I'd heard about "Design for Living" for years. I've enjoyed Noel Coward's plays and Ben Hecht's scripts, so when I saw their names on a Lubitsch film with Gary Cooper, Frederic March, and Miriam Hopkins I thought this would be great fun. I tried hard to like it but it just never got to me.
I can imagine the folks at the Legion of Decency blowing a gasket over the plot. The idea of two men in an intimate relationship with one woman was racy stuff for movies even before the Production Code was tightened up. The setup had great potential for witty dialogue and sophisticated silliness. Unfortunately the whole film was flat, even dull in spots. There are many amusing lines and Cooper and March are good as two hopelessly naive starving creative types (one artist and one writer) scraping by in Paris and hoping for the Big Time. Miriam Hopkins blows hot and cold. She's convincing as a woman who likes sex as much as the boys and isn't ashamed to say it. On the other hand, though she's supposed to be genuinely in love with both men she often behaves as if she's just using them, playing them off against each other. We're never entirely convinced that she isn't the selfish, scheming tramp one of the other IMDB comments accuses her of being.
I understood a bit more about the film after reading some historical background. Hecht and Lubitsch basically chucked most of Coward's play. In the play the trio, all three of them cynical sophisticates, had a previous history. It was made clear that the men had an intimate relationship not only with Gilda but also with each other. This obviously didn't sit well with Hecht, who had already expressed his distaste for Coward's dialogue, finding it phony rather than clever. Apparently Hecht and Lubitsch butted heads frequently during the production. Lubitsch complained that Hecht's approach was too coarse while Hecht thought Lubitsch's approach too "pansy." Knowing this one can see Hecht striving mightily throughout the script to show that the men were NOT "that way." But the story makes more sense with that subtext. Gilda knows that she can't choose one over the other and she can't bear to break up their relationship. So she foolishly runs away and marries Edward Everett Horton in an attempt to cure herself of her attraction. The movie's ending is left ambiguous but it's suggested that the three will find a life together as a threesome, "gentlemen's agreement" or not.
Hecht, not Lubitsch's first choice as a writer, seems out of his element writing sophisticated, witty dialogue. After all, his gift was for fast-moving, sassy street talk like in "The Front Page." Perhaps that's why this "comedy" never rises above mildly amusing.
A lot has been said questioning the casting of Gary Cooper. Even Cooper thought Lubitsch was nuts to ask him to fill in for Douglas Fairbanks, Jr, who had to drop out because of pneumonia. I'm ambivalent. Cooper's exchanges with Frederic March, like when they're toasting a team of underwear makers, are some of the best scenes. I also like Coop's posturing as a tortured artist. He pushes it just far enough over the top, throwing his gangly body into a chair, dropping his chin on his fist and brooding darkly. Other times he seems too earnest for his sparkling dialogue to sparkle. March fits his role perfectly. Miriam Hopkins is also perfect for Gilda. It's the script, not her performance, that makes her character seem cold and abusive.
In conclusion, "Design for Living" is interesting rather than entertaining, with enough good spots to make it worth watching but falling short of what is should have been.
I can imagine the folks at the Legion of Decency blowing a gasket over the plot. The idea of two men in an intimate relationship with one woman was racy stuff for movies even before the Production Code was tightened up. The setup had great potential for witty dialogue and sophisticated silliness. Unfortunately the whole film was flat, even dull in spots. There are many amusing lines and Cooper and March are good as two hopelessly naive starving creative types (one artist and one writer) scraping by in Paris and hoping for the Big Time. Miriam Hopkins blows hot and cold. She's convincing as a woman who likes sex as much as the boys and isn't ashamed to say it. On the other hand, though she's supposed to be genuinely in love with both men she often behaves as if she's just using them, playing them off against each other. We're never entirely convinced that she isn't the selfish, scheming tramp one of the other IMDB comments accuses her of being.
I understood a bit more about the film after reading some historical background. Hecht and Lubitsch basically chucked most of Coward's play. In the play the trio, all three of them cynical sophisticates, had a previous history. It was made clear that the men had an intimate relationship not only with Gilda but also with each other. This obviously didn't sit well with Hecht, who had already expressed his distaste for Coward's dialogue, finding it phony rather than clever. Apparently Hecht and Lubitsch butted heads frequently during the production. Lubitsch complained that Hecht's approach was too coarse while Hecht thought Lubitsch's approach too "pansy." Knowing this one can see Hecht striving mightily throughout the script to show that the men were NOT "that way." But the story makes more sense with that subtext. Gilda knows that she can't choose one over the other and she can't bear to break up their relationship. So she foolishly runs away and marries Edward Everett Horton in an attempt to cure herself of her attraction. The movie's ending is left ambiguous but it's suggested that the three will find a life together as a threesome, "gentlemen's agreement" or not.
Hecht, not Lubitsch's first choice as a writer, seems out of his element writing sophisticated, witty dialogue. After all, his gift was for fast-moving, sassy street talk like in "The Front Page." Perhaps that's why this "comedy" never rises above mildly amusing.
A lot has been said questioning the casting of Gary Cooper. Even Cooper thought Lubitsch was nuts to ask him to fill in for Douglas Fairbanks, Jr, who had to drop out because of pneumonia. I'm ambivalent. Cooper's exchanges with Frederic March, like when they're toasting a team of underwear makers, are some of the best scenes. I also like Coop's posturing as a tortured artist. He pushes it just far enough over the top, throwing his gangly body into a chair, dropping his chin on his fist and brooding darkly. Other times he seems too earnest for his sparkling dialogue to sparkle. March fits his role perfectly. Miriam Hopkins is also perfect for Gilda. It's the script, not her performance, that makes her character seem cold and abusive.
In conclusion, "Design for Living" is interesting rather than entertaining, with enough good spots to make it worth watching but falling short of what is should have been.