One myth about John Gilbert, one of the biggest stars of the silent era, was that he failed in talkies because of his squeaky voice. Another is that MGM head Louis B. Mayer deliberately sabotaged Gilbert's career because of a personal or professional feud. This film, late in Gilbert's career, shows him to be an excellent actor with a fine voice, a bit reminiscent of William Powell in some of his more disreputable roles. Its production values, script and cast are all top-shelf, and Gilbert gets credit for the story line, so there doesn't seem to be much to either myth about his downfall. More likely Gilbert's alcoholism, which he died of a few years later, was the cause.
This story takes place in Hollywood's fantasy-land Europe of barons, counts, and castles with huge and loyal flocks of servants. Gilbert plays a chauffeur who lacks the others' loyalty. In fact he's an amoral Casanova whom women both upstairs and downstairs find irresistible, specializing in seduction, swindling and blackmail. However he has a self-destructive quality of consistently overreaching, the kind of crook who isn't satisfied with his conquests but has to rub everyone else's noses in them. This could strike us as unrealistic were it not for the behavior of some politicians in the last few decades.
I'd have liked the film more with a subplot or two. As is, it keeps striking the same chord over and over until the denouement, which is not quite what you'd suspect.
One very pre-code moment that may be unique for that era is a wife telling her husband, as explicitly as possible for that era, exactly why she prefers her lover to him.
This story takes place in Hollywood's fantasy-land Europe of barons, counts, and castles with huge and loyal flocks of servants. Gilbert plays a chauffeur who lacks the others' loyalty. In fact he's an amoral Casanova whom women both upstairs and downstairs find irresistible, specializing in seduction, swindling and blackmail. However he has a self-destructive quality of consistently overreaching, the kind of crook who isn't satisfied with his conquests but has to rub everyone else's noses in them. This could strike us as unrealistic were it not for the behavior of some politicians in the last few decades.
I'd have liked the film more with a subplot or two. As is, it keeps striking the same chord over and over until the denouement, which is not quite what you'd suspect.
One very pre-code moment that may be unique for that era is a wife telling her husband, as explicitly as possible for that era, exactly why she prefers her lover to him.