Friends and Lovers (1931)

In London, suave British officer Adolphe Menjou (as Geoffrey Roberts) begins an affair with shapely blonde Lili Damita (as Alva), unaware she and sinister husband Erich von Stroheim (as Victor Sangrito) are infidelity-brewing blackmailers. As Mr. Menjou leaves for assignment in India, Ms. Damita reveals she has fallen in love with Menjou, and refuses to milk him for more money.Handsome young lieutenant Lawrence Olivier (as Ned Nichols) joins Menjou in India, and reveals he has likewise fallen in love with a beautiful woman, who turns out to be (you guessed it) Damita. The woman really gets around. Damita takes a shower and gets whipped by von Stroheim. The film ponders, "Is the friendship between two men more important than a woman's love?" If you're interested in the cast, this may be a melodramatically fun film, despite being wholly unconvincing. With his fine "talking pictures" voice, Menjou was extending his debonair leading man career, but he is much too "long in the tooth" for his role herein. Olivier, in his first "Hollywood" film, is conversely way too "wet behind the ears". Damita shows skin and appears stilted.**** Friends and Lovers (10/3/31) Victor Schertzinger ~ Adolphe Menjou, Lawrence Olivier, Lili Damita, Erich von Stroheim

Though I don't rate Friends and Lovers (1931) high based on my harsh rating scale, I give credit where it is due. Friends and Lovers is a perfect example of how I feel films should have been made in the early 30s---condensed. (This comment/review, however, will not be.) The film, including titles, is 68 minutes long, yet it tells an engaging cohesive story with several locations, people, costumes, events, passage of time and action without weighing it down with the fluff that movies were full of during that period. By fluff I include but am not limited to: extended reaction shots, excessive beauty shots, far off stares (see Greta's films), eyebrow movement shots (see Norma's films), mouth and lips parting shots (see Irene's films), unnecessary walking, unrelated dialog extending screen time for the stars, etc. Yes, this movie does have a few gratuitous fluffs but it doesn't tack on an entire hour showing them. The movie doesn't feel "glossy"; instead, somehow, it feels real.The studio was unstable bankrupt great depression era Selznick helmed RKO. Director Victor Schertzinger, who had been in film since the first moving frame, pulled poignant performances from his cast and provided the music. DP J. Roy Hunt strapped to RKO through all of its phases provided believable lighting for B/W film through many types of scenes both indoors and out, as well as smooth camera movement and action. Adolphe Menjou survived the silent years to give a decent performance as obsessed, possessed, ardently pining Geoff, Larry Olivier makes his stiff and subtle Hollywood debut in a fair size role as Ned, Lili Damita also from the silent era wasn't a blazing beauty or brilliant actress but she did her part allowing her accent and body to do the rest as Alva, Erich Von Stroheim though a little cheesy made being a sadistic and evil porcelain collector seem lucrative and fun as Victor, and Hugh Herbert as McNellis, trying not to trip over his on and off again accent, bounced through the film offering humor here and there to keep the viewer's emotions connected.Film making is all about taking the viewer in, cold from the street with their own world in their mind, connecting with their emotions and transporting them to another place and time, taking them on an emotional roller coaster ride until the film is through. If at any time the coaster slows or stops, the viewer has time to realize themselves again, even if only subconsciously, and the film has lost them. If picked up again, the viewer must start over emotionally with the story. Condensing this film down to 68 minutes keeps the viewer's attention the entire time. The overall ride may be short, the sets may be cheap, the acting may not be the best, the plot may be thin, the music may be shallow, the dialog may be simple, but tell a story that efficiently and the viewer doesn't notice while watching. Should the viewer notice, it's not considered long because the next sequence is already speeding along with fresh new things for the brain to process. Plot of the film is simple on the surface though it has a few morality testing twists and turns. For what they had to work with, the plot was kept clean and cohesive, the shots were tight, the camera action was appropriate, the cinematography and lighting was believable, the sets weren't spectacular but scenes didn't last long enough to pick them apart, the tension was there, the emotion was heavy, the beauty was shown, the dialog was believable and the actors sizzled. So much happens at a comfortable pace that I never once got bored or thought about anything else other than the film. I ignored a ringing phone. I ignored portable electronics. The film was paced so well that I didn't want to look away. I was completely surprised by how enjoyable the film was to watch, unlike so many pre-code early 30s films I have suffered through. (I'm an elitist film snob, so I will watch a terrible film just so I can say w/o any doubt I hated it.) If there is so much fluff in a film that I sit there and start counting how many steps the actress is making across every single room, on every single street, up every single stair and then start counting their stares, far off looks, exaggerated baby spot lit soft shots, and on top of it listen to senseless dialog that does nothing to forward the plot but included just so that the actress/actor is getting a certain percentage of screen time, I feel I'd rather have a root canal without anesthetic rather than sit through the rest of the film. For me to sit through an entire early 30s film without moving or thinking of anything else means the film is very special in some way. In retrospect, I wonder: the novelty of the talking pictures was new, but it does make me wonder if viewers really loved the long lingering shots of the starlets or if they tolerated them. Did they expect them because they were paying money to be visually entertained? Does length equal value? According to rumor, the film lost $260k at the box office, though IMDBpro, AFI, or BFI don't offer any budget or salary info. Perhaps Friends and Lovers was shot with the same early 30s heavy fluff monkey on its back but given to a gifted editor that said NO to fluff. Regardless, this is a very rare 68 minutes that I was happy watching a pre-code film, and for anyone like me who barely tolerates movies of the early 30s because of the unnecessary fluff, give this one a watch. It's not the best film in the world, but 68 minutes isn't long in comparison to 2 hours of Norma's eyebrows going up and down.

Friends and Lovers was Sir Laurence Olivier's fourth film and first for an American studio in this case RKO. His first wife Jill Esmond was better known and RKO brought her over from the UK for a couple of films and Larry went along for the ride.He was also appearing on Broadway in Private Lives so his film work in general was an afterthought. Friends and Lovers was something that better been left undone though.I mean it is terrible, everyone in this drama is overacting completely especially the stage trained Olivier. Olivier was dismissive of all his film work before Wuthering Heights and he was hard on himself in something like Fire Over England. But here he was justified.The plot has Lili Damita apparently making a living at seducing men of property and then having husband Erich Von Stroheim show up and demand financial remuneration for his cuckolded pride. It's an upper crust English version of what we in the USA call the old badger game. Her latest victim is Captain Adolphe Menjou set to leave for the Indian frontier the next day.When Menjou arrives he finds out that an old army pal Laurence Olivier is to join him at the post. When Olivier arrives Menjou discovers he also was a victim and the friendship goes on the rocks. Friends and Lovers goes downhill from there. I suppose its Hollywood's idea about the British upper crust. The whole thing is rather silly from my point of view.I'm sure Erich Von Stroheim thought so too. He's guilty of the most overacting in the film. I think Von Stroheim thought he was taking advantage of the deficiencies of the script. Still the whole thing is pretty silly.Hugh Herbert is here also. Oddly enough with a fake Scot's burr, he's at the most restrained I've ever seen him as Menjou's orderly. A little 'woo woo' might enlivened the film a bit.Friends and Lovers is a curiosity for fans of the late Lord Olivier, anyone else be warned.

Lili Damita plays an exotic temptress married to vicious Von Stroheim, who uses her to lure rich men, in order to blackmail them later...He's sort of a higher class pimp, 'cos the guy sort of sells her wife's favors.Adolphe Menjou and Larry Olivier are two of these men, who happen to be friends. Man-of-the-world Menjou does very well with his role of Captain Richards and a very young and dashing Laurence Olivier, is good as well as the more "naive" guy.Von Stroheim's short moments on the screen are excellent, because he can portray at very close perfection, that sort of middle european aristocratic decadence. Kudos too, for Hugh Herbert's sympathetic performance as Menjou's valet.Miss Damita (later to be Mrs. Errol Flynn) has poise but lacks acting talent, but is anyway alluring as the tempting lady.If you like pre-codes, watch it.