I read several previous reviews and agree with everything they say about this film being very entertaining, gorgeous leading protagonists, etc.
Fine.
Once a friend of mine said to me "I'm OK with watching a film tonight, but PLEASE, don't make me watch an OLD film!!!". Watching this one made me recall that friend's plea, and understand it too.
1958 was the date in this case, and when you get to see the hypocritical social conventions those people lived --and dyed-- for, one trembles at the idea of conducting such type of living conditions...
The woman over twenty five, our leading lady (Bergman was 42 when she made this movie, but she represented 30, jaw-dropping beautiful) was constantly looking --and starting to get desperate-- for a... HUSBAND, because apparently to be single was one of the original Capital Sins at the time.
IF she found a candidate, it was verboten for her to be the one making overt declarations of love, even of amorous interest!
In this case she had a younger sister (Phyllis Calvert, born the same year Ingrid Bergman was born, and looking quite stunning herself) a sister that was more level headed but brainwashed also with all the prejudices of those days, that tried all the time to find a candidate for her unlucky sister (unlucky because she was getting on in years and wasn't married yet), creating some mildly funny dialogs.
Cary Grant's character suffered a similar persecution (it WAS a veritable, obsessive persecution at the time) from people asking him WHY wasn't he MARRIED and with children at HIS AGE... (he looked older than Bergman but was exceedingly handsome and incredibly elegant).
A fascinating detail of upper-crust luxury living we'll never experience was in that night scene where from the moment they leave the theater and start walking fully in love with each other and her chauffeured personal Rolls Royce --black and white-- silently and slowly keeps pace with them at their disposition whenever they could decide to stop walking...Wow!! (They arrived at her place walking all the way from the theater (she was a famous actress), totally oblivious of the Rolls, that stops silently in front of her building, its chauffeur waiting for new orders).
***SPOILERS AHEAD***
Since we discovered that Grant's character had the nerve to coldly lay out his theory of enjoying women without the responsibility of marriage and children suffocating his bachelor freedom, invents a wife impossible to divorce as a pretext to always escape any uncomfortable situations (why he cannot get a divorce, is never explained in the script) poor Bergman would be socially ostracized because they... HAD SEX!!! (not on the screen please, one only gathered that by seeing a softly closing door (bedroom door) with both of them behind it) and that scene dimming down to black, probably to allow you to recover your breath after watching such salacious and daring situation.
And since the male star protagonist of this kind of movies couldn't possibly end the film as a total villain (enjoying women without..., etc, etc.), everything is finally explained and they get happily married!! Isn't that nice? Wow! and I watched the whole concoction to the bitter end!!! (I was forced to, since a friend asked me very politely to watch this movie that previously he enjoyed immensely).
Yes, it was superbly played by everybody involved in the film, the sets were gorgeous, the women dresses were out of this world, everybody's manners SUPERB (from that point of view one aches to return to those gone with the wind days) but otherwise, compared with practically ANY contemporary movie... it's just another Doris Day movie, but with Ingrid Bergman replacing her.
One thing that stroke me from the very opening scene was the close up of those magnificent roses... being ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS!!! Same in another scene where he sends her a bouquet of flowers and they are again ARTIFICIAL!!!
Why? they worked with a superb budget, certainly could afford two dozen of beautiful REAL roses. I could only understand such a situation in the Latin American movies of the time, where we were accustomed to these type of faux pas as part of very-very low budget movie making, but unpardonable in a De Luxe Hollywood product.
Like in a Puerto Rican film with the Argentinian Libertad Leblanc as protagonist where she wears a sleeveless polyester déshabillé with the price ticket dangling from the gown's armhole!! (did they snatched it at a basement sale?!), leans over to smell the bouquet of flowers sent her by an admirer... and the flowers are...PLASTIC!! (it was a serious crime-drama film) we felt down from our seats screaming with laugher in utter delight!!
Basta! watch this movie for the beautiful people involved, the beautiful sets and even the beautiful fake flowers, but forget about real life situations because you won't find that here.
Fine.
Once a friend of mine said to me "I'm OK with watching a film tonight, but PLEASE, don't make me watch an OLD film!!!". Watching this one made me recall that friend's plea, and understand it too.
1958 was the date in this case, and when you get to see the hypocritical social conventions those people lived --and dyed-- for, one trembles at the idea of conducting such type of living conditions...
The woman over twenty five, our leading lady (Bergman was 42 when she made this movie, but she represented 30, jaw-dropping beautiful) was constantly looking --and starting to get desperate-- for a... HUSBAND, because apparently to be single was one of the original Capital Sins at the time.
IF she found a candidate, it was verboten for her to be the one making overt declarations of love, even of amorous interest!
In this case she had a younger sister (Phyllis Calvert, born the same year Ingrid Bergman was born, and looking quite stunning herself) a sister that was more level headed but brainwashed also with all the prejudices of those days, that tried all the time to find a candidate for her unlucky sister (unlucky because she was getting on in years and wasn't married yet), creating some mildly funny dialogs.
Cary Grant's character suffered a similar persecution (it WAS a veritable, obsessive persecution at the time) from people asking him WHY wasn't he MARRIED and with children at HIS AGE... (he looked older than Bergman but was exceedingly handsome and incredibly elegant).
A fascinating detail of upper-crust luxury living we'll never experience was in that night scene where from the moment they leave the theater and start walking fully in love with each other and her chauffeured personal Rolls Royce --black and white-- silently and slowly keeps pace with them at their disposition whenever they could decide to stop walking...Wow!! (They arrived at her place walking all the way from the theater (she was a famous actress), totally oblivious of the Rolls, that stops silently in front of her building, its chauffeur waiting for new orders).
***SPOILERS AHEAD***
Since we discovered that Grant's character had the nerve to coldly lay out his theory of enjoying women without the responsibility of marriage and children suffocating his bachelor freedom, invents a wife impossible to divorce as a pretext to always escape any uncomfortable situations (why he cannot get a divorce, is never explained in the script) poor Bergman would be socially ostracized because they... HAD SEX!!! (not on the screen please, one only gathered that by seeing a softly closing door (bedroom door) with both of them behind it) and that scene dimming down to black, probably to allow you to recover your breath after watching such salacious and daring situation.
And since the male star protagonist of this kind of movies couldn't possibly end the film as a total villain (enjoying women without..., etc, etc.), everything is finally explained and they get happily married!! Isn't that nice? Wow! and I watched the whole concoction to the bitter end!!! (I was forced to, since a friend asked me very politely to watch this movie that previously he enjoyed immensely).
Yes, it was superbly played by everybody involved in the film, the sets were gorgeous, the women dresses were out of this world, everybody's manners SUPERB (from that point of view one aches to return to those gone with the wind days) but otherwise, compared with practically ANY contemporary movie... it's just another Doris Day movie, but with Ingrid Bergman replacing her.
One thing that stroke me from the very opening scene was the close up of those magnificent roses... being ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS!!! Same in another scene where he sends her a bouquet of flowers and they are again ARTIFICIAL!!!
Why? they worked with a superb budget, certainly could afford two dozen of beautiful REAL roses. I could only understand such a situation in the Latin American movies of the time, where we were accustomed to these type of faux pas as part of very-very low budget movie making, but unpardonable in a De Luxe Hollywood product.
Like in a Puerto Rican film with the Argentinian Libertad Leblanc as protagonist where she wears a sleeveless polyester déshabillé with the price ticket dangling from the gown's armhole!! (did they snatched it at a basement sale?!), leans over to smell the bouquet of flowers sent her by an admirer... and the flowers are...PLASTIC!! (it was a serious crime-drama film) we felt down from our seats screaming with laugher in utter delight!!
Basta! watch this movie for the beautiful people involved, the beautiful sets and even the beautiful fake flowers, but forget about real life situations because you won't find that here.