Laughter

Harry D'Abbadie D'Arrast always complained that this movie, which he considered his best, was undeservedly forgotten, for it created many concepts which would reappear in comedies of later years.

This time he was right. It is surprising to find in such an early film the conflict between economical safeness and spiritual freedom that would later be typical of such wonderful films as Frank Capra's You Can't Take It with You, and very especially, George Cukor's Holiday (not a surprising coincidence, since it was written by the same screenwriter as Laughter).

It is an answer to the existentialism dilemma, where the only choices to make are living for the future (marrying a millionaire) or for the present (enjoying the moment you're currently living). Laughter goes even further than the later films, for it incorporates a third answer: suicide, which takes the story for the path of melodrama with a surprising respect of its unity.

In fact, what is most curious about Laughter is that it is much more mature that one would suspect. The structure of the story, the performances and even the humor feels fresher than those of other comedies of the period. A good example is the surprising scene in which Fredric March and Nancy Carroll do some role playing just for the sake of it: they pretend to be a marriage in which he is the woman and she is the man. They both imitate the conventions of each sex's supposedly proper behavior, making fun of predetermined attitudes and social obligations, clearly defending sponaneity and freedom as opposed to that which they parody/criticize (social roles conditioned by sexes).

Also the way the structure of the story is inventive enough, with a past time we never see but which is reflected in the present, and a triggering opening which serves as the conclusion of the movie as well. In fact, many other the elements of the movie (starting by the title itself) are developed in more than one level, like this one.

The biggest fault of the film is not in its final quarter (which, contrary to what I had read, seems to me fluid and coherent with the rest of the film): it is a number of technical limitations, which harm its rhythm for today's audience. These were common in the beginning of sound film (Lubitsch somehow avoided most of them in The Love Parade, made one year before this and quite a miracle).

The shortcoming I found most annoying was the impossibility for the camera to show the characters in a more frontal angle than the profiles during dialogs, which gives some important scenes a very old fashioned stagy feel.

(It had to do with the sound equipment: for what I know, they couldn't edit the sound they recorded, so they had to film each scene with several cameras so that they could use full takes of sound. So there could only be one light setup, and therefore, the characters had to be filmed from the only side where the light was better).

However, compared with most movies of that period, Laughter is a clear winner, and it is no wonder that March considered it one of his best films. His performance is relaxed, joyful and attractive still today, and so is Nancy Carroll's.

It is a pity that D'Arrast is not better known today, nor this movie properly restored/distributed. It is a interesting work on many levels, by a highly original and innovative filmmaker.

I was expecting this movie to be much more than it was. I read that it was one of Fredric March's personal favorites, his others being A Star is Born, Death Takes a Holiday, and Best Years of Our Lives, and so since he liked it I thought it was going to be really good. I must say I was really bored with it. The story seemed boring and not really well written. I think it could have been a much better story if the script was better. As is, there were too many loose ends. Sure, there were some funny moments (it was enjoyable to see Fred draped in a white bearskin rug!), and Fred gave a few kisses, and you got to see him in his undershirt. But I have seen him in MUCH better roles, more romantic, more funny...everyone's opinion is different. This is mine...It is one of the few Fred movies I didn't really like.

Up until July, 1934, the job of policing the films out of Hollywood was mostly left up to Hollywood. There was no rating system and practically anything might appear in movies. While not extremely common, nudity, adultery, abortion, homosexuality and promiscuity were featured in quite a few pictures...including in Biblical epics such as "Ben Hur" (1925) and "The Sign of the Cross". Often, when folks use the term 'pre-code' they are usually referring to the more extreme films of this era...and "Laughter" clearly is a pre-code plot, as its main theme is adultery.

When the film begins, you learn that Peggy (Nancy Carroll) has married a rich guy (Frank Morgan). But she also has had some admirers--including a suicidal artist and one lover (Frederic March) who stops by for a visit! Now Peggy must decide whether she wants to stay married to the rich man or run off with fun-loving Paul.

Post 1934, such plots clearly would NOT have been allowed until, perhaps, the 1960s. The notion of an old boyfriend showing up and the young wife going off with him to spend a day with him was just too broadminded for the post-code days...and hard to believe that the husband would just sit back and allow this outing to take place. It is, however, reasonably interesting to watch though not the comedy I expected (IMDB called it a comedy romance...but there were very few laughs). Worth your time...especially if you are a pre-code fan but not a fan I'd rush to see either.

I watched LAUGHTER, a 1930 film starring Nancy Carroll and Fredric March. Many comments and reviews state this film as a forerunner of the 30s screwball comedy. Yes there were some screwball elements, such as the silly sequence when the stars, caught in the rain, break into a house and put on bear rugs while their clothes dry. There's also a terrific scene when March is playing piano when the butler (Leonard Carey) tries to correct him. They end up playing duets! There's also a nice party scene where Eric Blore shows up in an angel costume. Another standout scene is when the daughter (Diane Ellis) starts to jazz dance and is joined by Carroll while Frank Morgan sourly looks on. Also of interest is Pearl the maid, played by Ollie Burgoyne, who was better known as Olga Burgoyne, a dancer in many stage shows.

Still, I don't see this film as a comedy, let alone a screwball comedy. Carroll (she's very good) plays a former show girl who marries Morgan for his money. His daughter is only a little younger than Carroll. The daughter is a little wild; Carroll is a lot bored. She has everything in her life but "laughter." When she takes up with March, we know the marriage is doomed. So does everyone else.

Morgan's character hasn't an ounce of humor in him. There's also a tragic starving artist type (Glenn Anders) who gets involved with Ellis. It's with this character that any shred of comedy drains from the picture as doom settles over the storyline.

This is still a very good film with solid work from its stars.

"Laughter" is a glorious romantic comedy with a terrific cast including that great man of the screen, Fredric March. It concerns a young woman who has married for stability and wealth, but can't forget the love of her life, played by the delicious Mr March. It was made at Paramount's Long Island studios, and some scenes were shot on location in New York, giving the movie a different "look" to many others of the period. Some people think of this movie as the first "Screwball" comedy. "Laughter" was Frank Morgan's first talkie and the last movie for Diane Ellis who plays his daughter. She died on her honeymoon in December 1930.