by Allan Fish
(USA 1932 82m) DVD1
It must be marvellous
p/d Ernst Lubitsch w Samson Raphaelson, Grover Jones play “The Honest Finder” by Laszlo Aladar ph Victor Milner ed Merrill White m W.Franke Harling art Hans Dreier cos Travis Banton
Herbert Marshall (Gaston Monescu), Miriam Hopkins (Lily Vautier), Kay Francis (Mariette Colet), Edward Everett Horton (François Filiba), Charles Ruggles (the Major), C.Aubrey Smith (Adolph Giron), Robert Greig (Jacques the butler), Leonid Kinskey (revolutionary), George Humbert, Luis Alberni, Rolfe Sedan,
I hardly know where to begin discussing the innumerable merits of Ernst Lubitsch’s masterpiece. Truly great film comedies are rare and it’s the director’s own individual style that makes them great. But without wishing to overlook the merits of such masters as Billy Wilder, Preston Sturges, Frank Capra, George Cukor and Mitchell Leisen, none of them ever really got to grips with that rarest of styles; pure unadulterated sophistication. The sort of the film that is sublime to the nth degree and sublime in its ridiculousness without ever in itself being ridiculous.
Of course such films as Cukor’s The Philadelphia Story were sophisticated, but brilliant though that film is, its sophistication belongs to a more moral age, an age where Tracy Lord can go for a swim with a fellow and even kiss him, without any sense of any immorality having taken place. Crooks such as Sydney Kidd are looked upon and viewed as slimeballs not to be trusted as far as you could throw them. Trouble in Paradise meanwhile belongs to an altogether more risqué period, when sophistication stretched to sexual dalliance and sophisticated badinage exchanged not just to insult and get one up, but as foreplay.
The story concerns a young couple of jewel thieves who, upon leaving Venice, team up to rob blind the heiress of a large Parisian jewellers. When the thief falls in love with his potential victim, his partner in crime takes matters into her own hands. If the story in itself isn’t up to much, it’s the handling that makes it and Lubitsch and his genius screenwriter partner Samson Raphaelson weave the sort of deliciously immoral tale (oh, for the days when thieves got away with it before the supreme killjoy Will H.Hays put a stop to it) that makes you root for characters who are, to all intents and purposes, rats.
It was a brave venture at the time for Lubitsch, coming as it did on the back of the failure of his first straight film Broken Lullaby and not including the music that made his Chevalier classics The Smiling Lieutenant and One Hour With You so popular. But Trouble in Paradise was to prove his greatest film, as well as the greatest film of everyone involved. Draped in the sets and costumes of Hans Dreier and Travis Banton, the film reeks of class, the script is the cinematic equivalent of an Oscar Wilde play or a Rossini overture (“marriage is a beautiful mistake which two people make together. With you it would be a mistake…”) and Lubitsch’s direction is so on the nose as to be uncanny. Most impressively of all we have the delicious performances of Herbert Marshall, Miriam Hopkins and Kay Francis, ably supported by such stalwarts as Edward Everett Horton, C.Aubrey Smith and Charles Ruggles, all of whom combine to perfection, making it all seem spontaneous when in reality Lubitsch was a master of preparation.
In recent times Lubitsch has become associated with his later films. To Be Or Not To Be is worthy of attention, but Heaven Can Wait, The Shop Around the Corner and Ninotchka, though excellent, are not truly great and it’s only their availability and the lack of sightings of his earlier work that has lead to this sorry state of affairs. In the UK, Trouble in Paradise has not been seen on TV since May 1989 and only turned up on DVD in 2012. My advice is to get it or the Criterion DVD from the U.S. a.s.a.p. because when it is deleted we may see Hale Bopp comet before we see Lubitsch’s crowning glory again. As long as this film can be seen, we can all see the moon in the champagne as often as we like it and never mind must, it will be marvellous.
How Trouble in Paradise made the Top 100:
Allan, a delicious post and a delightful examination of the concept of “sophistication” and how it is embodied in Lubitsch’s work. I also like the contrasting of the attitude–call it risque, call if the idea of humor as foreplay–of the film’s period with that of the post-Code romantic comedies that followed it. When you say that the entire cast performs “to perfection” I couldn’t agree more. My own favorite Lubitsch film is “The Shop Around the Corner,” but this one is without a doubt right behind it.
I’m surprised how many people have Shop as their favourite, I like it well enough, but the saccharine gets a little much at times. There’s only acid in Paradise and that’s the way I like it.
Like R.D., I also have SHOP as my own favorite Lubitsch as well, but can’t argue with those who have TROUBLE or TO BE as their own top choice.
Yep mine is To Be or Not to Be. I have this one placed somewhere between 60-100. The reason why it’s placement is in the 20’s is because less than half of us voted for it. It’s a fine film and rather charming, but doesn’t rank as high as others for me. It’s my own issues I know.
As you will know, Allan, there has been good news since you wrote this on the DVD front, and just this month Masters of Cinema brought out a region 2 DVD in the UK with a full restoration, a booklet and extras. Have you heard anything about how it compares with the Criterion DVD? I’m watching a lot of Lubitsch at the moment and do love this film though I think ‘The Shop Around the Corner’ is my favourite. A great piece.
Not sure about great as it’s an old piece, Judy, but it’s saddening to find this appear so low.
Judy is right, it’s an excellent piece. And finishing at No. 23, all things considered it’s a high placement, though I agree it could have been even higher. Though I have most of the Moc releases, I do still need to get this one. I’m sure the transfer is the best yet from any company for this iconic title.
Love this film. Who says that bad can’t be cool and fun at the same time? I often wonder if parts of this film weren’t inspiration for the first half of Sturges’ THE LADY EVE where sophisticated scumbags are rooted for to get away with the con and heist?
Totally true, the cast rate and recieve perfectly timed and nuanced perofrmances and, particularly, Miriam Hopkins comes off as totally unforgettable. Hard to say if this one or SHOP or TO BE OR NOT TO BE is my favorite of the Lubitsch films… However, Allan makes such a strong case for this one that it has me rethinking this master directors work which, in and of itself, it a testament to Allan’s love and enthusiasm for the movie (which is infectious) and to Lubitsch as one of the true masters of the form.
In Scott Eyman’s superb biography of Lubitsch, he makes a subtle distinction between his ’30s films and the ’40s ones, the delicacy of touch and sophistication of the earlier decade had an added element of a spread of human emotions, redolent in ‘The Shop Around the Corner’, ‘To Be Or Not To Be’ and ‘Heaven Can Wait’. Sadness, jealousy, loneliness, death, ageing, passion…an organic development of his world view through his own life experiences and as a response to Capra and Sturges. It might explain why those films are so popular.
Yeah I’m fond of Shop too, and find its delicate humanism moving there’s a warm sentimentality to it but I wouldn’t call it saccharine). Though comparing it to Trouble and the Chevaliers is kind of apple/orange I suppose. I have more thoughts on Shop but I’ll save it for that piece. (It hasn’t appeared yet, right? This countdown is so long I’ve forgotten!) Enjoyed Allan’s rerun here, an oldie-but-goodie.
Allan, what’s your opinion of ‘Design for Living’? TCM screened it last night right after ‘Trouble in Paradise’ and it was like a flute of flat champagne, especially after the sublime ‘Paradise’. Hopkins, March and Cooper did make a handsome menage a trois, but the film severely disappointed me in the end.
Design for Living is watered down champagne because it loses all but one line of Coward’s original play. It’s nice, but isn’t remotely up to the level of his best work.