Skip to main content

Review: Trouble in Paradise (1932)

During the period when F. Scott Fitzgerald was working in Hollywood, he was visited once by a fledgling writer who begged Fitzgerald to teach him the ropes of writing a good script. The young man’s first lesson was to compose a scene which involves only three characters; three different coloured pens were assigned to write the lines, with each colour representing one of the three characters. Enraged by the impression that Fitzgerald was mocking his inexperience, the young writer asserted aloud his qualification for the job and asked for a more constructive assignment. Fitzgerald’s response was one of even greater rage: the young writer was summarily dismissed on the ground of his irreverence for, what Fitzgerald considered, the rudiments of screenwriting.

The virtue of Fitzgerald’s little exercise finds its most manifest justification in Ernst Lubitsch’s films, which regularly explore, often in a tone of frivolity or thinly-disguised sarcasm, the conflicts and the absurd dynamic of the ménage à trois. With their emphasis on the consonance that springs from the perpetual dissonance within the triangle – a contrapuntal device that is commonly found in the 19th century “comedy of errors,” wherein the intricate web of relationships between the characters is always underpinned by an intangible, almost inborn, equilibrium – those films are the equivalent of a Monet’s painting: an exuberant feast of colours which aims to give the impression of joy and elegance. The colours are the characters and their utterances; to fuse them together yields the challenge of creating order out of a group of warring elements – hence the objective of Fitzgerald’s exercise: that a good play should be a piece of uncluttered artwork as it is a euphonious symphony.

Lubitsch’s films prior the enforcement of MPPD (Motion Picture Production Code) make freer use of comedy’s malleability to indulge in, often fleetingly and still under the guise of respectability, some ribald humour. After all, comedy, according to Henri Bergson, denotes a particular situation where an individual is startled out of his usual flexible movement. In a broader sense, comedy operates invariably outside the norm, and is indeed licensed to violate the moral code. Morality in Lubitsch’s early features is a concern that is shorn of even its residual value: Maurice Chevalier, started with The Love Parade (1929), Lubitsch’s first sound musical, routinely portrayed the role of an amorous rake whose pursuit of happiness and good fortune are rarely encumbered by his amoral exploits.

Trouble in Paradise (1932), by many accounts Lubitsch’s best, almost flawless film, gives the flouting of morality an implausibly elegant touch. Gaston and Lily are a thieving pair who set their target on a widowed duchess. Trouble soon invades their paradisiac relationship when Gaston inconveniently falls in love with the duchess. Posing as a suave baron, Gaston, played by Herbert Marshall, speaks mellifluously and with a taste for delicate wit; he is generally grave in manner and graceful in deportation. This façade of a stolid bourgeois gent accords a new meaning to elegance: that the attribute is sometimes a facile means for deception and is therefore possessed of a false value.

It is not typical for Lubitsch to be passing any personal comments or judgements of his subject. His comedies are so suffused with a heady joyousness that any possibly more serious, sobering overtones become automatically an incidental source of comedy. The motif of a “closed door” is the director’s cheeky response to the society’s squeamishness for frank sexual matters. In Trouble in Paradise the “closed door” moments are deliberately made plain: when Gaston and Lily first meet and fall for one another, they retreat to the hotel room for their night, and next a hand is seen hanging a privacy sign on the doorknob; and during the courtship between Gaston and duchess, those two are often caught (by the stupefied butler) emerging together from one room, and entering and closing the door into another.

That comedy without its hidden complexity cannot generate an infinite source of genuine laughter is the unavowed creed which Lubitsch consistently follows. Arguably the hallmark of the director’s career, Trouble in Paradise is a jewel whose innocence and purity grow with age, and emit an especially dazzling incandescent when we view it today, in a time when laughter is becoming a piece of sweet music so rarely heard.


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: Breathless (1960)

Jean Luc Godard’s first feature feels oddly like a swansong: in many respects the film seems a self-mockery of what it ostensibly celebrates – the new, the bold, the reckless; the 60s zeitgeist that resurrects the anguished ghosts of the 1920s, who, according to F. Scott Fitzgerald, grow up to “find all Gods dead, all wars fought, all faith in man shaken.” For the children of the ‘60s, their wars are of a kind in which the opponents constantly change roles: sometimes they are the unmerciful authorities bent on making miserable lives out of their inferiors; in other times they are the society at large, weeding out in its insidious and devious way the errant law-breakers. They all seem to be donning the same masks, through which the warriors recognise themselves.
This fight with one’s inner demon necessarily evokes concerns of mortality and death - timeless concerns that acquire an added pungency in the 1960s: would a dangerous, unheeding spell of hedonism finally defy life’s incontrove…