Après nous le déluge

Ponderous, miscast slog of a film. The performers try their best but only Cooper's character is believable. Crawford, Young and Tone are all supposed to be British born, none speak in anything but refined American accents. Their parts should have been played by Diana Wynyard, Ronald Coleman and Leslie Howard all truly English actors actively working in Hollywood at the time, the film would probably still have been a bore but at least it would have felt grounded in some kind of reality. MGM was trying to move Joan away from the shop girl roles that were her bread and butter at the time but this was an ill advised vehicle for her. Missing Hawks customary economy of timing and pace and a lacking any visual sense of time or place, Joan's clothes in particular are inappropriate and at times bizarre-one outfit looks like she has an ironing board attached to it!, you'd be better served to seek out other work by all involved.

This film was hopelessly miscast. Why have Americans playing Brits especially when none can master the accent? But, that is one of the reasons to watch especially as Miss Crawford often forgets, or doesn't even try to attempt to be English, in places... sometimes in mid sentence. You can also laugh at the stilted attempts at English Dialogue - "Sister, Mine". "Officer now. Navy. Now I can ask her.". "Feelings Anne. Can't change love.". There's also some clumsy scenes but this was made in 1933 so we were only just out of the silent age so some over dramatic, over egged, over acted scene's are to be expected.

Yet, and despite this being a pot-boiler of a love triangle with war and Anglos-American relations as it's background, it is enjoyable for some still superb acting, the way the three main characters a loved by the camera and are give back warmth and honesty in return. Never been a big fan of Joan Crawford but she looks good and (if we forget she is supposed to be British) gives a good performance.

The sort of film you watch to look at both the good and the bad of cinema at the time and it gives you plenty to talk about later. And remember Crawford and Franchot Tone met for the first time when making this film. he became her second husband two years later.

This film could have been great with some adequate dialogue and character development. For some reason the makers of this film seemed to believe that because three of the main characters were supposed to be British that it was necessary that they speak in incomplete sentences, usually missing nouns, and that they speak as though tranquilized. They all still sound American, they're just having half of every conversation.

Bogard (Gary Cooper) is an American who takes over a British estate during World War I before the Americans enter the fray because the current residents can no longer afford it since the father is in the military at the time. The daughter, Diana (Joan Crawford) moves into one of the servant's quarters and her brother Ronnie (Franchot Tone) and their lifetime friend Claude (Robert Young) join up with the British forces and ship out to France. The development of the romance between Bogard and Diana consists (onscreen) of exactly one bike ride in which Bogard declares his love and Diana's one word sentences make her seem disinterested. However, at the end of the ride she says rather emotionlessly that she loves Bogard. The two might as well be using semaphores to communicate, the conversation is that wooden.

Diana goes to France to help the war effort, with her brother and childhood sweetheart seeing action nearby. In France she gets news that Bogard is dead, although that news is incorrect. Based on that information she then makes a rash decision that she later regrets when Bogard shows up at her door.

On the other hand, the action sequences, both in the air and on the sea, are extremely well done and photographed. It's just a shame when such a fine cast as this film had all have their performances put in a straight jacket. The one thing that even the director couldn't do was put a complete damper on the chemistry between Franchot Tone and Joan Crawford. This is the film where they fell in love, and their scenes together show it, even though they are playing brother and sister here.

Despite some very glossy MGM B&W photography, as shown in the good print of this film aired by TCM, and some attractive sets and very Adrian-created costumes for JOAN CRAWFORD, TODAY WE LIVE is a film as generic as its title. It's hard to distinguish from any other triangle romance except that the war background gives it added interest.

The script is a strange affair. It's hard to believe that JOAN CRAWFORD and GARY COOPER would openly declare their deep love for each other after exchanging a few glances across a cup of tea. In the very next scene they're hopelessly in love, with Crawford feeling guilt because she's the fiancé of ROBERT YOUNG.

Young's brother is the carefree FRANCHOT TONE (who walks off with the earlier scenes in the film), while ROBERT YOUNG gets his chance to do a fair share of emoting later in the film as his role expands. It's nice seeing these well-known actors at an early stage in their budding careers and still in their prime.

For GARY COOPER fans this is nothing special, but Crawford's admirers will find that she was at the height of her photogenic, sculptured beauty despite some odd dress designs by Adrian that don't suggest anything but the studio's line of glamor during the early '30s. She wears a boldly designed dress with a strange wing collar that has to be seen to be believed. It's hilarious! And that's just so she can pour tea with some dignity.

The actors all speak in clipped lines. "Good girl," says Franchot Tone on several occasions, trying to sound like Colonel Blimp, I suppose. And the others too adopt a strange way of clipping phrases so they sound more British. Very funny.

It goes into darker territory in the later war scenes and there director Howard Hawks seems more at home. But for a film in which the Joan Crawford character was added as a last minute script change, she certainly gets her fair share of footage and dominates the first forty-five minutes. But the love angle is certainly a strange one. She treats Cooper with rude indifference several times during their first meeting although his behavior is that of the perfect gentleman. Shortly thereafter, she confesses she's in love with him. That's the movies for you.

Despite a fairly lukewarm critical reception, that a great director and an immensely talented cast were reasons enough to see 'Today We Live'. Really like to love quite a lot of Howard Hawks' films, he was a gifted director and a versatile and influential (certainly for other directors) one with one of his more distinctive touches being how he portrayed his female characters. Joan Crawford, Gary Cooper and Franchot Tone promise a lot individually, imagine how they would fare together.

Which actually for me was a bit of a mixed bag. In a rather strange mixed bag of a film. Not awful and watchable in a way when it finally picks up, but all involved have done and been in so much better (Crawford though did do a lot worse as well) than 'Today We Live'. Good things there are definitely, but a lot of things also could have been done a lot better. The idea was not a bad one, but the execution was on the other hand rather patchy.

'Today We Live' has good things. It looks good and is well shot in particular. William Axt's score is suitably moody. Hawks' direction does pick up when the action comes in in the second half, where he is more in his comfort zone.

Furthermore, the second half is better than the first. More confident with more story, and the action is well staged and excites. Some of the atmosphere is somewhat dream-like in a surreal sort of way. The cast are a mixed bag, but a couple are good. With a likeable Tone coming off best. He has good chemistry with Crawford, who has some affecting moments.

As well as some rather over-compensated and bland ones. Robert Young does his best but his character once again is underwritten. Gary Cooper looks rather lost and there is not much chemistry between him and Crawford. Hawks' direction doesn't seem very engaged or at ease in the early stages.

One of the worst things, maybe the worst thing, is the script. The clipped awkwardness is really quite painful and it sounds in dialogue and line delivery pretty stilted and like there wasn't much of a script at all. The story has its moments in the second half but is dull, almost drawn out in the less eventful scenes, and bland in the first. There is also some serious suspension of disbelief needed as the whole film is full of credibility straining.

Concluding, a strange mixed bag of a film. 5/10