Design for Living

Plot synopsis:
=== Act I ===
Otto's "rather shabby" studio in Paris, 1932
Gilda is an interior designer who lives with the painter Otto, who was previously attached to Leo, an author. She is visited by Ernest Friedman, an art dealer and friend of all three. He is excited about his newly acquired Matisse and wants to show it to Otto. Gilda says that Otto is in bed, ill, and cannot be disturbed. Ernest tells her that Leo is back in Paris after making a success in New York. Otto enters from the street, carrying luggage, and very clearly not bedridden as Gilda has told Ernest. Ernest prudently takes his leave. After he and Otto have gone out to find Leo, supposedly at the George V Hotel, Leo enters from Gilda's bedroom where he has spent the night with her. They discuss what they should say to Otto, whom they both love. On his return they tell him that they have slept together in his absence, and after a furious row he renounces both of them and storms out of the room.
=== Act II ===
Leo's flat in London eighteen months later
Scene 1
Leo and Gilda are now living together. His plays are now immensely successful. A journalist and press photographer call to do a feature on him. During the interview Leo makes several remarks that show how shallow he finds success.
Scene 2
A few days later, Leo is away, and Otto turns up. He too has now become successful. Otto and Gilda dine together and their old love is rekindled. They embrace passionately.
Scene 3
The next morning, Otto is still asleep when Ernest calls on Gilda. She tells him she is leaving Leo, and they exit together. Leo returns to discover Otto, who at once acknowledges that he has spent the night with Gilda. Before the ensuing row develops too far they spot the notes Gilda has left for them both. They are both horrified that she has gone, and they drown their sorrows in brandy and then sherry. They embrace, sobbing helplessly.
=== Act III ===
Ernest's penthouse in New York, two years later.
Scene 1
Gilda has married Ernest and become a commercially successful designer. Ernest is away, and Gilda is giving a reception for some important clients. It is gatecrashed by Otto and Leo, in impeccable evening dress, determined to reclaim her. They frighten her guests into leaving, and Gilda pretends to bid them goodnight along with her other guests, but secretly gives them a key and tells them to return later.
Scene 2
Ernest returns the next morning to find Otto and Leo in his apartment, wearing his pyjamas. Gilda, however, has not been there. She has been to a hotel overnight to allow herself time to think. When she returns Otto and Leo explain to an incredulous and incandescent Ernest that Gilda's formal status as his wife is irrelevant. She slowly realises that the attraction the two exert for her is irresistible. As Ernest rushes out denouncing their "disgusting three-sided erotic hotch-potch," Gilda, Otto and Leo fall together on a sofa in gales of laughter.

Tags: romantic

Review:
Few films have had as much nonsense written about them as Ernst Lubitsch's "Design For Living."  From the moment it was released, it was criticized for rewriting Noel Coward's then-daring play (Ben Hecht, the screenwriter, said: "There's only one line of Coward's left in the picture--see if you can find it!"); for casting Americans in parts that had originally been played by Coward, Alfred Lunt, and Lynn Fontanne; for toning down the gay subtexts of Coward's play.
But the wit of the script (written by Hecht but, as always with Lubitsch, carefully supervised and contributed to by the director himself) and the appeal of the performers (more about them later) pull the film through the occasional rough spots, and the second half of the movie is just about perfect.Another idiotic thing that is often said about "Design For Living" is that Lubitsch and Hecht rewrote Coward due to fear of the censors.
In fact, the censors must have had a heart attack when they saw "Design," for this is one of the most sexually frank of the pre-Code Hollywood movies; premarital sex, cohabitation, adultery and frigidity are all clearly portrayed-- but, as always with Lubitsch, they are implied rather than shown.
Lubitsch's trademark door and blackout gags are here, and they are hilarious; again, it's not Noel Coward--it's Lubitsch, the cinema's greatest comic filmmaker at the peak of his powers.But there's something else here that isn't found in most Lubitsch films, and it comes from Ben Hecht, whose cynical, fast-talking, very American style of writing gives the characters a flavor quite unlike the more Continental wit of Lubitsch's usual heroes.
Again, I disagree; the moments of Hechtian farce (like the hilarious party scene) are beautifully handled by Lubitsch and turn the film into a forerunner of screwball comedy, the place where Continental charm and hard-driving Americanism meet.Now to the actors.
All the leading players are actually quite wonderful: Miriam Hopkins, one of Lubitsch's favorite actresses, has the best role and gives a marvelously energetic performance as the flighty, pretentious free spirit who tries to substitute art for sex; Gary Cooper is at the height of his youthful charm, with a surprisingly light comic touch and great teamwork with Fredric March.
March, who can often be heavy-handed in film comedy, is here charming and funny; it's a tribute to Lubitsch that he got such a genial performance out of him.
And, of course, there's Edward Everett Horton, one of Hollywood's finest character actors in one of his finest roles.If you know and love the Noel Coward play, don't expect this movie to be a faithful adaptation.
Miriam Hopkins finds herself in love with both Gary Cooper and Fredric March (who can blame her?), so she does what any sensible Pre-Code woman would do: she decides to live with both of them!It's a tribute to movie audiences of the early 1930s that a sophisticated comedy like Design for Living could a.) Get produced, and b.) Be a success at the box office.
The dumbing down of current films means that the delicious innuendo in Design for Living would go over the head of most of today's audience.The key to the Lubitsch Touch was in the perfect timing of physical gestures and the delivery of the lines.
I think it dates the film less than Lubitsch's other efforts.I don't mind that Ben Hecht wrote most of the film's dialog rather than Noel Coward, who wrote the original play.
All I know is that the dialog is very very funny and quite naughty, making this the ultimate Pre-Code film.Miriam Hopkins could do no wrong in a Lubitsch film, and her work here is brilliant.
As Cooper's friend and rival for the affection of Hopkins, March is also very funny, which comes as no surprise after his brilliant parody of John Barrymore in The Royal Family of Broadway (1930).Prepare to laugh yourself silly during what may be the funniest film ever made..
Of course, I bought promptly the aforementioned set.The picture tells the story of free-spirited Gilda Farrell, a young lady who works at a Parisian Advertising Agency, managed by that great seasoned pro, Edward Everett Horton, who by chance meets on board a train, struggling, penniless, artists George Curtis, a painter (Gary Cooper) and Thomas Chambers, a playwright (Fredric March), in which may be one of the most "risqué" plots of all the Pre-Code Era, dealing openly with the pros and cons of a mènage-a-trois.Miriam Hopkins portrays the deliciously mischievous Gilda, giving a top, tongue-in-cheek performance, looking absolutely beautiful and full of glow from within; it's really in her films directed by Lubitsch that her appeal shines at its most and she looks at her attractive-best.Fredric March is good too as the "more down-to-earth-but-nevertheless-madly-in-love" playwright, who lives with buddy Gary Cooper in a miserable tenement, until Miriam Hopkins comes in scene and to "the rescue".But the revelation, in my opinion, is Gary Cooper; after seeing him in many of his 1930s films, I feel that I like him best in the variety of roles he got to play in those years: a young idealist in "Peter Ibbetson", a sensitive soldier in "A Farewell to Arms", a sophisticated artist in this one, etc.
All due to the sensational chemistry between Gary Cooper, Fredric March, Miriam Hopkins and, of course, the unmistakable Lubitch touch.
It's fun to watch, thanks to the witty and sophisticated dialog of Noel Coward, the screenplay by Ben Hecht, and of course the masterful direction of Lubitsch.
A young Gary Cooper - talk about a dream walking.Noel Coward's "Design for Living" was a play Coward wrote for himself and Lunt and Fontanne to star in, concerning a woman, Gilda, who can't decide between two young men and best friends in love with her, Tom and George.
Given the Lubitsch touch, it's a delightful, sexy comedy with pretty Miriam Hopkins as the winsome Gilda, Fredric March as Tom, a playwright, and Gary Cooper as George, an artist.The three young, attractive actors under Lubitsch's direction really make the film and situation sing.March was never much for comedy, though he does an okay job.
This really is a great movie from 1933 and very ahead of its time.A young woman who is in love with two friends and is obviously sleeping with both of them must have shocked a more prudish audience back then i think it had been censored for a while.But never mind we can view it today knowing that there are a lot of gems like this one waiting to be rediscovered,its a shame that so many of the films made from this era are now lost.A modern audience wouldn't turn away from this film,as you don't expect a film from this era to be saucy and it is.Gary Cooper was a very nice actor and you can see why he was so popular back then,he had a very unusual style of being very masculine and at the same time very sensitive,he was great at picking the more complex roles,his characters weren't as one dimensional as most actors of this era.He was easily one of the most interesting actors of the 30s,this i would say was his best era in films.Unfortunately A Farewell To Arms is the only film you can buy in the UK from this era,i don't know why.Its sad that he is becoming a forgotten actor,i think we must have lost our imaginations a bit as we keep harbouring on with the John Waynes and the Cary Grants,and forget there were other classic actors around that don't deserve to be forgotten yet..
Chambers) and his painter friend Gary Cooper (as George Curtis) are interrupted while snoozing by attractive blonde Miriam Hopkins (as Gilda Farrell).
Since they all like each other, the three decide to live together, to "concentrate on work" and make "a gentlemen's agreement" to "forget sex." But, when March or Cooper leaves Hopkins alone with the other, abstinence becomes difficult.
Moreover, Hopkins reminds the men, "I am no gentleman." This Noel Coward play was dramatically altered, by writer Ben Hecht, for director Ernst Lubitsch and Paramount.
Though good, the film doesn't add up.***** Design for Living (12/29/33) Ernst Lubitsch ~ Fredric March, Gary Cooper, Miriam Hopkins, Edward Everett Horton.
'Tom' Chambers (Fredric March) and his best friend, the painter George Curtis (Gary Cooper) meet Gilda Farrell (Miriam Hopkins) and they fall in love with her.
098: Design for Living (1933) - released 12/29/1933, viewed 6/28/07.DOUG: We reach the end of 1933 at long last, and an excellent finish it is with a highly underrated comedy starring Miriam Hopkins, Gary Cooper, and Fredrich March.
The three leads, Hopkins, Cooper, and March, play characters that you would love to hang out with, people who are witty and cool, inspired, and love to trade quips and barbs with each other with complete honesty.
One of the most enjoyable movies of the year, or next year, or the entire decade I expect, is the hilarious and endlessly quotable Design for Living, directed by Ernst Lubitsch from a play by Noel Coward, starring Gary Cooper, Fredric March, and the always fantastic Miriam Hopkins.
the Lubitch masterpiece 'DESIGN FOR LIVING'I had never seen it, but I know that there is no coward only Hetch, but who cares?it is a wonderful film with wondrous performances and a classic in so many ways.Brian.
Fredric March turns in an adequate performance but Gary Cooper and Miriam Hopkins are embarrassingly bad, in my opinion.
This pre-code, 1930's, Screwball comedy (which was adapted from Noel Coward's stage play) was, for me, the absolute nadir of very-very-very tacky taste.This film was a perfect example of a two-faced Hollywood trying to be oh-so sophisticated, yet, at the same time, riding the fence when it came to such a daring bit of subject matter as whorish, promiscuous sex.What I'm talking about here is this - Even though the Gilda Farrell character was clearly nothing but a 3-timing slut, and a bigamist bitch, as well (who actually played 2 best friends against each other), this film's story went well out of its way to paint this despicable tramp (and her activities) as being so coy, so innocent, so cute, and yes, so dignified, to boot.But, if you ask me, I think this witch was absolutely contemptible (not cute) the way she rubbed the men's faces right into the dirt.
With a screenplay by Ben Hecht, direction from the great Ernst Lubitsch and impeccable performances from Fredric March, Gary Cooper, Miriam Hopkins and Edward Everett Horton "Design for Living" is a joy from start to finish.
Adapted from Noel Coward's play but fully rewritten by Ben Hecht, this was a hilarious tale of a menage-a-trios between Gary Cooper, Fredric March, and Mariam Hopkins, three Americans living in Paris.
Hopkins works for Edward Everett Horton who fancies her himself but rarely gets anywhere with her until...I'll stop there and just say that I loved every minute of it with those witty lines and occasional visual touches.
Lubitsch's adaptation of the Noel Coward play about a ménage à trois starring Gary Cooper, Fredric March and Miriam Hopkins.
I'd really like to read and/or see the original Coward play, but Lubitsch's version is undoubtedly a very good film..
Sometimes Noel Coward is great, and sometimes he's stinky-just like one of the leading men in the film Design for Living: Fredric March!
I'm so glad they didn't wait, because it's absolutely delightful and hilarious.In France-because where else would this movie take place?-Fredric March and Gary Cooper are friends and roommates.
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 risqué three-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.
Women Like Sex Too. An extremely racy pre-Code entry that stars Fredric March, Gary Cooper and Miriam Hopkins as one attractive menage-a-trois.The three play Americans living in France.
This is an odd um- comedy with Frederick March, Gary Cooper, and Miriam Hopkins.
March and Cooper play artist friends, writer and painter respectively, who meet Hopkins at the same time and find her abrasiveness cute.
Naturally, two years later she played Becky Sharp in 1935s VANITY FAIR, and she was perfectly cast for the hard edged heroine.I'm a fan of Cooper, March and Horton, but the only thing I liked about this one was Hopkin's wardrobe..
I found Fredric March and Miriam Hopkins very good in this movie,but Gary Cooper seemed rather out of place,overacting rather amateurishly.
What really surprised me about DESIGN FOR LIVING was that Gary Cooper has fun with his role as a Bohemian artist involved in a three-way affair with roommates Miriam Hopkins and Fredric March.
No surprise is that Miriam Hopkins is delightful as a free spirit who can't decide which man she loves most and that Fredric March is capable of switching to light comedy when the occasion demands it.But it's Gary Cooper who had my attention in the kind of role he so seldom played and in a performance that's anything but deadpan, which is what his later career in westerns demanded.
Under Ernst Lubitsch's direction, he allows himself to unbend and rid himself of any inhibitions, using facial expressions and body language that show he had a flair for comedy to match Hopkins and March.The menage a trois angle is played up in this watered down version of the original Noel Coward play, but Ben Hecht's racy dialogue is evident in this pre-code era.
Miriam Hopkins is perfect in the central role of the charming free spirited woman who falls in love with both men, but marries a stuffed shirt business man (Edward Everett Horton) when their relationship cools off.
It's an unusual "straight" role for Horton usually assigned to someone like Ralph Bellamy who always played unlucky suitors.Summing up: One of the most enjoyable pre-code romantic comedies from the '30s delivers wit and style and one of Gary Cooper's best early performances..
Barring that, I can't even say I felt the enjoyment of having spent the time it took to watch the movie, as I felt too much disappointment for what it lacked.By the way -- Of Course I appreciate Gary Cooper, Fredric March, Edward Everett Horton, and (lesser known to me, yet enjoyable enough) Miriam Hopkins.
So many people at their peaks produced this classic - Lubitsch, Hecht, March, Cooper, Hopkins, Horton and Paramount, getting it past the Hays Office just before its peak.
Personally I regard Lubitsch's Trouble In Paradise from the year before as one of the best films ever made, but this is certainly one of his best pieces of work too.Miriam Hopkins meets fellow Americans Gary Cooper and Frederic March on board a French train, and after an odd beginning their relationship develops into love.
On a train trip they share a compartment with Gilda (Miriam Hopkins), also an artist - but one who works for an advertising firm run by Max Plunkett (Edward Everett Horton).
Pretty good company, here: Ernst Lubitsch directing a Ben Hecht adaptation of a Noel Coward play starring Gary Cooper, Frederic March, Miriam Hopkins, and Edward Everett Horton.
Which is to say, the film IS a bit diagrammatic and stilted during the first act: two American bohemians in Paris (Cooper as -- get this -- a modernist painter, and March as an aspiring playwright) meet-cute with a fellow American art lover (Hopkins) on a train.
There's no doubt about what's going on in Design for Living, a delightful high comedy about a ménage a trois, written by Noel Coward as rewritten by Ben Hecht and directed by Max Lubitschand it's not hanky panky.
When two artists, the painter George Curtis (Gary Cooper) and the playwright Tom Chambers (Fredric March), encounter Gilda Farrell (Miriam Hopkins) on the train to Paris, their 11-year friendship is going to be intriguingly tested.
In the movie, however, this just becomes casual speculation, especially with Gary Cooper and Fredric March in the roles.
Design For Living is one work that definitely deserves another film version if for no other reason than to finally give the movie-going public what Noel Coward's vision in 1933 really was.
Tells you all you know about Horton's priorities and his business like approach to marriage.If Ernst Lubitsch had directed a faithful version of Design For Living with Noel Coward it probably would be a classic.
Of Noel Coward's two drawing room sex comedies filmed during the 1930's, "Design For Living" seems the more sordid on celluloid.
Painter Gary Cooper and playwright Fredric March are pals whose car is suddenly invaded (much to their delight) by commercial artist Miriam Hopkins.
And Hopkin's character is pretty much a...well, what do you call a woman who marries one man, has a relationship with a second man, and also marries a third man...all the time playing games with the affections of each.I know I'm in a minority here, and I usually like both Cooper and March, but this film is about as low class as a film can get...at least back in 1933.