User reviews

This is a precode movie starring Norma Shearer, who looks gorgeous in all the gowns (and is that the way people dressed for a football game in the '30s?).

Shearer plays a free spirit who doesn't believe in marriage and instead cavorts and travels with a reporter. Of course, she's kidding herself, and she wanted the wedding ring all along - when he announces he's been married the whole time and then breaks up with her, she takes up with every man she meets.

This is never actually stated, which makes it kind of fun. Robert Montgomery says, "Boy, what I heard about you in Paris." Shearer: "You didn't believe it, did you?" Montgomery: "Not the first 6 or 700 times."

Montgomery easily steals the movie as her funny, charming, ever-drunk good friend. It's the best role and holds up today. The other roles don't - the story is too melodramatic, acted in an old-fashioned, hand on the forehead style that dates it.

Added to that, the reporter character of Alan, played by Neil Hamilton, is despicable, making the film a frustrating experience for the viewer.

As an artifact and for the clothes and sets, you can't beat it, though.

"Strangers May Kiss" was made in 1931, still the early days of sound films. The film stars Norma Shearer as a free-spirited woman who falls for a traveling journalist, played be Neil Hamilton. The film is certainly racy (for the time) in its frankness about issues like pre-marital sex and promiscuity. The Hays Code, while in existence, was largely ignored by studios until 1934. The story basically is that Shearer falls for Hamilton, knowing that he isn't the sort that wants to marry or be tied down. His career comes first, and that takes him all over the world. She agrees to the arrangement, but of course falls madly in love with him anyway. The two do travel some, but Hamilton deserts her (after telling her he is married!). Shearer embarks on a whirlwind of the good life, with lavish parties and lots of men, all in the attempt to forget Hamilton. She did the same thing in "The Divorcée" made just the year before, the film that earned her an Oscar. The film also stars a young Robert Montgomery, as a playboy with a penchant for drink and Shearer. He adds some much needed comic relief at times to a film that is somewhat heavy and drags at times. Hamilton isn't given much to do here, except play the bad guy. The script is somewhat lacking, but the real star of the show is Shearer. She traipses through the film in lavish costumes, various hairstyles, and plays a free soul at a time when not many women did so on-screen. While the film has some similarities to "The Divorcée" (woman loves man, loses man, embarks on affairs) it is not quite up to the standard of that earlier film. Still, it's always a delight to see Mrs. Irving Thalberg on-screen in her heyday. Love Shearer or not, the woman had tremendous screen presence.

Norma Shearer intrigued and interested me (in an uncanny way) ever since I was kid and my fondness for Classic Hollywood Films began. I first read about her in the late 1970s, but there was not much material available of her. Norma's acting ability and beauty were not much praised, she was permanently "accused" of overacting, but the authors weren't able to deny her immense popularity and star appeal during her heyday. Her charisma was huge.

It is true that in certain moments of specific films, especially talking pictures, she tends to overact and dramatize in excess her reactions, using certain mannerisms or posturing unnaturally. A sad example of this is the interesting "Strange Interlude", flawed, in my opinion among other facts, because of Norma's artificial performance in certain pivotal moments. There are other films in which she is uniformly good, like "Private Lives" (the best comedy of her I have seen to date) and "The Barretts of Wimpole Street" and "Smilin' Through" (ditto two of her best dramatic pictures).

"Strangers May Kiss" on the other hand, is the most Pre-Code film of Norma I have ever seen (and I have seen "The Divorcée", "A Free Soul" and "Riptide"). I also feel that Norma's performance has been unfairly criticized by some reviewers at IMDb.com, who accuse her of posturing and overacting. Well, I just watched this film yesterday and I was positively impressed by Norma's natural acting, for once, almost devoid of overacting, even in the dramatic moments.

Norma plays a modern Bostonian girl who (apparently) neglects marriage as something that kills passion and love. She's absolutely infatuated by the character played by Neil Hamilton. Bob Montgomery knows her since childhood and has always been in love with her. After certain events I won't tell about, Norma gets disillusioned of Hamilton and takes a crack at the wild life in Europe, turning into an outrageously promiscuous woman.

This film is one of the most Pre-Code films I have ever seen, specifically in relation to Norma's character. She's simply unashamedly immoral during her European spree (that lasts two years or more); I could not believe that Norma was allowed to play such an openly, in-your-face sexually voracious (for a while at least) lady (she had her reasons though, justified or not). From this film is that oft-quoted line: "I'm in an orgy wallowing and I love it!" Such (unpunished) behavior would have never-ever been allowed during the Code; Unthinkable.

Norma, Neil Hamilton and Bob Montgomery are good and believable in their respective roles. There is a first rate supporting cast lead by Marjorie Rambeau, Irene Rich and Hale Hamilton. Conchita Montenegro (who starred opposite Leslie Howard in "Never the Twain Shall Meet") plays a sexy Spanish dancer. Karen Morley, Ray Milland and Edward J. Nugent (aka Eddie Nugent) play bit roles.

The print I saw was taped off of TCM USA, but is not very good. I'd like to watch a fine print of this film, but I bet a better one does not exist anymore.

In all a fine and interesting precoder that has been unjustly neglected and underrated.

I find much to agree with in all of the comments made about this film. The hypocritical morals are obvious. The disparity between Norma Shearer's acting style, nurtured in silent films, and Robert Montgomery's style, which does anticipate a more modern approach, is also apparent. The costumes and sets are marvelous and capture the milieu with authenticity and panache. But not being a great fan of Miss Shearer, I did, indeed, grow weary of seeing her throw her head back in laughter. I wholeheartedly agree that Robert Montgomery steals the show.

The content of this film makes it racy in any era. The montage of scenes depicting Shearer with man after man makes the point clearly enough without being as explicit as a contemporary film. In fact that method of story telling is one of the key distinctions between films from the Golden Age of Hollywood and contemporary cinema. This method either appeals to an individual's tastes today or doesn't (and it is that bias which often forms the basis of comments found in forums such as this). For the record, I appreciate a less explicit approach to cinema.

The only point I would like to make more explicit is that I found it impossible to see what: 1) Miss Shearer's character saw in her caddish married lover or 2) what Mr. Montgomery's character saw in Miss Shearer's character. The only person who seemed the slightest bit attractive was Montgomery's character (despite his penchant for the bottle), who nobody found desirable.

Filmed today, this movie would probably explore the rejected woman's past, searching for psychological explanations for her preference of an abusive mate over a warm, caring one. This film, therefore, might have been an interesting psychological study and made a little more sense. But filmed in 1930, cinema had a long way to go before really delving into such explorations. Even Bette Davis' landmark portrayal of Mildred in 1934's "Of Human Bondage" is not so much an exploration as a portrait.

I give this film a 6 only because it contains the ever elegant Norma Shearer swanning about in those great clothes of the 1930s. The plot borders on the ludicrous......well, maybe I should say the ending is ridiculous but the rest of the film is pretty well done.

Basically, it tells the story of a "modern" woman who believes that marriage is for chumps and proceeds to make a fool of herself over Neil Hamilton(!??!), while her faithful and always tipsy pal Robert Mongomery waits patiently in the wings in hopes of winning her hand. Hamilton is extremely unlikeable and after a long affair with Shearer, he deigns to tell her that he already has a wife in Paris but the marriage doesn't mean a thing. Does she care?....nooooo. But she takes up a life of "loose morality" and globe trots through most of cafe society while never forgetting her love for Hamilton. Robert Montgomery, always close by, pulls her irons out of the fire and brings her back to the United States to start over. Then, in the last few minutes of the film, the story descends to sheer melodrama and unbelievablitly. Who shows up but Hamilton, now divorced, and he and Shearer are seen walking out of the theater on their way to a happy life together. Give me a break!!! The attitude of the main protagonists toward man/woman relationships is rather hard to take in this day and age.......but with that said, it is still worth seeing this pre-Code slice of history. Nobody ever looked better on the screen than Mrs. Thalberg.

This film is profoundly confused about what kind of morality it's embracing.

Norma Shearer plays a modern young woman, having an affair with a dashing foreign correspondent (Neil Hamilton, in his first role with MGM). Her long-time friend Steve (the eternally effervescent Robert Montgomery), who has an inclination towards drink, has been in love with Shearer all their lives, but she won't give him a tumble (she actually uses that hoary old line, "I love you, but I'm not in love with you"). Shearer and Hamilton have no interest in marrying, but prefer their open relationship. Shearer's aunt extols the joy of marriage one evening, but when she sees her husband of 12 years kicking up his heels with a bimbo, she goes home and kills herself.

Shearer and Hamilton head off for Mexico, where Hamilton reveals that he actually has a wife back in Paris (so apparently he DID once believe in marriage...). He leaves for Rio and refuses to take Shearer. She proceeds to sleep her way across Europe in order to drown her grief, which, of course, is one way of dealing with it. Montgomery finds her two years later in Spain where, despite her string of dalliances, he still tries to marry her. But Shearer gets a cable from Hamilton who has now divorced his French wife and is waiting in Paris, willing to marry. By the time Shearer responds, however, Hamilton has heard about her past two years of affairs, and is so repulsed that he never wants to see her again. He claims she should have WAITED for him, DESPITE her not knowing if she would EVER see him again. And...she AGREES. The level of double standard is staggering.

Montgomery, however, STILL wants to marry her. Hamilton claims that a marriage to Shearer would leave him haunted by those "shadows on the wall," but Montgomery says, "What wall?" But Shearer says no. She says, in fact, that his wanting to marry her knowing of her promiscuous past proves that he doesn't actually love her.

A year or so later, Montgomery and Shearer are at the theater, when they run into Hamilton. Time has mellowed him a bit, and he tells Shearer that they belong together. Montgomery watches her go, observing wryly that at least he'll always have a champagne bottle waiting for him.

So, first, let's establish that I'm a huge fan and avid watcher of pre-Code film, and I'm not trying to judge this movie with a 21st-century sensibility. But let's figure out what the film is telling us:

1) marriage isn't necessary if there is true love (Shearer and Hamilton, at the beginning)...2) marriage can only lead to heartbreak, because the man will inevitably cheat (Shearer's aunt and uncle)...3) men can abandon wives and go off with lovers and embrace free love and that's OK (Shearer and Hamilton in Mexico)...4) women can't (Shearer and Hamilton in Paris)...5) men who love women who've had promiscuous pasts don't really love them (Shearer and Montgomery)...6) women should wait forever for the man they love, through all the misunderstandings and rejections, and never ever get involved with anyone else, on the off chance that the man they love will decide they belong together (throughout)...7) a man who wants to marry a woman despite her promiscuous past can't actually love her, although a man who has punished and heaped contempt on said woman and then finally decides he wants to marry her despite it DOES actually love her

Well. This film sends so many mixed signals, you need an air traffic controller.

Interestingly, in the novel on which this film is based, the Shearer character eventually commits suicide after years of waiting in vain for the Hamilton character to return to her. So, the mixed signals may come from the Frankenstein-like effort of fusing a happy-ending head onto the original tragic body.

Montgomery is, as always, charming and natural, which shows up in stark contrast with Shearer's silent-movie-born overacting. You may want to stab yourself in the eye after watching Shearer throw back her head and laugh gaily for the umpteenth time. Hamilton does a serviceable job in a thankless role, but it's always difficult to keep from visualizing Police Commissioner Gordon when he's on screen.

I found this movie almost unbearably frustrating--but that's just me. Others, clearly, were more open to it. But I prefer a film that obeys its own internal logic, no matter how screwy it may be in relation to "reality." "Strangers May Kiss" doesn't carry that off.

Very of its time and very tailored to its star: A love triangle that mainly allows La Shearer to wear great clothes, hog all the close-ups, emote theatrically, and win all the audience sympathy. Or most of it, because one of the two swains bidding for her is Robert Montgomery, and in the charm department he easily outclasses the competition, Neil Hamilton. The latter mistreats our Norma horribly, doesn't reveal that he's a married man until he's had his way with her (it's a pretty racy movie for its day), neglects and insults her and doesn't give her a chance to explain why she's become a loose woman (it's because he rejected her, the varmint). But she just goes on loving the rat. For an assembly-line early talkie, it features unusually snappy dialogue (John Meehan is one of the unsung heroes of MGM), and of course the Art Deco ambience is luscious. But the plot doesn't go where you want it to (i.e., this Hamilton guy just doesn't deserve the leading lady), and the 70-odd years have revealed Shearer's much-vaunted star quality to be mostly a bag of actressy tricks.

The pre-Code talkies included many movies in which women led an independent life and refused to submit to the sexual double standard. This one tries to be bold but ends up in a lot of tortuous moral tangles that not only negate the vaunted sexual freedom but make no sense.

The starring free spirit is Norma Shearer, that triumph of hard work (and being married to the boss) over beauty and talent. Though she wears the divine gowns of Adrian, Shearer has no class of her own. Coy, affected, arch, she gives a performance that is a patchwork of tricks and gestures. There's the head flung back, fingers fluttering at her forehead; the hands clasped at one side of her waist while she leans against a door frame; the high-pitched stuttering mirthless laugh (as Rebecca West put it, "out of an all-star revival of Sheridan").

Hardest of all to take is Neil Hamilton as Shearer's Great Love. True, he didn't write the ridiculous dialogue, but he hardly overrides it, with his impersonal, stuffy delivery and bunched-up, prissy features and little mustache.

In the scene in which Shearer encounters Robert Montgomery after a two-year absence, look out for Ray Milland, standing on the right of a row of admirers. Now, he is REALLY cute! But Norma has no eyes for him, only for some slimy type who speaks broken English. Some girls just DON'T want to have fun!

Fresh from her Oscar winning performance in the Divorcée (30) Norma Shearer more or less reprises the same role of the scorned woman in Strangers May Kiss. The glamorous Shearer wears a multitude of gowns, sports a few different hairdos and creakily overacts with a series of tremulous outbursts.

In Strangers men behave badly as they drink, carouse, chase skirts and keep wives in the dark. Lisbeth Corbin (Shearer) vows she will not get caught up in such dishonesty, especially after witnessing one such discretion that leads to tragedy. She goes to Mexico with a married archaeologist (Neil Hamilton) and they fall in love but he leaves her for the job. Vowing she won't get fooled again she embarks on a two year spree across Europe seducing men from Paris to Madrid.

Strangers gets the full MGM treatment in terms of set design and costuming. Ms. Shearer is exquisitely posed and framed but the bosses wife (Irving Thalberg) comes across shrill and smug most of the time. The films construction is disjointed and so poorly edited it has you wondering if reels are missing.

Strangers May Kiss is clearly a star driven vehicle for Shearer but she breaks down often while more dependable supporting jalopies like Marjorie Rambeau and a touching Irene Rich leave her in the dust.

Do note that my high rating is mainly for lovers of precode. If you're not familiar with the genre I'd start elsewhere to get acquainted with it. Norma Shearer has two suitors in this one. Neil Hamilton plays a real heel here as globe-trotting career-obsessed Alan Harlow who talks the talk of romance yet has feet blocked in ice when it comes to commitment. Robert Montgomery is the "good suitor" yet he is playing his perpetual playboy character here who is always somewhat tipsy and never serious about anything. He proposes marriage probably because he hasn't thought it through in terms of what it means as far as him curtailing his nightlife. He provides a reliable shoulder for Norma when she needs one. It's no wonder that Norma comes to the disillusioned conclusion that neither one of these guys is "the answer to her maiden's prayer" as she puts it. Actually, although as others have said, you'll walk away wondering just exactly what it is this movie is trying to say, the viewing experience was a pleasurable one for me. The main reason for that is that the characters will surprise you with both their words and actions. The destination of the film is probably where you guessed it will be, but the journey has some interesting twists and turns. I'm not giving too many details here because any description at all of the plot's trajectory would probably spoil it. I will say that Robert Montgomery gets the best lines in this one. His character is more sober than he would have you think.

Do note an uncredited part by Ray Milland as one of Norma's admirers in Europe who has just one interesting precode line - "she changes her men with her lingerie".

This movie was pure soap opera for 1931 audiences. Today it's rather "talkie" and the moral standards of the film by today's liberal standards are laughable. But the great Norma Shearer is always fun to watch, and Norma never looked better on the screen. Her Adrian designed gowns are breathtaking and she is nothing short of ravishing.

A year earlier, ILLICIT tackled the same theme of the hot topic of the day: sex before marriage. That was an abysmal film - this is better made but only just. But it does star Hollywood's "most beautiful talented" actress - or so we're told?

Watching her in this you might have the sacrilegious thought that perhaps she's neither the most beautiful nor talented actress in Hollywood. Was it all hype? Yes and no. Despite Joan Crawford's contention that Norma Shearer only got to the top of MGM's tree because she was married to the guy who ran the studio, she was clearly immensely talented. Why?

Her style was intensely affected, her personas feel false and she seems only able to emote by overt theatrical gestures - yet you keep watching, you eventually believe in her. When she's happy, she throws her head back laughing in gay abandon. When she's sad she's collapsed on the floor, when she's being seductive, she moves like she's just invented pole-dancing! It's like she's still in silent cinema. This isn't proper acting is it?

What she does however is believe in herself which allows you to believe in her as well. That is her real talent. What she also does is believe the hype that she's stunningly beautiful and what do you know - you start to believe that as well.

This was her next film after the brilliant FREE SOUL and compared with that, it's a huge disappointment. This was written by Ursula Parrott who wrote the inexplicably overrated DIVORCEE so is also packed with long, talky overblown speeches about the nature of relationships. Like in ILLICIT, our heroine decides she's a woman not just a commodity which belongs to a man. Like in ILLICIT however our heroine eventually sees the error of her ways - well sadly it was the 1930s and nobody wanted to upset The Catholic League of Decency!

Although it looks a million times better than Archie Mayo's ILLICIT, George Fitzmaurice's direction is bitty, unconnected and creates zero tension or emotion. The script is also quite cringy at times but what's truly awful is the casting. Robert Montgomery, with whom Miss Shearer clearly has chemistry with, plays second fiddle to Neil Hamilton who's just awful - you simply cannot believe that 'Lisbeth' who gleefully exclaims, "I'm wallowing in orgies and I love it" would even look at dull, dull, dull Hamilton. Norma Shearer might be believable but the story isn't.

If you don't mind being brainwashed into thinking you're watching the world's most desirable woman and want an insight into the insidious Victorian attitudes still alive and well in the early thirties, you might think this is for you but don't expect too much.

This sort of film clearly is an example of a so-called 'Pre-Code' film--one that had story elements that clearly would not have been allowed following the enactment of the strengthened Production Code in 1934. As such, plots involving adultery, premarital sex and the like were fair game--and might be shocking to audiences today who assume that sex wasn't invented until the 1960s!

"Strangers May Kiss" features a modern woman (Norma Shearer) who sees no need to marriage and carries on with two men (Robert Montgomery and Neil Hamilton)--often going on dates with BOTH at the same time. It's uncertain if the film makers were implying a ménage à trois--though it can easily be inferred. It also is one of the most cynical films when it comes to marriage and infidelity--strongly implying that conventional marriage is a sham. In this film, 'happy marriages' are those where the wife has not yet discovered that their husbands are being unfaithful!! And this is the apparent justification for Shearer's care-free lifestyle. This is a girl who clearly enjoys men (and sex) and makes no pretense about it!

As far as the two boyfriends go, the casting is a bit unusual. Neil Hamilton (who usually played well-educated and erudite gentlemen) is quite the bohemian when it comes to women. He travels the world covering revolutions and the like for newspapers and has no interest in marrying Shearer--and makes this clear. Montgomery, on the other hand, is much more conventional (but a bit of a sap) and repeatedly proposed to her--and seems willing to let her have her little fling with Hamilton. It's unusual, as so often in later films Montgomery played the rogue and Hamilton the nice guy. And, Montgomery never would have played such a weak man.

Eventually, Shearer makes her choice of the two men and follows Hamilton on his next assignment to rural Mexico. At first she is deliriously happy. However, her liberal-minded views on marriage are put to the test when she discovers he is already married. Considering what she's said throughout the film, this shouldn't have mattered. So how does Shearer reconcile this---does she change her attitudes to the more conventional or does she simply continue this steamy affair regardless of the consequences? Tune in and see in this interesting drama--as the answer isn't that clear until the very end.

For lovers of Pre-Code films in all their sleazy glory, this film is a must-see. While it's not a great movie, it is just permeated with the sort of amoral cynicism that would shock many today and makes the movie fascinating. The bottom line is that stories like this that flaunted the moral code of the day (at least the STATED moral code) and featured in idle rich did not resonate well in middle America--though apparently city folk were more accepting of such plots. This disparity alienated many potential viewers and led to the new and rigidly enforced Code.

Perhaps the moral of this movie is "be careful what you ask for...you might just get it"! That's because although the film revels in amorality, the end seems to reinforce that perhaps this sort of life isn't all it's cracked up to be--making the film not nearly as cynical as the Queen of Pre-Code films, "Red-Headed Woman"! And, for that matter, not quite as satisfying as the very final end of the film seemed all wrong.

Here we are, The Divorcee. Wait- it's A Free Soul. Or maybe Private Lives (that one was actually the best of all these)? Riptide, perhaps? Let Us Be Gay?

No, wait, it's Strangers May Kiss.

But it may as well be one of the other ones- they (for the most part) have pretty much the same plot, and vary in quality from rather good to terrible. This one is nothing special. Norma Falls for a caddish cad when she could have Robert Montgomery the drunken caddish cad. The double standard is real, folks.

The best part of this film is seeing Norma Shearer in a sombrero. The rest of the film is mundane and uninteresting- but if you're a diehard Shearer fan (Shearermaniac? Is that what they're called), you're probably goingnto like it. I'm quite a large fan of her myself, but I hated this movie. Well, not hated. But I wouldn't reccomend it. It's not exactly an underrated classic.

(IMDb, let us put half stars for our ratings already) I give this one 5.5/10.

The film definitely has its flaws, the most obvious ones like still showing some silent film relics in some of the editing choices and makeup, etc. But thematically, this felt way ahead of time, and being pre-code, they were able to explore some of it pretty decently. Sure, it does go in circles and towards the end, it kind of changes its tone on what a woman should aspire but it still felt revolutionary in terms of the time it came out. The focus on the freedom aspect in relationships was even popular till at least ten years ago. And till the end, the movie doesn't really judge the main character, even though it is pretty clear that she is being a bit delusional with her beliefs and love. The statement about why she believes one who loves her and the one who doesn't is placed almost as an objective truth, which does feel a lot more like the time speaking. But it really baffles me that even now, this film may offend conservative thoughts, and in the time of its release, women couldn't even have a bank account on their own in America. I'm reading that this has a lot of similarities with a movie that came out the previous year, which I haven't seen, which might be the reason this doesn't seem to have very good reviews. But I am really impressed with how progressive it is for its time. But it is also to be noted that this does show a very privileged perspective, and being progressive like this must've come with being able to be that privileged. And maybe this is also showcasing the roaring 20s with the way they are celebrating their privileges. The last twenty minutes did feel like a bit of a letdown, but still great to know this was based on a book written by a woman, that perspective is definitely necessary at those points.

Fascinating love slash hate slash love soaper, the vehicle for Norma Shearer's talents and elegant style.

Written by one of the few female writers at the time, Ursula Parrott, known for THERE'S ALWAYS TOMORROW. Parrot makes Lisbeth (Shearer) one daring, independent young lady of the early 30s. Had this film been re-made in the 60s, it would have been assured a second devout following.

Lisbeth is a self-made woman, frowning on marriage, though relationships and affairs are quite the other thing. She falls for Alan (Neil Hamilton) a debonair gentleman of means, who turns out to be her worst nightmare. Their whirlwind romance of romances takes them to Mexico, and promptly ends there, the slickster revealing he's secretly married. Fo' shame! Enter handsome playboy Steve, Robert Montgomery in all his glory, re-entering her life, playing the gentleman she passed up. Shearer and Montgomery back together? Don't we all love it.

George Fitzmaurice (known for MATA HARI) directs this with class, a must for love on the run enthusiasts. Silent star Irene Rich is cast as Lisbeth's down to earth aunt. Marjorie Rambeau, in a showy role as Geneva. Look for young Ray Milland playing one of Lisbeth's admirers.

Recommened in glorious black and white. Always on dvd, remastered Warner Brothers dvd box set. Thanks to TCM for the memories.

I loved this movie! Shearer is terrific, though I could pretty much see where it was going towards the end. I thought that some of the dialogue was quite ahead of it's time. It was great fun to watch! Norma Shearer fascinates me. I think she is a wonderful actress, and Robert Young was just charming! It was amusing how no character ever really utters any specifics as to Lisbeth's behavior, but I find that refreshing! You get the message. I also liked that Lisbeth valued her lovers criticism of her "bad" behavior, even though he was pretty much of a hypocrite. She still knew what was important in a marriage. I recommend this picture to all.

Norma Shearer has her choice of Robert Montgomery or Neil Hamilton. She flies down to Mexico with Hamilton to live, where he informs her he is married, but it doesn't count. Then he gets orders from his paper to head off, and he leaves her. Miss Shearer flies to Europe to party and forget. Montgomery asks her to marry him.

Miss Shearer was an actress better suited to the silent screen than the talking screen. Even so, canny choice of scripts -- she was, after all, married to Irving Thalberg -- and she had all of MGM's resources to call on; after Thalberg died, she owned the second largest block of shares of the parent company. Metro was capable of sustaining the star career of a mediocre player. Miss Shearer was not a mediocre player, but the relatively florid style of movement that defined late silent pantomime fell abruptly out of favor with the loss of the Continental European markets in World War Two.

So what can we conclude about a woman who turned down both MRS MINNIVER and NOW, VOYAGER to appear in WE WERE DANCING and HER CARDBOARD LOVER?

Despite the happy ending imposed on the story, it does make its point clearly enough: men may mix their drinks, but they prefer their women straight in a clean glass. With Irene Rich, Marjorie Rambeau, and Jed Prouty.