Illicit

Am somebody that doesn't mind in any way melodrama, and there are many great ones from the classic film era (name from the 40s and 50s), as long as the film in question is done well. The story sounded really good on paper, even if it is melodramatic personified, and have always loved Barbars Stanwyck as an actress. When it came to melodrama during the "classic film" era, she was one of the greats when it came to actresses, Joan Crawford was another good example.

'Illicit', a very early film for Stanwyck, has been inevitably compared to its "remake" made two years later 'Ex-Lady'. It is not very often where there has been personal preferences for remakes over their originals (David Cronenberg's 'The Fly', from personal opinion, is one of the finest examples of preferring the remake over the original), but to me 'Ex-Lady' is the better film. Found it to be wittier, more daring, that it didn't take itself as seriously and that it has held up better. Am not saying by any stretch that 'Illicit' is a bad film, it isn't and it is definitely worth a look if only once perhaps but that is dependent on one's taste. It is namely to be seen if you want to see Stanwyck in an early role pre-stardom and if you want to see every film of hers in existence.

There are good things here. It is nicely photographed and the period detail in all senses is truly opulent. Absolutely love Stanwyck's clothes and she looks great in them. There are some amusing and moving moments.

Most of my mixed feelings rating though is for the acting, which, excepting a bland and quite stiff James Rennie in a nothing role, is very good. Stanwyck is wonderful with all the things that made her a great actress at her peak emerging here and the main reason to see 'Illicit' (will confess to having to give it less than a 5 if she wasn't as good as she was). Charles Butterworth is the other standout and is an amusing presence, and Joan Blondell is always worth watching. Ricardo Cortez is fine too.

Unfortunately, 'Illicit' comes over as very creaky and stage bound today. Or at least that's my perspective. The pace can be quite dreary and the drama that the quite thin story has feels too much of a very over-heated (a danger with melodrama) filmed play. 'Illicit' has more of a serious tone compared to 'Ex-Lady', so serious that it comes over as a little too glum in places. The sound is quite primitive and has an awkward flow at times.

Did find 'Ex-Lady' (really sorry for the comparison) to be better scripted, just preferred the wittier tone and the tauter pace of it and also found it more daring as said. Anything that may have shocked in 'Illicit' back then is reasonably tame now, whereas you could see much better how 'Ex-Lady' was ahead of its time. Although the acting is good, as said Rennie fails to make much of an impression and a large part of it is down to that his character is very sketchy.

All in all, worth a look but a bit of an oddity. 5/10

Prohibition; scorned women, that was the early 30's. This was before the "decency" rules came into effect. Avant garde is the only way to describe this. Dated, yes. But very descriptive of the times. Only Stanwyck could do this well. Her strength and sensitivity are evident in every frame. This is a history lesson of the times and traditions that existed way back when!

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.

This movie creaks with age, but is memorable for being Barbara Stanwyck's first movie as a star. Miss Stanwyck gives an excellent performance, as always, but the supporting cast, particularly Charles Butterworth, steals the show as an amiable drunk whose bark is worse than his bite.

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.