Watch Our Betters For Free

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Fascinating, richly-textured morality play by the great Somerset Maugham, acted to perfection by a first-rate cast including Constance Bennett at her absolute peak. George Cukor directed with a master's touch, Max Steiner provided the score, and David O. Selznick's production was polished. Constance Bennett plays the disillusioned American wife of a British aristocrat, who finds out on her wedding day that her husband married her only for her money. She decides to take life on their terms, and becomes a cunning seductress among a large group of wealthy and cynical people. Her scheming, combined with the sharp, cynical dialog worthy of Oscar Wilde, and the general irony of the whole affair, makes for an amusing and intelligent film. The witty one-liners are to be cherished, as are the fabulous gowns, and the glowing beauty of Constance Bennett. The film was also one of the first to feature an openly gay character. It's a great treat to view the film 75 years later. Although society may have changed, human behavior has not.

This movie haunts me in a way and fills me with questions. Why did Selznick make this screen version of a 1917 Maugham play right in the middle of the Great Depression in America? I wonder what was on his mind -- to make people angry enough to bring their friends for another look? To let them scoff at the foibles of the impossibly idle rich? This movie primarily is about American expats who've found a place among a jaded British aristocracy (which, at the time of Maugham's stage play, were, with the rest of England, at the height of a bloody world war that would cost Britain almost an entire generation of its young men). But this film version was brought to the screen in 1933, at the height of a crushing Depression that left so many millions jobless and homeless and lucky to have the price of a night at the movies. Contrast that with the sly comic turnings of a very young Gilbert Roland as the Chilean idler Pepi, whose pouty side-glances as he manipulates his very rich and titled benefactress were elegantly applied and flawlessly aimed, no doubt, at enraging most any Depression-oppressed American of the day. I'm sure Roland (no idler himself) and Cukor had a lot of fun filming Pepi. I loved the steady Grant Mitchell, elegantly playing a happy snob who unashamedly admits that he'd come to England from Ohio, and has "lost any trace of an American accent." No apologies from his character, who lends the picture a decorum and good-humored tolerance, all in the cause of maintaining these high-blown dodgy "friendships," deftly working to keep things on a happy note, despite bothersome indiscretions. Others have written here of the remarkable performance of Violet Kemble Cooper as the Duchess, and I heartily agree. And what a happy surprise was the very late entrance in the picture of Tyrell Davis (one of the famous tailors from Wellman's "The Public Enemy" two years earlier) as the unabashedly delightful pouffe Ernest, brought in by Bennett's character to salvage a nearly wrecked country weekend. Ernest was summoned hastily from a busy Sunday schedule in London, still attired in his city-best, flawlessly coiffed, with dark heart-shaped lip rouge, more eye shadow than Bennett, and powdered like a pastry. He carried his look as proudly, happily and effortlessly as did the elegant Bennett in her timelessly smashing Hattie Carnegie gowns. Across the Channel, he'd have been exterminated by the Nazis, but in his place among a protective British aristocracy, Ernest was obviously a most happy man, allowed to act out himself completely and taking his place as a favorite among the ladies. I'm astonished that Davis, whose Ernest hilariously capped the picture and who uttered its naughty closing line, was not credited for this fresh and pleasing (or shocking) performance. Have you ever seen such a face in the movies? Or anywhere else? Such a happy individualist in a society that outlawed some of his assumed after-hours behavior. Without the protection of the aristocracy, Ernest, like Wilde, likely would have spent part of his life in prison. This picture contains some dated stage business and moves a bit too slowly for us today, but I'm so happy that it survives. I still wonder, though, what was the aim of making this movie at this time in the American experience? Hughes and Selznick wanted and expected an audience and a profit, after all. Was a Maugham play burning a hole in their pockets? Were generous eyes-full of Constance Bennett in clingy satin gowns enough to draw 'em in? I suspect there was a social aim here, but I'm not sure what it is.

Constance Bennett plays Pearl, an heiress bride who, on her wedding day immediately after the ceremony, overhears her new husband tell his lover that he married Pearl only for her money as he and his lover are penniless. However, he does have a British title, and Constance goes to live in Britain with him, with their lavish lifestyle at first financed by her money. When that runs out, she has a lover who supplies her with cash.I generally watch these old films to escape the cynicism of today's world, and this film fails in that respect. The entire cast behaves in a despicable and inhuman manner like something out of ancient Rome, with the exception of Pearl's young sister Bessie, who is a wide-eyed innocent about to make the same mistake as Pearl did when she married her faithless husband. We all figure that Pearl behaving like a manipulative pleasure-addicted ice queen is rooted in her husband's betrayal, but nothing is said about motivation at all until the end of the film. George Cukor generally did a great job in these "women's films", especially if Katharine Hepburn was starring. But then Kate was such an excellent actress that she could get her motivation across without the use of explicit dialogue. Constance Bennett usually could do so too, so why things don't pan out here theatrically I have no idea.As an aside, it is interesting that Gilbert Roland and Constance Bennett play lovers in this and one other film from 1933 - "After Tonight" - yet don't marry until eight years later. I wonder if there's a story there?

Must confess I scored it a Ten to raise the average. By all rights this one should rate an average of 8-9.The bad prints and dated stage business cannot diminish the ethereal beauty of Constance Bennett and Anita Louise, the biting satire of Somerset Maugham, and an over-the-top pas de deux finalé between a lecherous duchess and a "dancing queen" that embellishes one of the most comically smashing dénouements in film history.