Next Time We Love

By the time her fifth film was ready to be launched Margaret Sullavan had achieved a position of some clout with her original studio Universal Pictures. She used that clout to get as her leading man, a young player she knew from Broadway as the best friend of her then husband Henry Fonda. Sullavan got Carl Laemmle to get Louis B. Mayer to loan him James Stewart and from Paramount as the second lead she got Ray Milland.

But Stewart was her project and she more than director Edward Griffith got him through Next Time We Love to favorable notices. This was Stewart's highest billing yet, co-starring to Margaret Sullavan and he made the most of it. They did three more films together and in only one of them did either Sullavan or Stewart not die in. They were the king and queen of bittersweet romances back in the day.

Sullavan is highly successful stage star and Stewart is a reporter with ambitions to be an international correspondent. Sullavan might have been better off marrying Ray Milland who is a producer, but something about the shy and stammering Jimmy wins her heart and that would be the first in a long line of female hearts on the screen to feel that way.

Of course being an international correspondent does keep Stewart away a lot and Margaret does not want to give up a successful stage career that's just getting started. Even with the arrival of a baby boy the problems only increase until a really heavy crisis comes on that overwhelms all.

Next Time We Love is an intelligent mature drama that holds up well and I'm surprised has not been remade. I could see a Cate Blanchett or a Gwyneth Paltrow in Sullavan's role with possibly Matthew McConaughey in the Stewart part in a remake today. Somebody in Hollywood take note.

This is a very progressive film with themes way ahead of the times even for today. What does that mean? Usually when someone calls a film "progressive" it means it's hypersexed, banned by the Pope or has gratuitous shots of belly buttons. Right, well, none of that. NEXT TIME WE LOVE is progressive because it delves into interpersonal issues that simply "didn't exist" in the golden age of Hollywood.

A wife who chooses career over family? Preposterous. A husband/father who neglects the upbringing of his child? Outrageous. A marriage that is mutually tolerant of infidelity? Sacrilegious. Hollywood has historically depicted the marriage ceremony as the proverbial "happily ever after"; yet in this film we get a sober and realistic view of how life really works.

There are no dramatic fireworks, no cartoonish liaisons, no screaming or breaking things like we might get in a modern film dealing with this subject. Instead, it's extremely subtle and believable. There's not much flashy plot to sink your MTV-starved mind into, but if instead you like to digest your films slowly and comprehend the meaning behind every gesture--the tension in Margaret Sullivan's spine, the repressed torment in Jimmy Stewart's posture, the way a cigarette can be worth a thousand words when lit at the perfect moment--then this film is for you.

One thing worth mentioning... this is one of the few films that handles the aging of characters in a credible manner. Margaret goes from a giddy schoolgirl to a mature woman of the world. Jimmy goes from a brash adventurer to a pensive introvert. The makeup, hairstyles, clothes and especially the way the actors carry themselves convey the passage of time as the film progresses over a decade (perhaps mirroring the awakening of a nation from the roaring 20s to the tougher times that followed). The climactic hotel meeting near the end of the film presents two completely different personalities from what we originally met; you could almost believe that it was played by two new actors, but no, we owe it all to the fantastic acting & direction of this film.

Jimmy Stewart's first big role. This is not a romance we are used to with a happily ever after ending. Not even close. Maybe that would make it interesting and worthwhile but meh, I'm not all that impressed with this. You can see the immense talent in the young 27 year old Jimmy but he is still very much coming into his own here. Not the best vehicle for him considering I would never guess his character to be a man under at least 30. Quite a mature role for such a youngster to Hollywood. Still an okay, quick film that isn't his best but is from such a great era that it's hard to say it's bad!

5.7 / 10 stars

--Zoooma, a Kat Pirate Screener

In New York, the rookie newsman Christopher "Chris" Tyler (James Stewart) dreams on becoming a famous journalist. When his girlfriend Cicely (Margaret Sullavan) spends a couple of days with him, they decide to get married and Cicely leaves college. Chris's best friend Tommy Abbott (Raymond Milland) is his best man and becomes a family's friend. Chris has his great chance when his editor Frank Carteret (Robert McWade) sends him to Rome assigned as a foreign correspondent. Cicely stays in New York with Tommy and does not tell to Chris that she is pregnant. When she delivers the baby Kit, Chris celebrates and loses a big scoop and his boss fires him. Chris falls in disgrace and the couple has economic difficulties; however Tommy lends money to Cicely and offers an opportunity on the stage as an actress. Cicely is hired and becomes successful and Chris is depressed with the situation. Cicely seeks out Frank Carteret and explains the situation, and he offers a job opportunity to Chris in Russia. He accepts the job but Cicely stays in New York with their son. Along the years, their marriage ends with the distance, but they are still in love with each other.

"Next Time We Love" is a romantic melodrama ahead of time with a mature story of career conflict with marriage, causing separation, reconciliation and infidelity of the two leads. This theme is impressive for a 1936 movie, where usually the woman is submissive and dependable of man's possessions. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Amemos Outra Vez" ("We Love Again")

This is a very early Stewart film that really gave him his first big break with a leading role. Sixth billed in "Murder Man" and fifth billed in "Rose Marie", he was barely visible in his first two features at MGM. On loan to Universal, here he was teamed with Margaret Sullivan, and together they play a couple that marries on impulse and then begin pursuing their own individual careers - she is an actress, he is a journalist. Conflict develops when her career takes off and his does not. This film is very typical of those melodramas that were so common in the 1930's, but it is still interesting to see what Stewart does with this early role in his career. Stewart and Sullivan have a better chance to show off their chemistry in 1938's "Shopworn Angel", still it is a good look at a film made right before the Laemmle's lost Universal to creditors. I'd recommend it mainly for the performances.