A writer tells a crowd in a café about a woman he knows, who once feel deeply in love with a desperate, compulsive gambler.A writer tells a crowd in a café about a woman he knows, who once feel deeply in love with a desperate, compulsive gambler.A writer tells a crowd in a café about a woman he knows, who once feel deeply in love with a desperate, compulsive gambler.
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Genn is a successful author, and he and some friends and unwanted leeches are vacationing in Monte Carlo. He takes Merle Oberon to the Casino, and leaves her to watch the roulette table. There she sees Richard Todd. He has just lost everything and is getting ready to kill himself. She saves him, and lends him money to pay back what he has stolen.... and then they fall in love. Or do they?
Last year's ROMA was a very interesting movie, but its constant use of deep focus disturbed me. In watching movies, the camera focuses on what you are supposed to look at. ROMA's deep focus never permitted you to focus on the story, because something else might grab your attention: a riot outside, or a marching band, or a giant statue of a crab. Might the story wander off to look at them? Yet with a story by Zweig, with its ironic twists and turns, its sardonic and self-slighting attitudes, such camerawork might work.
Maybe it did. The copy I looked at was a very soft print, and seems to have been cut by half an hour from its original 90-minute length. Nonetheless, Victor Saville's direction makes this the most successful adaptation of a Zweig story I have seen.
The main difference is the narration of the movie. In this original version, Leo Genn tells the story to a bunch of friends about how his old flame Merle Oberon fell in love with a gambler. In the remake, an elderly Ingrid Bergman tells the story of her own romance to her granddaughter. Besides that, the stories are nearly identical. Merle is a classy woman of high society who randomly chances upon a destitute gambler in Monte Carlo, Richard Todd. She senses that he's about to commit suicide, and she makes it her personal mission to save him and inspire him to live. It doesn't really feel like a 1952 drama, but instead one from the 1930s. It's very melodramatic and has hardly any depth to it, but if you love Merle, you can try it. I found it rather thin, but since it was such a short movie I figured it wouldn't hurt me to finish it.
Adding to that peculiarity is the somewhat strange situation that so few of Zweig's many novels, biographies and other books have had films made or based on them. Just two others were adapted into movie dramas in 1946 and 1948 - "Beware of Pity" inn 1946 and "Letter from an Unknown Woman" in 1948. These films have foreboding stories that have dark palls over them. And, Zweig's writing style has been viewed as not very good by a number of critics. So, the lugubrious tone of his work doesn't appeal to many readers, and doesn't adapt well to films that are liked most by audiences.
Now, the gist of this film, told in a flashback story, is about how a woman could fall in love with a man in one day. Robert Stirling is hosting people on his yacht in the Mediterranean, and relates the story that took place in Monte Carlo. The slight air of mystery is obvious, and one might guess where it will end, as I did.
The cast are all quite good - Leo Genn as Stirling, and Merle Oberon ad Richard Todd as the main characters, Linda Venning and The Young Man. But this film, with its plot and screenplay, more closely resembles a soap opera than a good drama. But for the actors giving it their best, the screenplay would sink this film entirely. Except for fans of Oberon and Todd, most viewers will probably find this film dull at best, and depressing at worst.
Did you know
- Quotes
The Young Man: You've been talking all night to a gambler and a thief. I put the word 'thief' second, notice? All my life I've been a gambler. No, don't go... listen to me. I think you should hear what sort of a mudpie you've dipped your ladylike fingers into. I was born in Ireland where my father owned a racing stable. At the age of 6 I was saving pennies to back horses for the local bookmaker. Then when I came to England and school, I stopped backing horses and taught the other kids how to play poker. I used to win. At Oxford I got in with the racing set again, and I lost a packet, more than I could ask my father for, so I was sent down. My old man put me into his business in Dublin, providing I promised never to gamble again. So for five years I neither touched a card nor made a bet. I thought I'd got the devil out of my system. As a reward, my father sent me to France to stay with my uncle in Paris. He had a business there. One afternoon we all went to Longshore. They didn't realize that to me, gambling was a disease, a disease which had lain dormant like a cancer for five long years. I knew nothing about form, but luck was with me. That day and the next and the next after, I won a packet. But I didn't really find what was to give me complete and utter satisfaction until I walked through the glass doors of the casino. The sight of the green baize, the scented atmosphere of the room made me drunk, reeling drunk. I was mad to gamble. I can remember my fingers twitching as I picked up the plaques from the cashier's desk and sat down like a drunken man and played. For five nights in succession I won. Some of them advised me to quit, but it was like asking a drug addict to give up dope. I couldn't quit. On the sixth night I had my return ticket into Paris, that was all. I found that my uncle had gone to London and my aunt had gone with him, so I was alone in my apartment without a sou in my pocket. But luck was with me this time. A few weeks before, my aunt had asked me to get something from the safe. And I knew where she kept the key, so I opened it... borrowed a pair of diamond earrings.
Linda Venning: You mean you stole them.
The Young Man: Call it what you like, but if I had won last night, I'd have gone back to the pawnbroker and nobody would have been any the wiser. I told you you were dipping your fingers into a mudpie.
Linda Venning: I followed you last night because I wanted to help you, but you seem to be beyond help.
The Young Man: If you'd known anything, you'd have recognized that fact in the first place. I'm through, and I've got the sense to know it. You're only delaying the end of the story.
- ConnectionsReferenced in Fulano y Mengano (1957)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Languages
- Also known as
- Affair in Monte Carlo
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 30 minutes
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
