topics such as adultery, abortion, drug addiction and the like. As for IF I WERE FREE, the reason it would have been tough to make just a year later was because the main topic is adultery...AND the film excusing its two leads for cheating on their partners. Even if their spouses were terrible (like they were here), such goings on were strictly taboo post-1934...at least until the 1960s.

As for the romance between Dunne and Clive Brook, it's handled in a very gentle manner. It is NOT some torrid romance or sexcapade, but two sad and lonely people in horrible marriages who gravitate together out of a need for ANY warmth and affection. As a result, you really do feel sorry for the pair--they really are married to terrible spouses and they just want to be loved. What I liked about all this is that the film lacked some of the melodrama such films might usually have--none of the sappy music or overly romantic scenes--just two people enjoying spending time together. Only later in the film does it become a bit sticky...just a bit.

Unfortunately for the pair, there are problems with their relationship. First, Brook's wife had promised to divorce him, but now she capriciously has changed her mind and won't let go. Second, they are from different elements in society--he's from the upper classes and is a barrister while she works in an antiques shop. As a result, his friends pressure him to give her up and soon, a mutual friend (Henry Stephenson) approaches Dunne to tell him how much this is hurting Brook. What happened next came as a genuine surprise--and you'll have to tune in yourself to see what happens next.

Overall, a good but certainly not great romance. Worth seeing, but also a bit tough to believe...particularly when Brook's mother laments to her that she wishes her son were married to Dunne and that she approved of the affair.

I enjoyed this 1933 movie made before the censors had their hand into things. After 1934 you would not have seen this same story, the unwanted wife would have had to die or would have been a bad wife and a divorce the right thing for her husband to do. The story is rather sophisticated in that the unwanted wife is just asked to step aside so her husband's love affair could be made legitimate. Oh,they had made an agreement that if either one got tired of the other than one or the other could walk away from the marriage with no argument. Apparently the unwanted wife had had an affair earlier, it didn't work out so she wanted to hang on to what she had and not give her husband up to Irene Dunne's character. Though Clive Brock's character was diagnosed with a life-threatening problem that required a very risky surgery, the unwanted wife did not want the divorce and demanded that his lover, Dunne leave the hospital even in the face of the fact that Brock was near death and calling for Dunne and not his wife. The wife does not want to allow the visit but Dunne pushes by and goes to the dying man's bedside and her presence stimulates Brock's recovery from surgery and they are seen in the last scene as a married couple on holiday. Censors would not have permitted this to pass if done later than the mid thirties. Especially since the unwanted wife did not want or agree to the divorce when she found out that her husband was having an affair and wanted to leave her for another woman. It was a good story and I would see it again.