Skip to main content

Review: Design for Living (1933)



“Less is more” is a difficult balance to negotiate when dealing with proscribed subjects. There is always the concern that the illicit will no longer be as such if subjected to too much attenuation; or if the expression is couched in too abstract a language. Coarseness is at the nucleus of matters like sex and violence- attempt at over-refinement would be as ineffectual and absurd as giving a solemn speech to a table of revellers. In this case, less is definitely advisable, but only under the condition that it contains promises of the more.

As with Noel Coward’s Design for Living, there is barely any need for overexplicitness. The play centers on a ménage à trois in Paris 1932, during the period of Les années folles, or the “Crazy Years,” which saw the city’s artistic culture reaching an insuperable peak. Characters were drawn from real life: Coward indebted the play to his actor friends, Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne, whose long marriage was bedevilled by infidelities on both sides. The lines teeter on the edge of the risqué, wherein underlies a not too obscure implication of a homosexual relation. The New York audience embraced the play, though not without, perhaps, some apprehension. It became one of Coward’s seminal comedies that has been, curiously, the least revived.

For Design for Living seems in the main too contemplative and mordant for a light comedy. The three main characters intersperse their hysterical laughter with almost Freudian musings on human heart and its discontents, which, despite their lyricism, are symptomatic of none other than the weariness of the voluptuaries. But there are moments when one is moved to empathised with the characters and their self-imposed affliction- within this increasingly troublesome imbroglio somehow everyone is lone and dolorous.

Riding the coattail of the play’s Broadway success, a filmic adaptation came in 1933, directed by Ernst Lubitsch. There is very little left of Coward’s original: screenwriter Ben Hecht raffishly boasted that he eradicated all but one line: “for the good of our immortal souls.” Filmed a year before the enforcement of Hollywood’s Motion Picture Production Code, Lubitsch and Hecht would have little qualms of making their main stars talk about sex without a sign of unease- in perhaps one of the most implausible moments in the film, Gilda Farrell (Miriam Hopkins) makes a deal with George (Gary Cooper) and Thomas (Frederic March) that their cohabitation should contain one stipulation: “No sex!” she exclaims, whilst chomping on a sausage.

The “Lubitsch touch,” whilst ruthlessly erased much of Coward’s meandering spoor, left intact the biting irony that ultimately attaches an ambiguous message to the light-hearted comedy. The film closes with the three lovers- Gilda married to her smarmy boss but leaves him to elope with the boys- joing their hands and swearing on a gentlemen’s agreement, an oath that they formerly failed to keep. In Coward’s play Gilda’s husband storms out on the knowledge of his wife’s decision to revert to her dissolute past, and the three main characters roar with laughter until they weep. I personally prefer the latter version to be the more effective.

As testament to the director’s choice of keeping the heroine’s name- therefore implicitly emphasising the character’s prime attraction- Miriam Hopkins is lovely as the amoral but perpetually high-spirited Gilda. Although there are moments when her declamatory style seems a pitch too shrilly for the film, it is her unaffected loveliness that ultimately engages us. March and Cooper are both competent in their roles but, as also in the play, they are not endowed with much substance to present a contrast, or in any respect to really counterpoint Gilda’s bold vivacity. Reading the play again I wonder if Coward were having Ibsen in mind when contrasting the heroine’s outward independence with her inner immurement. Both playwrights share in this a sceptic notion of self-transcendence- that man can never surmount the four walls of society.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Honore Daumier

“If you shut up truth and bury it under ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.”- Émile Zola
Exited Honoré Victorin Daumier, 10 February 1879, in an impoverishment that many of his contemporaries, especially his foes, would have thought was his long overdue retribution- the painter was blind, heavily in debt, and later relegated to a pauper’s grave. His friends, upon visiting his resting place, would, I imagine, see it a chance to admonish their children: “Now that’s a lesson for you cheeky devils whose tongues rattle off things that should better stay unspoken.” But Daumier devoted his life in revealing those “unspoken things.” His lithography ink proved sharper than most writers’ pens. He vented his rage and stigmatised others’ infamy in his satirical and, oftentimes, side-splitting cartoons. The tone was relentlessly acerbic but only because Daumier was exposing truths that, in the time…

Review: Late Spring (1949)

As a storyteller, Yasujiro Ozu insists on an implausibly objective stance that refrains from direct commentary or criticism; his camera customarily assumes the role of a detached observer, to whom the characters in the film, staring or talking straight to the camera, occasionally address, with an intimacy akin to that between a host and his guest, a closeness that is underpinned by a mutual recognition of the psychological distance that separates the two. The audience, whose perspective, in this case, conflates the camera’s (the director’s), an invisible character’s in the film (to whom the other characters address) and their own, is thus situated amidst this spatial complexity which, as a rule, every work of art necessarily creates.
In Late Spring (1948), the camera serves in part as an underlying comment to the story, which is noted by its economy of details. A prolonged shot of a departing train, on which the father and daughter travel to the city for a one-day excursion, prefigures…

Review: Come Back, Little Sheba (1952)

Every adversity in life is a test of one's fortitude, the occasion of which, as proved invariably in the past, man is capable of defying destiny, of reversing the inexorable course to which life is doomed to tend. Too often we sympathise with the travails of the dogged, indefatigable fighter, whose hard-on victory we shed tears of relief and admiration, and whose stories and examples we evoke when in need of a boost of morale or motivation, that our notion of heroism has come to be hallowed with a glow of divinity peculiar to those who triumph in their fights. Those who fail – the martyrs who labour for nothing, who die without fulfilling what they die for – they are regarded with no less sympathy, but to recount their stories we averse, refusing to be reminded of what ultimately makes us humans – our inherent and infinite capacity to fail.
To face up to one’s failures, especially with the forlorn hope that such failures can ever be remedied, requires a special kind of courage. Wil…