La chasse aux millions

This inter-war comedy-drama is centred on Ernest Bliss; he is a millionaire but still isn't happy. A friend advises him to see Sir James Aldroyd, a Harley Street consultant. Sir James tells Bliss that the problem boredom; he has so much money he doesn't need to do anything. The two end up making a bet; Bliss must live for a year without touching his financial reserves; if he loses he must pat £50,000, if he wins he gets an apology. He leaves his expensive flat in the hands of his butler the catches a tube to the East End with only five pounds in his wallet.

He struggles to get a job but eventually gets one at a struggling business but after using some of his own money to help the company he moves on so he can't be seen as benefitting from his wealth. He later gets a job working as a chauffeur but keeps in touch with the secretary from his former job. They develop a relationship but will she settle down with a man she thinks is almost penniless?

The story is simple enough but works nicely. The protagonist may be rich but the message to viewers, few of whom could aspire to his wealth, is that money doesn't buy happiness; that it is better to be poor and happy then rich and bored... not too subtle but not as patronising as it could be. Gary Grant does a fine job as Bliss and Mary Brian is likeable as his romantic interest, Frances. There are a couple of entertaining if not entirely necessary subplots; one involving a pair of crooks who think Bliss is merely somebody who looks like him and try to recruit him to rob himself and second involving an employee who is trying to take advantage of Frances. Overall this isn't a classic but it is fun enough, especially if you are a fan of Cary Grant or 1930s British cinema.

These comments are based on watching the shortened version of the film; I must say it did feel a bit rushed at times so it would be interesting to compare it to the full length version.

In '36 the idea of being so wealthy you actually suffered must have seemed truly ludicrious. Many Americans were still struggling post the great market crash so wealth was more like what would fix rather than break one's quality of life. So when the young Earnest Bliss (Grant) finds his health in the doldrums he is challenged by his doctor to quit living like a millionaire as nothing else is wrong with him. Bliss being somewhat insulted decides to take the doctor up on a bet that he can't live like a regular person living paycheck to paycheck. Wanting to prove he can live without almost unlimited income Bliss finds a much different life.

In this movie there's lots of room for comedy as well as social and moral commentaries. One thing early on is that it often takes money to change things, but triffles like this aside Bliss finds meaning in his brushes with poverty. It often makes people too desperate even criminal. There is much that needs balancing with good morals And what can a meaningful life be without love. Love is the way forward and has the power to trump compromised morals. Greed is a multi-faceted downfall of the human condition. It's all here and if not done stupendously it entertains and challenges some thought. A quite modest movie with a larger message? Maybe? Still worth a watch no matter. Early Grant shows promise no doubt.

As stated before me, this is a story that's been done before, most notably "Sullivan's Travels", made a few years hence. A rich young man takes a bet that he can live on a working man's wages for a year, and ventures forth to prove it. The most notable difference here is Cary Grant in the lead, vs. Joel McCrea. Now, I have nothing against Mr. McCrea. But there is a reason why Cary Grant became a mega star, and Joel McCrea didn't. Comparison of these two films makes the differences quite clear. Grant had a glib, polished presence that somehow translated into believability for most of us, and it shows through, even in this early film. The story is predicable, but not so as to make you want to stop watching. Spend the time, and enjoy the performances of Grant and Mary Brian.

The year 1936 marks the end of Cary Grant's long apprenticeship. Filmographies differ as to the precise order of the films he released in this period, so this film -- the only one he made in Britain in the '30's -- makes a convenient watershed. Of his films released that year, this one is probably the weakest.

Cary at this point has his mature mannerisms, but he still lacks the sparkle. Moviegoers would have to wait another year. He really comes into his own in 1937 with "The Toast of New York", "Topper", and "The Awful Truth" in particular.

This film's plot follows the conventional Depression formula of a man of affluence temporarily renouncing his wealth in order to become a man of the people, with predictable results.

I love movies like this because they are as close to time travel as we'll ever come. I've just read Cary Grant: A Biography by Marc Eliot, and to be able to see this movie after reading about it and what was going on in his life at the time is just wonderful.

The movie itself--well, it's tough to judge objectively when movies have changed so much in the intervening years. No car chases, no explosions, no body count--there aren't even any sound effects in the big fist-fight scene, just quiet little thuds instead of the "crack" "pow" "bam" noises we're used to hearing as fist hits chin. A quiet movie. A simple Aesop's fable of human values and the importance of meaningful work, starring an astonishingly beautiful man. Definitely worth watching.