Montecarlo

Act One: Marlene Dietrich and Vittorio De Sica have lost their sizable fortunes and more in the Casino. Now they are adventurers, putting up a front and looking for a rich spouse. They find each other, fall in love, and discover they are both broke.

Act Two: Retired American rich man Arthur O'Connell and daughter Natalie Trundy sail into the harbor on their new-bought three-masted ship. They set their caps at Miss Dietrich and De Sica.

Writer-director Samuel Taylor has written himself a problem play: how to make these four unlikable types appealing to the audience. The Europeans are selfish and lazy. The Americans are brash and boorish. What saves all of them in the audience's eye is their ultimate honesty and Giusepppi Rotunno's dazzling views of the harbor.. But it's a close thing. With Jane Rose, Mischa Auer, and Carlo Rizzo.

All the ingredients are here: glorious Technirama, Cote d'Azur setting and two charismatic leads. What on earth has gone awry?

The screenplay is by Samuel A. Taylor, an accomplished Broadway playwright who adapted his 'Sabrina Fair' and 'Avanti' for film as well as contributing to the screenplay for 'Vertigo'. Unfortunately he cannot direct. The film has neither sparkle nor momentum and there is some decidedly dodgy dubbing. There are admittedly a few good scenes and the production values are great but the film disappoints. The anticipated chemistry between Marlene Dietrich and Vittorio de Sica as two inveterate gamblers down on their luck is alas, lacking. De Sica is immaculate but Dietrich somehow misfires.

What a pity that neither Dino Risi, who wrote the original story nor Billy Wilder who brought Taylor's 'Sabrina Fair' and 'Avanti' to the screen were not on hand to work their particular magic. Ironically Wilder was to direct Dietrich's next film 'Witness for the Prosecution'.

One of the best lines in the film goes to de Sica who says that the gambler's most precious commodity is 'Hope'. A sentiment that might easily apply to actors! This superlative actor/director was known to be frequently short of funds because of his addictive gambling. He must have felt very much at home here!

It's hard to imagine Dino Risi, a distinguished Italian director and writer being involved in this silly little comedy. "Montecarlo" was a product of the late 1950s era where it was inexpensive to shoot a film in Europe for little money. All that was required was a fabulous backdrop in which to set the action. Sam Taylor, its director, didn't bring anything new to the genre.

An icy Marlene Dietrich plays a woman with a lot of class, but no money to satisfy her taste for the best things in life. She is dazzled by Count Della Fiabe, who is also trying to recuperate his debts at the gambling tables of the famous casino. In order for him to attract the woman, who he thinks is his meal ticket, the poor Italian noble man enlist the help of the same people he owes money to.

The best thing comes toward the end when Marlene Dietrich sings "Back Home in Indiana" in a seedy bistro for the enjoyment of Homer Hinckley, who she feels will be the man to make her rich. All this takes place in the glorious French Riviera in all its splendor.

Vittorio DeSica, a marvelous actor/director, does what he can with a role that didn't have much for him. Marlene Dietrich is dressed to the nines by Jean Louis that showed her elegant figure well. Arthur O'Connell, a good character actor is the millionaire from Indiana. Jane Rose also appears in a small role.

Why on earth Marlene Dietrich got involved in this nonsense is beyond me. She must have been short of cash to have even considered appearing in this load of tosh.

The plot, such as it is, is thin involving a group of 'society gamblers' in Monte Carlo. Marlene wears some great clothes and generally glitters in contrast to de Sica who appears as dim as a Toc H lamp!

The one bright spot in this whole sorry saga is Marlene's rendition of "Back Home Again In Indiana" Not that she had any connection with the state, I bet Marlene wished she was back in Indiana!

This, along with her appearance in the 1944 version of "Kismit" just has to be Dietrich's darkest hour (or two) !

The whole film lacks sparkle and pace. Dietrich and De Sica look elegantly frozen in time as they mouth a dialogue stuffed full of half-baked innuendos. There is absolutely no chemistry between them at all. Dietrich looks as though she had been on a starvation diet and wiggles her way across the screen in some extremely tight dresses without the slightest hint of sex appeal. Even when the film was made it must have seemed old-fashioned. Now it looks as though dinosaurs still roamed the land. Just about watchable for the locations and as a curiosity for Dietrich fans. Technically, the film is interesting as being one of the first to use the Technirama process, which rivalled Cinemascope but used a larger frame size, so the picture is much clearer. Whether this benefited the actors is debatable but the scenery is pretty good. The whole film is available on YouTube but of course the quality is nothing like the original.