Haute pègre

...and Ernst Lubitsch at his zenith. First things first: thank you to TCM for showing this recently. Of course I taped it, and of course I've practically worn the tape out by now, a month later.

Point #2: something is terribly wrong in Paradise if the peak era of his work, 29-33, remains in shadow today. Where are the VHS/DVD releases of these wonderful films? Nowhere that I can find them; hopefully the good folks at Turner will continue reviving the early sound Lubitsches. I waited 25 years to see this one again, and the wait was not in vain. Those 25 years put a bit of snow on my roof, but they also allowed me to drink in the ambrosia that is this film with a bit more appreciation than I had at 16. And what intoxicating ambrosia it is! Script, performances, directorial vision are all exquisite. The leads are inspired (oh, for a night with Kay Francis!); the supporting players, expertly calibrated farceurs. The utilization of music as ironic counterpoint to the visuals rivals Clair; the title song, sung over the opening credits, will make your heart race, and break, at the same time. And the look of the film (Art Deco, lovingly handrubbed to a burnished glow) will linger with you forever.

Again and again, Lubitsch pulls rabbits out of hats: scenes like the deepening of Herbert Marshall and Kay Francis' relationship from business to pleasure 'seen' in a clock face are emblematic of what makes this such a special film. Its story is slight, frothy, very nearly silly; yet Lubitsch's knowing observation of small, telling details makes it magical. TROUBLE is not a timeless film, anchored as it is to a very specific time (Long Ago) and place (Far Away), which only deepens its charm and its seductive tugging on the audience's sleeve. I've watched it three times in a night, and three times more the following night - not behavior I usually exhibit. But the siren call of its lively, civilized wit is such that I'm hitting 'rewind' the moment it ends - I don't want to break the spell and return to reality just yet. As fertile as the preCode era is, as many classics as that golden period continues to yield up to those willing to discover them...TROUBLE IN PARADISE is the most glorious of them all.

A grand, grand film from the master of early, somewhat daring comedies! Delightful is the word to describe this gem which sparkles with great dialogue and pure elegance. The master of the suave sophisticate, Herbert Marshall, is wonderful as the gentleman thief. This type of part was his forte in his early career and he was ill-used later on by Hollywood. Nobody looked better in evening dress or could deliver a double entendre with such perfection. Kay Francis is her soigne best as the target of the jewel thieves.....although she could not pronounce her "r"s, she was the personification of chic and designers had a field day dressing her for her films. Miriam Hopkins may not have been the best choice for the part of Marshall's partner in crime; she never seems quite in sync with the rest of the cast. She had a reputation for being difficult and it shows just a bit here.....but that does not take anything away from the overall excellence of this movie. The censors had not cracked down in 1932 like they would in the coming years and this allows for some risque situations (for the time) which are pure delight. "Trouble in Paradise" is a true gem which, although somewhat dated, further enhances the Lubitsch reputation for quality film making.

Once, "The Lubitsch Touch," was as well known as Hitchcock's reputation as "The Master of Suspense."

"Trouble in Paradise" is Lubitsch's unqualified masterpiece. This pre-code sophisticated comedy epitomizes the European attitude toward sex in its very first scene between Hebert Marshall and Miriam Hopkins. Marshall reveals he has stole Hopkin's garter without her knowing it and she leaps in his lap. She checks -- at the dinner table no less -- realizes it is gone and with the admiration of one thief for another leaps into his lap. "Darling!" she says. No one has to guess what she has in mind, although it is all done with the wit and brio that the "Lubitsch Touch," refers to.

It's great to have this film readily available and the DVD version includes an informative and enlightening commentary (Marshall only had one leg and his lurching walk made a certain speedy cutting necessary that helps give the film it's light, speedy quality).

Lubitsch also made "Shop Around the Corner," remade by Nora Ephron as "You've Got Mail," and "Ninotcha," with Greta Garbo. His musicals with Maurice Chevalier and Jenette MacDonald, such as "The Merry Widow," are also worth seeking out.

... but you won't find any truly good guys either. It's the charm and sophistication of Lubitsch to deny these things to the audience.

Thieves Lily (Miriam Hopkins) and Gascon Monescu (Herbert Marshall) meet and fall in love in Venice. They then thieve their way across Europe until they hit Paris. They have no compunction about stealing anything from anybody. Part of what turns them on about one another is the stealing. Mariette Colet is the owner of Colet cosmetics. She has apparently inherited this firm from her late husband. She has no real interest in running the place and prefers to spend extravagantly on clothes, furs, and cars. She has no compunction about doing so in hard times. Lily and Monescu decide to steal from Madame Colet since she likes to delegate all of the number crunching work to secretaries, and Monescu charms her into giving him the position. He doesn't intend to embezzle from her. He's just going to clean her out of cash like the conventional thief that he is before he exits the premises.

But during the weeks they are working together Monescu and Madame Colet begin to fall for one another. They are both people of taste and refinement, so they have much in common. So now there is this triangle of which Monescu is painfully aware. Will he stay with Colet and abandon Lily? Will he perhaps spend one night with Colet AND leave with Lily? Colet seems like the type that if it was just one night of passion she wouldn't be upset by that either. Watch and find out.

It's all very sophisticated, and the dialogue is clever from beginning to end. You can feel the sexual tension in the air. Charles Ruggles and Edward Everett Horton play romantic rivals for Colet who weren't getting anywhere with her before Monescu hit town, and now that he's here they blame him for their failure . C. Aubrey Smith is a member of Colet's board of directors who is more than a little suspicious of Monescu.

If you want to see romance played out realistically in an adult fashion, give this film a try.

Why isn't this film out on Video or DVD? It is a masterpiece of subtlety and wit that has to be out there for people to study and learn from instead of being 'out of circulation.' Can you imagine Chaplin's 'Gold Rush' or 'Modern Times' being out of circulation? No. Well, this is a better overall film than anything Chaplin ever put out and mawkishly undermined with sentimentality, but only film buffs who go to rare screenings get to see it. It is not so much a laugh riot like Chaplin's best bits as it is extremely clever, to the point of being transcendent. Its tone reminds me very much of Jean Renoir's 1939 'Rules of the Game,' and Bunuel's comedies, although it doesn't have Bunuel's 'cruelty' (as master critic Andre Bazin would put it). It is just a work of art which most 'non-artsy' people will dismiss as 'just another clever comedy' because works of art annoy them (and they don't see why they should be bothered with applying the energy needed to understand them), while 'artsy' people will overrate it, and rightly so. Overrated or not, Lubitch's film is a joy to behold; you are glad it exists. As you're watching, you know you're being hit with valuable not-necessarily verbal information left and right. You know it's worth reseeing many times because you will get a different blend of perspectives from it everytime (much like a great piece of music). The essence of what makes it 'great,' as opposed to 'just another comedy' is this: 'Trouble in Paradise' completely destroys harmful romantic myths while affirming true romanticism (think Stendhal, Proust, Lessing, Nabokov) in the very way it is made, its style. This is what it does and it is an extremely important and purifying process for those who go through it and implicitly embrace its implicit principles. But, as it is, nobody'll get to see it anyway because it's not out on video, so what the hell am I writing for? To get all 3 of the people who will read this page in the next year to demand that it be put out for public consumption. Long live democracy!