Love Me Tonight (1932)

Producer: Rouben Mamoulian. Executive producer: Adolph Zukor. A Rouben Mamoulian Production. Copyright 25 August 1932 by Paramount Publix Corp. New York opening at the Rivoli: 18 August 1932. U.S. release: 26 August 1932. U.K. release: 17 November 1932. Australian release: 21 December 1932. Sydney opening at the Prince Edward: 21 December 1932 (ran five weeks). 10 reels. 96 minutes. (Mamoulian's original cut ran 104 minutes. A snip of Loy singing "Mimi" was cut as well as a whole Chevalier—MacDonald duet, "The Man For Me").SYNOPSIS: In order to collect a debt from a noble customer, a tailor is forced to pose as a baron.NOTES: Paramount's top-grossing release in Australia in 1933. Although "Love Me Tonight" did not make Mordaunt Hall's top ten of the year for The New York Times, it did make his supplementary list variously titled "Fifty Notable (or Worthy) Productions". VIEWER'S GUIDE: A fairy tale that is unsuitable for children of all ages. COMMENT: A cult movie that all adults will enjoy. It has all the qualities that cultists admire: inventive direction, fast pacing, style, sophistication, scant respect for authority and the establishment, yet its charm matches its wit, its seemingly effortless spontaneity over-rides all the complex mechanics of its direction (fascinating though these are for us critics), the elegance and artistry of its production reinforce its delightfully casual sophistication, and above all the agreeable, absolutely winning interpretations by its lead players are so captivating that it's a movie even the most die-hard Bowdler would find impossible to resist.Except in Australia, the movie was not as popular on original release as the previous Chevalier/MacDonald collaboration, One Hour With You (1932). But whereas One Hour now seems a bit dated, particularly in its staging, Love Me Tonight is as fresh, invigorating and up-to-the- minute as today's most expensively tailored and expansively produced comedy — and considerably more appealing. One can only marvel that such a masterpiece of entertainment isn't constantly aired on television, yet it's one of the few films of the thirties that today's youngsters (who are bored out of their socks by Gone With The Wind) would find genuinely entertaining.The musical numbers are so brilliantly dovetailed into the effervescent plot, I almost forgot to say that the songs are all among the most tuneful (Rodgers) and sharply witty (Hart) that the combo ever wrote. OTHER VIEWS: One of the most perfect musicals ever made. - Lawrence J. Quirk in "The Films of Myrna Loy".The ultimate film musical. - Eleanor Knowles in "The Films of Jeanette MacDonald & Nelson Eddy".The all-time best screen musical. - Gene Ringgold & Dewitt Bodeen in "Chevalier".One of the most enchanting musicals ever made. - Tom Milne in "Mamoulian". Ranks with Lubitsch's The Love Parade as one of the two masterpieces of the First Era of Hollywood musicals (1927-1936). — Ethan Mordden in "The Hollywood Musical". "Love Me Tonight" remains a classic example of the singer's musical as opposed to the dancer's musical — a film in which, with virtually no actual dance, all the action, musical and non-musical, seems to be choreographed... Rodgers and Hart were destined never to hit on such a winning combination again in the cinema. — John Russell Taylor & Arthur Jackson in "The Hollywood Musical".One of the true masterpieces in the musical genre, and a film of durable wit, beauty, and sophistication. — Ted Sennett in "Hollywood Musicals".

Watch this once straight through because it is a lot of fun, as cinematic operettas go, you'll be hard pressed to find more airy and smart, maybe Lubitsch.Watch it the second time to see how the narrative is so nicely stitched. The lovable rascal is a French tailor—accidentally enmeshed in aristocratic life when he goes to ask for his money. Disguised as a baron, he falls for the uptight princess. Meanwhile, she complains to the family doctor that she's not feeling well—we understand it's nothing a good night of sex won't fix.Myrna Loy is the nymphomaniac cousin of the princess, all the amoral qualities of what the heroine is feeling cast off as a separate character. When the two of them appear together in a ball looking radiant in resplendent dresses, Myrna steals the show in her seductive all black. Of course our guy goes for pure at heart and all is well.Before that, there is a marvelous scene where he measures the princess up for a new dress, in contemporary times the scene would be more risqué, some nudity involved. At any rate, the point is that she bares herself for him. He prepares a marvelous outfit, which gets her thinking that this man knows too much about 'measuring women', which leads to the anticipated exposing climax.Three old (sexless) spinsters set all of this up, sewing all through the movie— Macbeth's three crones of fate in a different light. Clothes. Disguised sex. Sewing as narrative about the work of love. Hidden selves exposed.In the end, the three spinsters hold up the finished article they had been patiently weaving all through the film, an embroidery showing an idealized scene of courting in a way inspired by the plot yet going against the reality of what we saw—in reality, the princess chased after him, riding a horse and defiantly stopping a train to get her man. Her imposing image as she does that is straight out of Pudovkin and his stout Soviet heroines. Look for the same Soviet influence in the opening scene with the town waking up to mechanical sounds, a great piece.

The Princess says she's 22 years old, but she's so sad and she can't sleep at night... so the doctor recommends she must find a boyfriend "of his age". The answer, of course, is Maurice Chevalier, who was 44 at the time. Say no more.Chevalier performing the young man he was 20 years ago, with his terrible voice and his terrible jokes that make us want him dead from minute one.Is there any movie where he dies a terrible death? I'd love to watch that one!Finally, the songs could have been written by my cat: "Good morning, Mrs Bendix, and how is your appendix?". Oh, really? Yes, really, THAT bad.

This acclaimed musical falls far short, in my estimation, of several other contemporary films in the same genre starring Maurice Chevalier and/or Jeanette MacDonald, such as 'The Smiling Lieutenant', 'Naughty Marietta' and 'The Love Parade'. I found it narratively disjointed and lacking in artistic unity; the action proceeds in fit and starts, and at times the director, Rouben Mamoulian, seems unsure how to construct or energise scenes. Lacking the comic touch of a Lubitsch, he employs many styles of comic staging, which don't always knit together. Finally, while there is a great deal of rhyming dialogue in the film, it has comparatively few big musical numbers. 'Isn't It Romantic' is probably the only genuine hit. This review may sound too negative, but with so much hype around the film, its shortcomings need to be discussed. On the plus side, it is a lavish production, and the film's stars are great talents. (Myrna Loy is a terrific foil to the main love interest, but her part is sadly underdeveloped in the script.) The opening sound sequence, incorporating actual shots of a nearly deserted, early-morning Paris, is a sparkling introduction. Alas, it is probably the best thing in the movie. Some of the dissolve and dual-image photography also delivers memorable images, that suggest a forward-looking creative spirit. At other times, in film-making terms, the production seems old fashioned and tired even for its day (1932).