This film is generally considered a screwball comedy, but I think this classification does it a serious disservice because it's a stretch to call this structurally dull drama about tedious people a comedy.
The film is about the unhealthy relationship between a theater director and the star he discovered. Nothing much actually happens. This is not a comedy plot. Just like you can play a good comedy plot straight and get a comedy, you can make a comedy out of any plot by playing it as one. Unfortunately, that's not what we have here.
The two lead actors, John Barrymore and Carole Lombard, turned in fantastic performances that make their characters extremely believable. This is what makes this film so great in a way, but it's also why it doesn't work as a comedy.
As has been pointed out by another reviewer (who for some reason -- tradition? -- considers this an "exceptionally good screwball comedy"), John Barrymore plays the theater director in a style now generally associated with Peter Sellers. Unfortunately, he does it so well that it doesn't actually feel like overacting. Carole Lombard is an even worse offender, playing the volatile and vulnerable diva who has lost the ability to distinguish between her private life and acting -- and doing it so convincingly that it isn't really funny.
I generally find this kind of relationship drama tedious, but I would probably have liked this one well enough due to the added humor. If only it hadn't been sold to me as a comedy. Now I am in awe at the excellent acting, but feel cheated because the film doesn't fit its label. It's a fantastic film, it's a drama with some humorous elements, but it's a lousy comedy. Apparently this mislabeling plagued the film from the beginning. Most likely it was intended as a comedy and degenerated accidentally. I am not surprised that this film flopped in cinemas despite its excellent quality. Apparently, a lot of movie-goers felt cheated just like I did.
As a comedy I would rate it a 5 or 6. As a drama, the acting elevates it to somewhere around 7-9. But I don't like this kind of drama, and it's labeled a comedy, so I go with 6.
The film is about the unhealthy relationship between a theater director and the star he discovered. Nothing much actually happens. This is not a comedy plot. Just like you can play a good comedy plot straight and get a comedy, you can make a comedy out of any plot by playing it as one. Unfortunately, that's not what we have here.
The two lead actors, John Barrymore and Carole Lombard, turned in fantastic performances that make their characters extremely believable. This is what makes this film so great in a way, but it's also why it doesn't work as a comedy.
As has been pointed out by another reviewer (who for some reason -- tradition? -- considers this an "exceptionally good screwball comedy"), John Barrymore plays the theater director in a style now generally associated with Peter Sellers. Unfortunately, he does it so well that it doesn't actually feel like overacting. Carole Lombard is an even worse offender, playing the volatile and vulnerable diva who has lost the ability to distinguish between her private life and acting -- and doing it so convincingly that it isn't really funny.
I generally find this kind of relationship drama tedious, but I would probably have liked this one well enough due to the added humor. If only it hadn't been sold to me as a comedy. Now I am in awe at the excellent acting, but feel cheated because the film doesn't fit its label. It's a fantastic film, it's a drama with some humorous elements, but it's a lousy comedy. Apparently this mislabeling plagued the film from the beginning. Most likely it was intended as a comedy and degenerated accidentally. I am not surprised that this film flopped in cinemas despite its excellent quality. Apparently, a lot of movie-goers felt cheated just like I did.
As a comedy I would rate it a 5 or 6. As a drama, the acting elevates it to somewhere around 7-9. But I don't like this kind of drama, and it's labeled a comedy, so I go with 6.