A minor Lubitsch fluff transposes Noël Coward’s eponymous play onto the celluloid (but in only bare-bones terms), DESIGN FOR LIVING is a witty but stuffy comedy hammers out an uncharacteristic denouement for a risquéthree-way relationship between two men and a woman, a progenitor of François Truffaut’s JULES AND JIM (1962).
Three Americans in Paris, best friends and roomies, struggling artists Tom Chambers (March) and George Curtis (Cooper) both are swept off their feet by a chic girl Gilda Farrell (Hopkins), who reciprocates them with isometric amount of affection, before soon a platonic ménage-à-trois under the same roof is propounded and accepted with a tripartite agreement, only sabotaged when one party is away in London for his burgeoning playwright career, the remaining two becomes an item, occasioning a crack in two men's friendship, and a seesawing Gilda has only one exit route when she is again, impelled to make the impossible choosing, leaving both and hurriedly marries to her long-time admirer Max Plunkett (Horton, utterly jolly in his priggish, business-oriented persona), which turns out to be an exasperating mistake on her part.
It is a jocose folie-à-trois panning out like a heady and mellifluous minuet, predominantly confined itself within interior spaces, aptly conceals its hanky-panky business off the screen (released within a whisker of the advent of the notorious Hays Code), but revels in its proto-screwball faux-naïf characterization to the hilt. The trio leads are all up for it, although acting side by side, a debonair March fairly eclipses an impetuous Cooper in his sonorous diction and unperturbed demeanor, but the cynosure here is a ripsnorting Hopkins, exerts her high-wire balancing act between two emblems of idealized American masculinity and only comically falls prey of her own indecision in the slapdash third act, as a matter of fact, Lubitsch cunningly expurgates all the frills and trimmings from his camera (including a climactic brawl, vanishingly completed in a trice), less is more, this blithe rom-com once again bears witness to Lubitsh’s master-class aptitude of economic elegance under the Studio system.
companion pieces: Lubitsch’s ONE HOUR WITH YOU (1932, 7.1/10), HEAVEN CAN WAIT (1943, 7.9/10).
《爱情无计》,恩斯特・刘别谦拍于1933年的有声片。
八十年前,刘大师就创作出了之后特吕弗拍摄的《祖与占》中的两性游戏规则,但这完全是两种不同风格的样式,说是三角恋亦可,说是四角恋亦然。也许五十年代的特吕弗受过其影响。
因为《爱情无计》就拍于五光十色的巴黎。两个美国佬在巴黎共享一间房子,剧作家与画家整天疲于奔命,日子过得狼狈不堪。一次火车上与漂亮顽皮女子的相遇,彻底改变了他俩的人生轨迹。烂泥糊上了墙头,剧作家伦敦火爆,画家在法国名声鹊起,好运纷至沓来。
而好女子只有一个,且她的“监护人”还时常过度关照。“君子协定”只是理性时候的产物。冲动是魔鬼,感情一来,什么都抛在九霄云外。风水轮流转,先是画家,后是剧作家,再是“监护人”,可谓你方唱罢我登场,但好戏终有收场之时,妙不可言就在结束之期,三人又开始了尽兴的美好人生,实在是余味不尽。
这是刘大师改编自英国剧作家诺埃尔·考沃德的同名舞台剧,王尔德式的敏锐和尖酸,经过崭新的过滤,既保留了对上流社会悠闲阶级的洞悉,又增添了都会男女的触觉。真正的都市情感猛片,永远也不会过时,尽管她已八十岁。加里·库柏与弗雷德里克・马奇演到了极致。
2012、9、4
比Jules et Jim多一个星
前法典时期太敢玩了,早期大师们真没给后世留什么创作空间啊……
改编自诺埃尔·考沃德的同名舞台剧,和前作《天堂陷阱》的设置很像。《天堂陷阱》中是一男周旋于两女之间,而这部影片则是一女二男,性意识更加开放。影片前半段比较有趣,可惜后半段未能保持下去。结尾三个人挤进了车中,又容易让人想到《天》的结尾,不过这三人的关系该如何维持,君子协定?
前卫的三人行。如果后来的「祖与占」中莫罗是女王,那么这部里的miriam hopkins就是公主~果然要强势又有性格的女人才驾驭得住两个男人。
少了俏头的“祖与占”古典版,应该是1女+2男爱情开山始祖。最后结局过于完美,3人携手到永远,接受无能。
好女孩二选一,坏女孩都要。
刘别谦胆子真肥,提出了这样一个世纪难题:弗雷德里克马奇和加里库珀都爱你爱的死去活来(别做梦了OK),只选一个当男朋友选谁呢?答案胆子更肥,两个都要,三人行... 电影开头真不错,后半程相对就普通了些,不过“反派”角色还是蛮可爱的,一根筋,都不忍心说他什么...
不是很懂你们这些开放的美国人,加里库珀年轻时候长得好像巴斯特基顿啊
三人行
被友邻说是「等边三角形」的爱情,笑死!刘别谦的性别观和爱情观真的好超前!连买帽子之前都可以先试用,为什么挑选男人不可以呢?
【二男一女】【喜剧】
性坦白 罗曼史 嘲讽 滑稽 都在两男一女的“君子协定”中
床上的灰尘,隔着屏幕我都觉得脏,连大洋彼岸的中国人都笑掉大牙了
今天去old vic theatre看了话剧版,很有喜感。演员们都很给力呀布景也没,闪亮亮的发光
在大萧条之后,刘别谦用惊世骇俗的三人行故事来疗愈压抑的社会氛围,照例是他擅长的暗喻与讽刺,对当时商人的贪婪和人性堕落进行了辛辣嘲讽,而两位男主角波西米亚式的关系也对婚前性行为、一夫一妻制、性忠诚完全颠覆,在影片完美开篇里两个男人熟睡,一个女人在注视他们并画画,从这里奠定了电影基调,就是一部以女性观点出发的影片,她的性饥渴、她对选男人如选帽子的理论、她的任性与直接都极其吸引人,而两位男主角就像是两个孩子,在“母亲”的教育下学会了成长,在与“父亲”的斗争中重新获得了母亲的爱,电影结尾两人还玩捉迷藏般躲在屏风后面, 刘别谦触动也在电影中展现,打字机的性暗示和那个花盆,擦边球打的高明,花盆的踢倒、捡起、踢倒细节也生动地暗示出这场婚姻中女人仍然没有忘记那两个男人,而这个商人也注定得到的也是场虚伪的婚姻
比较无聊
第一反应:为什么你们三个不在一起第二反应:好像你们三个确实在一起了
开头无声段落的演员出场真是惊艳,后面又变成了又臭又长的刘别谦台词情节剧。
开头的无声戏拍的不错;pre-code时期的电影真是前卫啊(or崩坏,基本上是一个睡完男二睡男一,再找备胎男三结婚,最后抛弃男三和男一男二3p的故事,no sex,first base这样的词都能出现;剧本不行,女主动机缺乏,该有的笑料也没有;gary cooper年轻时可真是一个美人。
Immorality may be fun, but it isn’t fun enough to take the place of one hundred percent virtue and three square meals a day