Design for Living (2013)

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

The majority of Ernst Lubitsch's films were silent. I wish this one had been, too, because they talk the story to death. As the old saying goes, "Too much talk and not enough action".And, to make it all the worse, all you really have here are two adult men with school-boy crushes on a young woman. It makes them look simply childish.Is there any reason to watch this film? Well, a few minor reasons. You get to see Gary Cooper speaking excellent French; it's his only really good dialog in the film. And, you get to see Mirima Hopkins in a role before she was typecast as a ditz. Edward Everett Horton has a rare role for the character actor where he was almost a romantic lead.But the problem with this film is that there are no admirable characters. Gary Cooper and Fredric March fight over the girl...and are not only unfaithful to their friendship, but literally unfaithful, as well. And Hopkin's character is pretty much a...well, what do you call a woman who marries one man, has a relationship with a second man, and also marries a third man...all the time playing games with the affections of each.I know I'm in a minority here, and I usually like both Cooper and March, but this film is about as low class as a film can get...at least back in 1933. I kept watching only because I thought there must be a redeeming value to the film; it never came.

Although the so-called "Lubitsch touch" is evident every now and again (e.g. when Cooper moves a chair, he inadvertently discloses all the rubbish underneath it; March listening and reacting to his play being performed off-camera; Cooper breaking furniture off-camera), this is a disappointing movie. It suffers from excessive talk. Admittedly, some of it is witty, some of it is amusingly brittle, but a great deal of it is just plain dull. Cooper is miscast, and that doesn't help either. He does his best, but at this stage of his career, he not only lacks the forceful personality called for in the script, but tends to deliver his lines too slowly. March, however, is perfect. And so is Miriam Hopkins, who is often quite stunningly costumed. In fact, as might be expected, production values are first class: Beautiful photography, a great music score, clever sound effects.

Lubitsch is usually very hit-and-miss for me, polarizingly so. His adaptation of "Design for Living" (1933), however, falls somewhere in between: it doesn't provoke much of a reaction. There are moments of which the whole of "Trouble in Paradise" (1932) is made of, moments of comic and cinematic brilliance, and there are tepid moments of sluggishness where the playfulness turns against itself. "To Be or Not to Be" (1942) feels much like that, but if it's to your liking, that should be recommendation enough to see this.The best moments occur towards the beginning, and for me the film just doesn't exude the kind of easy-going splendor I find in "Trouble in Paradise". So much so that at times the film feels even gaumless (lacking not in wit but in vitality). The beginning in the train is brilliant, however, and would make my "train scene" list beside "City Girl" (1930) and "Zéro de conduite" (1933).Much like in "Ruggles of Red Gap" (1935), the one piece without which the structure would fall can be found in the sidelines. Edward Everett Horton's Plunkett is an altogether wonderful character, the one whom I recall with most fondness.

For me, of course, there would be no choice. A young Gary Cooper - talk about a dream walking.Noel Coward's "Design for Living" was a play Coward wrote for himself and Lunt and Fontanne to star in, concerning a woman, Gilda, who can't decide between two young men and best friends in love with her, Tom and George. So the three decide to live together platonically. Tom leaves to work on his play, and while he's away, George and Gilda sleep together. Later on, alone with Tom, she sleeps with him, and George catches them together. Then Gilda makes a decision.Only one line from the original play was retained for the film. Though it is precode, the sex is inferred. Given the Lubitsch touch, it's a delightful, sexy comedy with pretty Miriam Hopkins as the winsome Gilda, Fredric March as Tom, a playwright, and Gary Cooper as George, an artist.The three young, attractive actors under Lubitsch's direction really make the film and situation sing.March was never much for comedy, though he does an okay job. Hopkins was a wonderful actress with many Broadway credits before getting into films, and Cooper was just so darned gorgeous I have no idea how he was except my impression is that he was very good. Had I been Hopkins - no choice! A charming film.