La fin de Madame Cheyney

There is a lot of criticism, mostly negative, on this board about this film, which I can't understand. I have never seen the original film version with Norma Shearer, but it appears not to be bowdlerized like this one. But bowdlerized or not, this is a very good film.

It has a first rate cast led by Crawford (who was capable of comedy but opted for dramatic intense roles like Mildred Pierce). As the role calls for her to be compromised by her actions (she has masqueraded as a socialite to be accepted by the jaded aristocrats in order to pull off a jewel robbery) the role is not a slap happy funny part like say Rosalind Russell's Hildy Johnson, but a tonier style of sophisticated comedy. As such it is perfectly fitted to Crawford's screen persona.

As for the jaded aristocrats: Frank Morgan may not do a British accent at all, but his fumbling is pretty good here - he is the richest man in England, and could give an intelligent talk on industrial output or tariffs, but cannot open up his heart to Crawford; Nigel Bruce is another nobleman, who has a randy set of eyes for pretty ladies, and cannot see his wife (Benita Hume) is far too close to her "cousin" (Ralph Forbes). The splendid Jessie Ralph is an aging dowager who befriends Crawford (it is her pearl necklace that Crawford is seeking to steal). She is a lively and likable old lady, and one with a scandalous past (as we eventually learn). But if none of the aristocrats are spotless in character (except possibly the boring Morgan), the other members of the gang are not wonderful. Melville Cooper (pretending to be Crawford's chauffeur) is constantly ready to whip out his handy knife and cut the throat of anyone he thinks is double crossing them.

But the most interesting thing about the casting were the two leading men: Robert Montgomery and William Powell. The two most sophisticated and suave leading men of the golden age of movies only appeared in this one film together. They share only four scenes, but it is remarkable about how smooth the scenes are - like a perfect set of volleyball games with no shots and counter shots missed by either party (and when Crawford joins them she is equally smooth in responding to both her leading men). She had made other films with Montgomery but there were no others after this one. As for Powell, this was there only film together. As such it should be seen for the bright chemistry between the three leads alone, but it is a good comedy on its own.

What a wonderful cast. Some of the best Thespians of the 1930's or any decade for that matter. William Powell, Robert Montgomery, Joan Crawford, Nigel Bruce, Frank Morgan, Jessie Ralph, Melville Cooper, to name the main ones. Then what went wrong? The answer is in the weak script and ho-hum direction. Based on a play, the movie is stagy, much too talky. There is little wit nor many clever lines in the wordy script. So all the viewer has left is a bunch of good actors talking themselves to death and putting the audience to sleep in the process. The script is also predictable.

The plot is actually a good one. The charming and mysterious Mrs. Cheyney woos rich eligible bachelors and one not so eligible to gain their confidence so she and her accomplices can fleece them. Unfortunately Mrs. Cheyney falls for one of the eligible bachelors. Will she go through with the fleece? The answer lies in the last half of the film. Since Hollywood today is remaking so many movie classics that don't really need remaking, why not remake some of the movies such as this one that could use a good make over?

As noted by critics there is a degree of miscasting involved as well. Joan Crawford just does not fit as an adventurer passing herself off as a social big-wig in England. William Power would have played Robert Montgomery's role better than the role assigned him. Robert Montgomery on the other hand is well suited for his role as is Nigel Bruce and the rest of the cast.

Even if you are a fan of the stars of this fluff and an admirer of 1930's Hollywood cinema, you may still find this movie slow moving and hoping that this is truly the last of Mrs. Cheyney.

I appreciate all the pro and con reviews from the knowledgeable and literate film buffs. However, I want to address the reviewers who stated that the film was a financial flop.

This film cost $741,000 to produce and it made $1,800,000, which was a sizable profit back in 1937.

Many earlier reviewers have said the Crawford was "mis-cast" as Mrs. Cheyney. I have to disagree. It is not her best performance (for her best acting, see her small but scene-stealing role in The Women and for a Crawford feast, see her Oscar-winning turn in Mildred Pierce), but it is far from her worst. The blame cannot be entirely placed on Crawford either. Nor can it be placed on the director. It must be placed on the production code administrators who sheared Hollywood scripts after 1934, cutting out anything considered "risqué." The original play by Fredric Lonsdale is a surprisingly hilarious and fresh send-up of the class sytem in England. Butler and footmen who are actually thieves in disguise get to act veddy propper and then (when the guests leave) get to drop their phony apparel. Its really quite funny. In the play, when Crawford's would-be suitor catches her at robbery, he forces her to spend a night in the closet with him. This was wonderfully handled in the 1929 Norma Shearer original of this picture. But the production code said that thieves had to always be punished, and sexual actions could not be forced or blackmailed. Thus, this is an extremely bowdlerized version of the play. It is interesting to watch the stars interplay, and I'm a bit surprised that it flopped so largely in 1937. Seeing some of the junk that goes over big nowadays, one would think that with a cast like this and high production values, it would have at least made its mark. See the Norma Shearer version, if you can find it. Unfortunately, its very rare (there is a laser disc version of it on The Dawn of Sound Volume III), but totally worth it. It is risqué and hilarious. Or see Trouble In Paradise, another early pre-Code comedy about jewel thieves, who in that film, don't have to face punishment for their actions.

Joan Crawford plays the title character. She's a jewel thief and partner of William Powell. She cons her way into a rich society family and romances Robert Montgomery. But then she grows to like the people she's supposed to be stealing from so she has a crisis of conscience. With a cast like this (Crawford, Powell, Montgomery, Frank Morgan, Nigel Bruce), there really is no reason this shouldn't have worked. But it doesn't. It's a little stagey and dry. Powell is not in it enough. When he is on screen, the script doesn't give him a chance to shine. As a matter of fact, it seemed to me like he didn't even want to be there playing second fiddle to Robert Montgomery. Can't say that I blamed him, if that's the case. I like Montgomery alright in certain roles but these movies he did with Joan were not among them. See it for the cast but don't get your hopes up.