There are 3 short clips at the start of this movie, set in 1900, 1920, and 1930, respectively, taking place in powder rooms where high society women gossip about Caroline Grannard, lead character, 'richest woman in the world', played by Ruth Chatterton; she is born, gets married, and lunching with writer Julian Tierney (George Brent). Interior decoration, dress, and even background music, are all period appropriate. While Warner Brothers probably had these sets and dresses and extras lying about from other movies, and whole thing cost very little, question that interest me is why all that for a simple exposition that would have taken two lines of dialogue in the movie proper? Did the director and producers wanted filler to pad up something so insubstantial that it cannot even stand on its own for 1 hour and 10 minutes? Seems so.
Plot here involve romantic and marital entanglements of rich society people, mainly on who the lead character really loves, her (soon ex) husband she 'mothers', or the writer who she keeps hanging without deciding (to the annoyance of a rather spoiled society girl (Bette Davis) who is in love with him). Nothing else, there is no higher purpose, no socio political commentary, no deep psychology, no insight into human nature and relationships, no simple enjoyable love story/villainy even. While there is no absolute requirement that movies should have some of that, absence do make them rather boring.
However, this is not boring, mainly because of the acting. Chatterton is so good that i want to see more of her movies. As others have noted, in this movie she has a way of repeating and even stammering some dialogue that is so naturalistic that i initially wondered whether they had run out of takes and used the least bad. But it happened frequently enough, and there were similar stuff with her gestures, that it was soon clear it was deliberate. She comes from a stage background, but when modern 'method actors' use similar techniques, you can spot them right away. Almost all the others were rather good too, though from a different style. Brent as usual underplays his part. Energetic Davis (3 years before her breakthrough role in 'On Human Bonadge') in that phase of career when Warner tried to make her blond, sexy, and glamorous (successfully in my opinion though she herself thought otherwise), found the right foil in Brent (with whom she was to star in quite a number of her best movies), as demonstrated by her scene with him in his apartment. John Miljan, who plays husband, and Adrienne Dore as his lover, were also good.
