The Common Law

Joel McCrea was one of the great stars of Twentieth Century movies. I'm not thinking of the Westerns for which he was best known, eventually, but for his light comedy, slapstick, and serious comedy. Not to mention his starring role in one of Hitchcock's very best: "Foreign Correspondent." It seems as if many of the fine directors wanted to work with him. In addition to Hitchcock, Preston Sturges used him -- twice. In "Sullivan's Travels" he is certainly an alter-ego for the writer/director.

Early in his career he did light fare, often paired, as here, with Constance Bennett. He also worked with Miriam Hopkins on several occasions, including the far from comic "These Three." Here he is a painter in Paris. He's from a rich family but he's rebelling. He uses Bennett as a model -- and we see her nude. Not totally but first in her undergarments and then with a towel covering the parts we aren't allowed to see.

So how come he is such a prig when he finds out she is a lady with a past? He sure is, though.

The movie is filled with thudding quips and boring banter. It is fun overall but it definitely could have been a great deal better.

An American artist in Paris falls in love with his model and wants to marry her, but she say's no. They argue and part. Bennett is beautiful and bohemian. McCrea is handsome and conventional. They meet again at a wild Artist's ball, Bennett wearing a gown and skull cap of glittering sequins that's a knockout. She's irresistibly charming as she woos herself back into the arms of the grumpy object of her affections.

This was another Bennett blockbuster. Variety's reviewer wrote, "It's from the customary Bennett mold (that) will make each a little less strong at the b.o." Those words proved prophetic. Reviewer also criticized the star's acting, "It's becoming as stereotyped as the stories themselves." I liked Bennett's acting, but what awful posture. On the other hand, Hedda Hopper knows how to stand up straight and keep her hands where they belong, but she can't act. Everyone else acts A-OK. The plot of this "risqué" movie is irrelevant. The only reason to watch it - then or now - is to see Bennett work her magic. That's why she was paid $5000 a week.

A professionally made and superbly acted reflection of what respectability was considered to be at time when the old world gave way to our modern one. It's the familiar 'can love survive across the class divide' story but done with class.

My only criticism is that Paul Stein's direction is quite humourless and unemotional so it doesn't engage with you that easily. It's much more realistic than typical 1931 pictures but that lack of melodrama doesn't quite give this as much impact as some of its contemporaries. It is however a great time capsule reflecting the sexual and class based hypocrisies that prevailed at the time.

Another silly frustration for any red blooded male is Stein's habit of banishing his camera to the furthest darkest distance possible from Miss Bennett when she takes her clothes off, it's actually a lot more prudish than you might expect from a film about a nude model in 1931! Although she's not especially alluring or erotic, Constance Bennett is pretty fabulous in this. You can see why she commanded such a massive salary - her acting is outstanding, she's totally convincing, you're not watching an actress, you're watching Valerie, a real person, a fairly modern person whom you can really relate to and sympathise with today.

A real benefit in this is Robert Williams who injects just the right amount of good humour as McCrea's friend. Such a tragedy that he died before his career really took off - he would easily have been as good in those best friend roles Frank McHugh or Charles Ruggles monopolised and very likely, a leading man; such a shame. His cheerful nature adds a necessary lightness to this picture because as good as it is, it is a little cold and dry.

Joel McCrea plays an American artist living in Paris. He hires a woman (Constance Bennett) to be his nude model and eventually they fall in love. However, when he learns she has a tawdry past, he runs off to brood. Later, at debaucherous party, they meet once again. Soon, he asks her to marry him--she suggests they cohabitate to see if he really wants her. When the scandal of this relationship reaches his rich parents' ears, his mother schemes to pull the two lovers apart. However, in a strange scene, McCrea's on-screen father says that he heartily approves of the pair living together and wishes them the best! What happens next? See this odd film for yourself to find out for yourself.

If you haven't guessed, this film is CLEARLY an example of Pre-Code sensibilities. What I mean by that is that up until mid-1934, Hollywood's sense of morality was FAR looser than most folks would believe today. This was especially true from 1930-34--where adultery, premarital sex, violence, foul language, abortion and partial nudity were not terribly uncommon on the screen. But this moral code was not in line with America and soon folks started avoiding movies and ticket sales dropped. Soon, to lure back families, a strengthened Production Code was enforced--and films became, at times, a bit over-sanitized--but very family-friendly. Because of all this, there is zero chance this film could have been made after the Code was enforced--at least not without LOTS of revisions as well as a clear message that such immorality MUST be punished. But here in "The Common Law", the villains are NOT people who flaunt morality but the narrow-minded folks who don't approve and who, in some cases, are simply hypocrites! So is it worth seeing? Well, the film is well-acted and interesting. And, I do enjoy seeing many of the Pre-Code films because they are so strange and confusing--and entertaining!! So, I'd say this is very much worth seeing and a fine example of the genre.

If this isn't a plot that screams 'I'm a Pre-Code film!', nothing is!!

... because there is nothing at all remarkable about the plot. At the beginning of the film Valerie West (Constance Bennett) is seen packing a bag, ending a "common law" relationship with Dick Carmedon (Lew Cody) as he tells her she will have only prostitution to fall back on if she leaves him. Nothing keeps a gal from leaving you like telling her you have such a high opinion of her! Valerie's reply is "That gives me an idea". (HOW???) and she takes a job as a model for an artist, John Neville (Joel McCrea). It's a nude modeling job, and Valerie is shy about this. Probably the highlight of the film at that time (heck, now, too!) is a long shot that follows in which it appears you have a full nude side view of Constance Bennett, but it is far enough and blurry enough that she must have had some kind of skin tight outfit on. The precode days had their limits you know! This has all the earmarks of any number of films in which rich guy (McCrea) falls for poor girl (Bennett) with shady past but good character while others (his sister, her old lover) try to undermine the situation and break them up. There are some things that distinguish it. One is Joel McCrea as an American in Paris who is not even trying to hide his natural western twang, which really comes out whenever he is playing the part angry It does get funny at times, especially when you meet the rest of his family - understanding dad and plotting sister - and realize that they don't sound western at all! Where on earth did this accent come from? I fault the director here, because McCrea had modern dress parts before and after this and was able to sound not so Western when the role required it.

Let me also commend Hedda Hopper here. She was great as McCrea's snobby sister who is smiling the whole time she is trying to manipulate Valerie out of her brother's life. She almost steals the show, but then nobody steals a show from Joel McCrea in my humble opinion!