This cruel and irresponsible story left me feeling saddened for all three of the very likeable leads - to their great credit, none later seemed proud of this film.
Probably not the writers either. The Hollywood morals police of the Production Code era (then in rabid full swing) were telling them this: if a divorce was to represent a happy outcome, there'd need to be a ridiculous amount of nastiness in the marriage to justify it. The Code caused the five illogicalities directly below.
Illogicality #1. That the several slight clues to the Kay Francis character being a monster would be adequate grounds for divorce by the (vague) ending of the movie. But the varying state divorce laws back then (no "fault-frees") were mostly very tough, and for a good reason. They were intentionally protective of the wife, who was unlikely to get a high paying job and likely to have to support any children alone with zero help from any welfare. This movie left it unlikely that any court would see the husband - the Cary Grant character - as the loser, even though there were no children (for reasons not explained, though the Kay Francis character did have a separate bedroom, hint-hint).
Illogicality #2. In real life, divorce does seem to have been acceptable and seen as possible and not to be frowned on by all three of the leads. All three were married multiple times (Carole Lombard twice, Kay Francis three times, Cary Grant five times, total 10 times) and all would have known that done fairly divorce in the US right then was not so impossible. In the movie there's mention of a divorce route via the Reno Nevada courts; one problem with a no-fault divorce in Reno (which saw hotels built for the purpose) is that there was a 6 week residency requirement. But divorces were also possible in Connecticut, where this story was set (just northwest of Yale) based most frequently on adultery or on separation. The Cary Grant character could easily have long paved the way to either of these grounds, long before he ever even knew the Carole Lombard character existed (the wannabee girlfriend did hint at a history of adultery).
Illogicality #3. That the Cary Grant character had any reason to be so shrill so much of the time (a first & last for him?!), unless of course the Kay Francis character was denying him sex and an heir (see #1 above). There had long been a quite simple way available for him to better his situation and lighten his mood: move into the cottage at the other end of the garden (instead of selling it, which in the movie led to him buying it back), thus paving the way to separation as grounds for divorce.
Illogicality #4. That the seeming scheming and cool-headed Kay Francis character (looking like a wife anyone would be proud of) would write such a weird and dangerous letter to her former boyfriend; or that the letter we saw on the screen would have driven him to suicide - the number of men out there alive or dead as jilted lovers and suicidal victims seems a tiny fraction of despondent women. Also that her character would say those incriminating words at the movie's end to anyone, let alone the Carole Lombard character, who would then have conveyed them instantly to the Cary Grant character (they were likely still not grounds for divorce though).
Illogicality #5. That the fairly laid-back Carole Lombard character would fall for such frantic courting by someone with obvious anger issues and zero interest in his day-job. Or that she would not ever have qualms over the Kay Francis character being cast off despite the multiple blunt warnings of her risking ostracization. Or that she would not fear ending up as Divorce Victim #2 not so many years down the road. Or that she could have no objection to some of the cruel things spoken right in front of her small daughter.
Meanwhile, in their real lives, the very likeable three were all of them "abstaining" from the Code's very prudish, strong-arming path! See the three back-stories directly below.
Backstory #1. Via things they had in common with the fine "Thin Man" actor, William Powell, Carole Lombard and Kay Francis were close friends. Carole Lombard had been married to Powell (they separated amicable; she then married Clark Gable) and Kay Francis had done six successful movies with Powell. Lombard is presumed to have done this against-type movie to give her a shot at an Oscar; this was the only time she ever tried that one.
Backstory #2. Kay Francis was the highest paid of all actresses in the first half of the 1930s - Carole Lombard, Deanna Durbin and several others later followed suit as the new wave of high earners. The "box office poison" story which made a victim of Kay Francis had an extremely nasty origin. The independent theater owners were being hit with a financial double whammy - studios owning their own theaters; and the Great Depression. So the independent owners got behind an ad intended to ruin the negotiating powers of most of the top-paid stars with the intent of making movies cheaper for them to rent. Thus Kay Francis lost her contract - and this led directly to Carole Lombard enticing her to be in this movie.
Backstory #3. There are shades of Cary Grant's own life in this movie. Several of his own marriages ended rather nastily with bitter accusations by the wives. He may have been damaged in childhood. At a very early age, in Bristol UK, a brother had died, and his mother blamed herself and micro-managed Cary Grant's own childhood from then on. His father, seemingly an alcoholic, subsequentialy put the mother away in an asylum, and married again, telling Cary that his mother was dead. Years later, Cary found that his mother was still alive, and he managed to get her released and give her some peaceful final years. Cary Grant was still on the way up at the time of this movie. Appearing with two of Hollywood's biggest-name actresses might have been hard to pass up. But I for one wish he had. Let sleeping dogs lie. Move on.
Probably not the writers either. The Hollywood morals police of the Production Code era (then in rabid full swing) were telling them this: if a divorce was to represent a happy outcome, there'd need to be a ridiculous amount of nastiness in the marriage to justify it. The Code caused the five illogicalities directly below.
Illogicality #1. That the several slight clues to the Kay Francis character being a monster would be adequate grounds for divorce by the (vague) ending of the movie. But the varying state divorce laws back then (no "fault-frees") were mostly very tough, and for a good reason. They were intentionally protective of the wife, who was unlikely to get a high paying job and likely to have to support any children alone with zero help from any welfare. This movie left it unlikely that any court would see the husband - the Cary Grant character - as the loser, even though there were no children (for reasons not explained, though the Kay Francis character did have a separate bedroom, hint-hint).
Illogicality #2. In real life, divorce does seem to have been acceptable and seen as possible and not to be frowned on by all three of the leads. All three were married multiple times (Carole Lombard twice, Kay Francis three times, Cary Grant five times, total 10 times) and all would have known that done fairly divorce in the US right then was not so impossible. In the movie there's mention of a divorce route via the Reno Nevada courts; one problem with a no-fault divorce in Reno (which saw hotels built for the purpose) is that there was a 6 week residency requirement. But divorces were also possible in Connecticut, where this story was set (just northwest of Yale) based most frequently on adultery or on separation. The Cary Grant character could easily have long paved the way to either of these grounds, long before he ever even knew the Carole Lombard character existed (the wannabee girlfriend did hint at a history of adultery).
Illogicality #3. That the Cary Grant character had any reason to be so shrill so much of the time (a first & last for him?!), unless of course the Kay Francis character was denying him sex and an heir (see #1 above). There had long been a quite simple way available for him to better his situation and lighten his mood: move into the cottage at the other end of the garden (instead of selling it, which in the movie led to him buying it back), thus paving the way to separation as grounds for divorce.
Illogicality #4. That the seeming scheming and cool-headed Kay Francis character (looking like a wife anyone would be proud of) would write such a weird and dangerous letter to her former boyfriend; or that the letter we saw on the screen would have driven him to suicide - the number of men out there alive or dead as jilted lovers and suicidal victims seems a tiny fraction of despondent women. Also that her character would say those incriminating words at the movie's end to anyone, let alone the Carole Lombard character, who would then have conveyed them instantly to the Cary Grant character (they were likely still not grounds for divorce though).
Illogicality #5. That the fairly laid-back Carole Lombard character would fall for such frantic courting by someone with obvious anger issues and zero interest in his day-job. Or that she would not ever have qualms over the Kay Francis character being cast off despite the multiple blunt warnings of her risking ostracization. Or that she would not fear ending up as Divorce Victim #2 not so many years down the road. Or that she could have no objection to some of the cruel things spoken right in front of her small daughter.
Meanwhile, in their real lives, the very likeable three were all of them "abstaining" from the Code's very prudish, strong-arming path! See the three back-stories directly below.
Backstory #1. Via things they had in common with the fine "Thin Man" actor, William Powell, Carole Lombard and Kay Francis were close friends. Carole Lombard had been married to Powell (they separated amicable; she then married Clark Gable) and Kay Francis had done six successful movies with Powell. Lombard is presumed to have done this against-type movie to give her a shot at an Oscar; this was the only time she ever tried that one.
Backstory #2. Kay Francis was the highest paid of all actresses in the first half of the 1930s - Carole Lombard, Deanna Durbin and several others later followed suit as the new wave of high earners. The "box office poison" story which made a victim of Kay Francis had an extremely nasty origin. The independent theater owners were being hit with a financial double whammy - studios owning their own theaters; and the Great Depression. So the independent owners got behind an ad intended to ruin the negotiating powers of most of the top-paid stars with the intent of making movies cheaper for them to rent. Thus Kay Francis lost her contract - and this led directly to Carole Lombard enticing her to be in this movie.
Backstory #3. There are shades of Cary Grant's own life in this movie. Several of his own marriages ended rather nastily with bitter accusations by the wives. He may have been damaged in childhood. At a very early age, in Bristol UK, a brother had died, and his mother blamed herself and micro-managed Cary Grant's own childhood from then on. His father, seemingly an alcoholic, subsequentialy put the mother away in an asylum, and married again, telling Cary that his mother was dead. Years later, Cary found that his mother was still alive, and he managed to get her released and give her some peaceful final years. Cary Grant was still on the way up at the time of this movie. Appearing with two of Hollywood's biggest-name actresses might have been hard to pass up. But I for one wish he had. Let sleeping dogs lie. Move on.
