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.

... or make a wise decision concerning your future for that matter. The life of ex-chorus girl Peggy (Nancy Carroll) now socialite wife to public utilities king C. Morton Gibson (Frank Morgan) seems to be an object lesson in this fact. Peggy is already a millionaire's wife by the time the film opens, so we don't see any of her past life, just the human remnants of it. First there's Ralph, an overwrought starving artist who is obsessed with memories of Peggy but whom Peggy never apparently loved. Next there's Paul Lockridge (Fredric March), starving musician, whom Peggy did love but was overseas at the time she made the decision to marry Gibson, and thus could not plead his case.

Peggy doesn't have to worry about being hungry anymore, in fact she doesn't have to worry about anything in her new life. However, her husband treats her like a cross between a bird in a gilded cage and a welfare case, always talking about her "unfortunate past" and scrutinizing her every unexplained absence. Neither is he a particularly passionate fellow - accumulating more and more cash is his real passion. The lack of joy in Peggy's life comes to the surface when Paul returns from Europe to win her back. His only asset - laughter, the joy of life lived experience by experience. Add to this a chance meeting of Peggy's unstable old suitor, Ralph, with Peggy's new stepdaughter, Marjorie, that turns romantic and complications abound.

This is a rather understated film, nothing is particularly laugh-out-loud funny or horribly suspenseful and melodramatic save for a couple of short scenes in each case. Thus the film's success largely rests on the acting of the performers, which is quite good. Since this film was made in 1930, many might think it is about the desperate decisions and trade-offs people had to make to keep eating during those times, but it really predates the depression.

This is a good one for fans of Nancy Carroll, who plays her understated role very well - that of a decent woman whose profession of chorus girl guarantees not only that she has just a few good years to make a decision on the only profession that could come afterwards for such women in the 1920's - marrying well, but that everyone automatically doubts her character because of her profession.

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.

...And she's buying a STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN

Not sure whether Led Zeppelin were inspired by this film but but the theme, or rather the song remains the same which is as Paul McCartney wrote: MONEY CAN'T BUY ME LOVE.

It's somewhat idealistic since that hippie dream of non-materialism probably grated a bit with the audience of 1930. The Great Depression had just started and millions of Americans were now forced into poverty and even starvation so maybe they didn't have a lot of sympathy for Nancy Carroll's millionaire character bemoaning lack of excitement in her privileged life.

Nancy Carroll plays Peggy, a former Zigfield girl who's achieved the classic chorus girl dream of marrying a millionaire. But it's a case of: 'be careful what you wish for' because despite the diamonds and the mansion, she's not cut out to be just a demure, subservient trophy wife and is still seeing a couple of men behind her husband's back. One has to be sorry for the husband - cheating on The Wizard of Oz just isn't right!

It's worth sticking with this - although it starts off a bit slow and 'arty' it quickly speeds up and evolves into a really absorbing, witty and enjoyable drama. You have to pinch yourself at times to remind you that this was made in 1930. The acting is perfect and natural - as far away from that awful static, stagey style common in those very early sound films as is imaginable. There's even a musical score, there's classy art-deco sets, there's realistic dialogue and unlike most films of this age, very fluid camerawork with innovative and imaginative tracking shots - it's like nothing you'd expect from 1930.

What makes this special is its director Harry d'Abbadie d'Arrast whose talent lives up to his cool name. Had a lesser director made this it could have become just the typical dross of 1930 but considering the limitations of film making at the dawn of the sound age, he works miracles. He truly brings the story and the characters to life and imbues it with wit, humour and humanity. He even brings honesty to the happy ending by tempering it with real life since as the song goes: And a new day will dawn for those who stand long and the forests will echo with laughter.