TROUBLE IN PARADISE
Bill Anderson
Everybody seems to like it and I suppose I can partly understand why.
The sets and the costumes are gorgeous, and we all like pretty sets
and costumes. The old chestnut of a story is tried and true -- some
rough characters pass themselves off as high class and manage to outwit
a bunch of impossibly wealthy twits who clearly don't deserve their good
fortune. But there is just an air of insincerity about the whole thing
-- I believe it's called "The Lubitsch Touch" -- that I have never liked
very much. Oh sure, I like "To Be or Not To Be," but that film offers
one of the funniest lines ever in the movies, so it gets a pass. I
don't require a comedy to take itself seriously -- "Blazing Saddles"
certainly didn't and I laughed at that, at least until reality fell
completely apart at the end. "Raising Arizona" is one of my favorite
funny movies and it certainly features arch dialogue and situations just
as impossible and unbelievable as those in "Trouble in Paradise" -- but
in "Raising Arizona" everything is played completely straight. In
"Trouble in Paradise" Herbert Marshall and Miriam Hopkins regularly
spoke their lines with such exaggerated drollery that they seemed to be
telegraphing to the audience that they and we were all in on some
delightful joke. Well, they weren't playing it straight and I wasn't
amused. Every time Herbert Marshall opened his mouth I was reminded of a
cartoon -- "Donald's Dream Voice."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm-Pj6zXOlo It was all just too very
very and basically that's why "Trouble in Paradise" didn't work for me.
No question it was pre-Code, though, and I enjoyed that aspect. Some
scenes, like the shadows on the bed, were good fun.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
steve
On 21-Nov-2009, Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Everybody seems to like it and I suppose I can partly understand why.
> The sets and the costumes are gorgeous, and we all like pretty sets
> and costumes. The old chestnut of a story is tried and true -- some
> rough characters pass themselves off as high class and manage to outwit
> a bunch of impossibly wealthy twits who clearly don't deserve their good
> fortune. But there is just an air of insincerity about the whole thing
> -- I believe it's called "The Lubitsch Touch" -- that I have never liked
> very much.
Hi Bill:
I love this film, and I know what you mean about the "insincerity". Most of
the film is presented with tongue in cheek, and Marshall and Hopkins are con
artists, anyway, which, of course, means that they are insincere by trade.
The early scene where they expose one another "Sir, you are not a Count." is
just terrific. In my book, the film succeeds on the clever and funny dialog
and the "insincerity" is part of the window dressing. Lubitsch was fond of
light, sophisticated, social/sexual comedies and satire (with a European
moral outlook..if that isnt a contradiction), but the Lubitsch films Ive
seen (including at least half a dozen silents) cover a broad range of
creative territory. Perhaps the most interesting (and genuinely affecting)
is the touching drama "Broken Lullaby" (1932).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022725/
http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title.jsp?stid=69767
I saw this on TCM a few months ago, so maybe it will pop up there again (not
scheduled at the moment). Be ready to shed a tear at the end.
steve
--
"Politicians are worse than thieves. At least when thieves take your money,
they don't expect you to thank them for it."
Walter Williams
Bill Anderson
> On 21-Nov-2009, Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Everybody seems to like it and I suppose I can partly understand why.
>> The sets and the costumes are gorgeous, and we all like pretty sets
>> and costumes. The old chestnut of a story is tried and true -- some
>> rough characters pass themselves off as high class and manage to outwit
>> a bunch of impossibly wealthy twits who clearly don't deserve their good
>> fortune. But there is just an air of insincerity about the whole thing
>> -- I believe it's called "The Lubitsch Touch" -- that I have never liked
>> very much.
>
> Hi Bill:
>
> I love this film, and I know what you mean about the "insincerity". Most of
> the film is presented with tongue in cheek, and Marshall and Hopkins are con
> artists, anyway, which, of course, means that they are insincere by trade.
> The early scene where they expose one another "Sir, you are not a Count." is
> just terrific. In my book, the film succeeds on the clever and funny dialog
> and the "insincerity" is part of the window dressing. Lubitsch was fond of
> light, sophisticated, social/sexual comedies and satire (with a European
> moral outlook..if that isnt a contradiction), but the Lubitsch films Ive
> seen (including at least half a dozen silents) cover a broad range of
> creative territory. Perhaps the most interesting (and genuinely affecting)
> is the touching drama "Broken Lullaby" (1932).
>
Thanks for the response, Steve. As I was writing my post I was sure
somebody would point out that the main characters were con artists so of
course they were insincere. Yes, I understand that, and I appreciate
that you didn't make the point in order to to make me appear foolish. I
wish I'd touched on that argument in my first post.
But more, I wish I'd included a transitional sentence that I'd planned
but just forgot to write. The point I wanted to emphasize more than I
did is that some comedies like "Blazing Saddles" and "Tom Jones" and "A
Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" and "Animal Crackers" and
on and on can be just hilarious to me even though it's clear the
characters are saying and doing things that could not possibly transpire
in the real world. I really do like to laugh at absurdity.
But "Trouble in Paradise" seemed not to be a comedy of absurdity; it
seemed to want to be a comedy that exists on the fringes of the real
world, on the order of wonderful movies such as "The Awful Truth" or "It
Happened One Night" or "My Man Godfrey." And *for me* it just didn't work.
And that's the subjective problem, isn't it? I know "Trouble in
Paradise" is beloved by gazillions and I feel a bit left out because I
watched it and I wasn't charmed. Example: When Marshall and Hopkins
spoke the room number(s) of their hotel suite in Venice I felt I was
supposed to laugh, to be swept up in sophisticated wit, but I just
didn't believe what I was hearing and I didn't believe the actors
believed what they were saying and I wrinkled my nose and I hated it.
I am glad you like the movie and I really wish there was something you
or somebody else could say that would lift the blinders from my eyes and
allow me to appreciate the movie's brilliance.
But ... ain't gonna happen. Not for this one, anyway.
David Oberman
>But "Trouble in Paradise" seemed not to be a comedy of absurdity; it
>seemed to want to be a comedy that exists on the fringes of the real
>world, on the order of wonderful movies such as "The Awful Truth" or "It
>Happened One Night" or "My Man Godfrey." And *for me* it just didn't work.
Something you said in your original post, Bill, got me thinking a bit.
You said Marshall and Hopkins spoke their lines with such exaggerated
drollery that they seemed to be telegraphing to the audience that they
and we were all in on some delightful joke.
I thought of Cary Grant playing Walter Burns in HIS GIRL FRIDAY. He
mugs & winks & leers at the camera all through the picture,
telegraphing to the viewer his own exuberance as an actor & the
jollity (& stupidity) of the sexual & comedic situations within the
story. When an actor can pull that off, I'm right there with him, as I
am with Grant (& as I'm not with Grant in MONKEY BUSINESS).
____
I shall never write a symphony. You can't have any idea
what it's like to hear such a giant marching behind you.
-- Brahms, referring to you-know-who
Mark
Marshall shakes the wallet out of Hopkins' ... hmm ... where does it
fall from?
Get the Criterion edition. Pretty good print. I LOVE this movie. Never
tire of watching it.
steve
On 21-Nov-2009, Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But more, I wish I'd included a transitional sentence that I'd planned
> but just forgot to write. The point I wanted to emphasize more than I
> did is that some comedies like "Blazing Saddles" and "Tom Jones" and "A
> Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" and "Animal Crackers" and
> on and on can be just hilarious to me even though it's clear the
> characters are saying and doing things that could not possibly transpire
> in the real world. I really do like to laugh at absurdity.
> But "Trouble in Paradise" seemed not to be a comedy of absurdity; it
> seemed to want to be a comedy that exists on the fringes of the real
> world, on the order of wonderful movies such as "The Awful Truth" or "It
> Happened One Night" or "My Man Godfrey." And *for me* it just didn't
> work.
>
> And that's the subjective problem, isn't it?
I guess so. Well, all I can offer is that I watch that film much the way
you watch the others you mention in the first group...with full recognition
that there is a joke constantly in progress and that it isnt tightly
connected with reality. And I think most Lubitsch comedies are intended to
be taken that way (with Chevalier talking to the camera, for example).
Maybe if you watched it on a different night you might take away a more
favorable impression.
Im curious...do you enjoy other 30s Lubitsch comedies? "Merry WIdow",
"Smiling Leutenant", "Design for Living" (that last one may give you the
same dificulty as TiP, as it's tongue in cheek but far from camp)...
Flasherly
> Watched it for the first time on my iPod during a flight the other day.
> Everybody seems to like it and I suppose I can partly understand why.
Most of those iPod clones, I've seen, around my back neck-of-the-
woods, in Hong Kong, pose some difficultly for transposing popular
algorithmic encoding rules into proprietary subsets of ROM
renditions. Although naturally in following the popular construct of
handheld convenance for discretely computing masses, entropy
nonetheless must subsist, yet, somehow a Blackberry less that
persuasively attends by numbers indicative of a fifteenth percentile
facing a seeming nonmobility challenge, what I suppose is least
enamouring, posed as seen for impediments power-source circuitry, in
many cases relegate by intended integrals short of some individual
acumen requisite to extending a projected lifespan of decaying
contrivances, as I bear witness to variously cycled constituents in
said port of demarcation for re-manufactured knock-offs of lesser
demand monied premiums extol.
Bill Anderson
Well, that's one way to put it.
TT
:)
Bill Anderson
I haven't seen those movies. I have seen "To Be or Not To Be," though,
and enjoyed it very much. I hate to admit I saw the Mel Brooks version
first and that's what caused me to seek out the Lubitsch version, which
I enjoyed even more. I'm not down on Lubitsch; I just didn't like one
of his movies.
steve
On 22-Nov-2009, Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I haven't seen those movies. I have seen "To Be or Not To Be," though,
> and enjoyed it very much. I hate to admit I saw the Mel Brooks version
> first and that's what caused me to seek out the Lubitsch version, which
> I enjoyed even more. I'm not down on Lubitsch; I just didn't like one
> of his movies.
I hope you stick with him. IMO, 2Bor02B is actually one of his weaker
films.
Just for fun, I just counted his films that Ive seen and averaged the
ratings (5 star scale)...21 films with an avg rating of 3.9...a very strong
showing. Here are the highlights:
5 star Lubitsch films:
Ninotchka (1939)
The Merry Widow (1934)
Design for Living (1933)
Broken Lullaby (1932)
One Hour with You (1931)
The Love Parade (1929)
The Doll (1919)
4 star films:
That Uncertain Feeling (1941)
The Shop Around the Corner (1940)
Trouble in Paradise (1932)
The Smiling Lieutenant (1931)
Monte Carlo (1930)
The Marriage Circle (1921)
Deception (1920)
william
>
> 5 star Lubitsch films:
> Ninotchka (1939)
> The Merry Widow (1934)
> Design for Living (1933)
> Broken Lullaby (1932)
> One Hour with You (1931)
> The Love Parade (1929)
> The Doll (1919)
>
> 4 star films:
> That Uncertain Feeling (1941)
> The Shop Around the Corner (1940)
> Trouble in Paradise (1932)
> The Smiling Lieutenant (1931)
> Monte Carlo (1930)
> The Marriage Circle (1921)
> Deception (1920)
>
William
www.williamahear.com
steve
On 23-Nov-2009, william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 5 star Lubitsch films:
> > Ninotchka (1939)
> > The Merry Widow (1934)
> > Design for Living (1933)
> > Broken Lullaby (1932)
> > One Hour with You (1931)
> > The Love Parade (1929)
> > The Doll (1919)
> >
> > 4 star films:
> > That Uncertain Feeling (1941)
> > The Shop Around the Corner (1940)
> > Trouble in Paradise (1932)
> > The Smiling Lieutenant (1931)
> > Monte Carlo (1930)
> > The Marriage Circle (1921)
> > Deception (1920)
> >
> Check out "Eternal Love." It'll go on one of these lists.
Hmmmm...I have seen it and gave it only 2 stars. Dont really remember it,
though.
william
> Hmmmm...I have seen it and gave it only 2 stars. Dont really remember it,
> though.
>
I didn't really like "The Shop Around The Corner" and liked "Trouble
In Paradise" more than you did. So there you go.
William
www.williamahearn.com