Illicit

The naming of this film must have been just to attract Depression era audiences, because there is nothing really illicit about it. However, it is a very modern look at romance and marriage considering it was made in 1931. Barbara Stanwyck plays Anne Vincent, a modern woman who is afraid that her relationship with boyfriend Richard Ives will be changed by marriage. She bases her beliefs on watching her own parents and her friends. In her parents' case she says that she knows they loved each other, but divorced anyways, and she is sure that separation from one another is what killed them. However, social pressures prevail and the two do get married.

Anne's fears become realized as Richard seems to only be interested in going out when it involves other people, not just Anne. She sees him out with another woman one night when he is supposed to be working, and she decides what the two need is a trial separation from one another - to become individuals again. Throw Ricardo Cortez into the mix as someone who wants Anne's marriage to not work out, and you have the makings of an above average potboiler from the precode era.

This film is mainly interesting because of Stanwyck. Without her abilities this would be a pretty forgettable film. And those fashions! With all of the ermine and feathers, this film has Barbara Stanwyck venturing into Kay Francis territory. Also lending good support is Charles Butterworth as the seldom sober friend to the young couple, and the always wonderful Joan Blondell as Anne's close friend.

it is the man in a so-called "illicit" relationship who longs to get married and avoid a reputation, while Ann, played by Barbara Stanwyck holds out. She doesn't have much faith in marriage. But she is eventually convinced, in part by her lover's father. Will she be happy, or proved right, that is the question of the film.

Barbara looks lovely in this film, with darker hair (even though tight satin gowns are very unforgiving). She plays a modern woman, and does so with charm, instead of stridency. As newlyweds, they are blissfully happy, with plenty of money, travels and a beautiful townhouse in Manhattan. But hubby (James Rennie, who was married to Dorothy Gish for a while) is still a bit of a stiff....he complains when Ann turns on the music after a dinner out. She wants to go dancing, he whines about the late hour. Besides he might be catching a cold. Boo hoo. Yet when his friends call up, suddenly he is raring to go. And Ann knows why-he is still carrying a torch for a former girlfriend.

Joan Blondell is smart and chic in a small role.

(One of the most unrealistic lines is when Ann tells her husband she is going to move back to her old place for a while, tonight, right away. Try that in NYC...)

First time Stanwwyck captivated me. Attractive, cute, sensitive, intelligent. A master performance raising an overall OK movie to a different level. I fell in love with her character as an actress and as a young woman. Ann is a beautiful young lady full of sensitivity, common sense and intelligence. The movie reveals a conflict of feelings between two people triggered by their love toward each other. You would say it shows two characters with a behavior ahead of its time, but scratching the surface of the "mores" of the time, it really portraits a common conflict of love, in which the characters act in a mostly mature and civilized manner -I would add she way more mature than him, and this kind of acting does not have anything to do with the "mores" of the times. Quite the opposite,human beings have behaved maturely through history regardless of the prevailing social norms. Finally I would like to add that now I understand how Barbara Stanwick gained her reputation as a remarkable actress during her youth.

The best part of this rather boring gabfest is getting to see ladies high-fashion outfits, circa 1930. Some of them are real doozies. Stanwyck gets more than her share of slinky finery as a rich guy's paramour. Actually, the movie's premise is a significant one—does marriage somehow kill love? Anne (Stanwyck) seems to think so and sometimes acts on the premise. The trouble is that the premise gets drowned out by all the talk from one scene to the next, without let-up. Then too, director Mayo adds nothing to what turns out to be a filmed stage play. To be charitable, his options may have been cramped by the newness of movie sound equipment.

Pre-Code liberties are evident in the first few scenes where Anne, in a clinging negligee, and Dick (Rennie) discuss whether to marry or to continue living in sin. After that, the screenplay settles into more conventional marital mix-ups. But at least Stanwyck shines, showing why she was slated for bigger and better things. In fact, she's almost girlish, a really long way from the femme fatale of Double Indemnity (1944). Too bad she doesn't have more scenes with that other Warner's personality girl, Joan Blondell (Duckie). Anyway, I found the movie considerably less than I expected.

In 1931, Stanwyck was still a young girl, with her LONG hair, child-like innocent manner, and round kid face. As Anne Vincent, she wants to stay single and happy, while her beau Dick (James Rennie) wants to get married. Along for fun is Charles Butterworth as George, Dick's sidekick. He tells the couple that they have been discovered, and totters off, for more drinks... Ricardo Cortez is also here as the ex-boyfriend Baines to stir things up; Stanwyck and Cortez had worked together on three films together in the 1930s. Look for a 25 year old Joan Blondell as Helen Childers, Anne's friend, in one of her early roles. Will things stay the same if they get married? That's the big question. Kind of a statement of the times, and even more so in a couple years when the production code will keep everything on the up and up, even when they aren't. This was Darryl Zanuck's 12th film as producer. Towards the middle of the version shown on Turner Classics, there are scratches or wear marks on the right side of the screen, not surprising for such an old film. Interesting to watch, but no big surprises.