Many reviewers of "The Scoundrel" to date seem to be somewhat enamored just of Noel Coward's presence in this film as Anthony Mallare. His cynical, acerbic movie character seemed to emulate the real Coward. Those ratings are mostly very high. But, one ought to critique a film on all aspects - the plot and the story, the cast and their performances, the screenplay and script, the direction and editing, the sets and filming, and related technical aspects. On that basis - the sum of all of these, this film is not that good.
The film was written by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur who collaborated on a handful of plays and films. They also co-directed this film. It's a drama, morality play, and a fantasy that becomes apparent only in the last third of the film. The scenes of Mallare's redemption are conflicting. Repentance is missing and sorrow by someone else as a means of a good eternal judgment is a novel idea but not very believable. The movie won an Academy Award for most original story. None of the four films nominated that year are memorable but the others had fair to good box office sales. The Hollywood voters would have known the writers, and some probably saw the film. But it's Oscar win may have surprised many movie audiences who would not have seen the film or even heard of it.
Most of the story's characters were supposedly based on real people in the publishing and writing fields. Considering that fact, and the cast that was assembled for this film, and its being made in 1935, it's not very likely that many movie audiences would be familiar with the actors or the real people their characters were based on. Indeed, contrary to a couple of previous reviewers who inferred the success of this film, it must have flopped. This film isn't mentioned in any of the Hollywood and movie books in my library. I couldn't find any box office info on it, even though it won an Oscar and was distributed by Paramount, a major studio of the day. It doesn't appear at all in the Ultimate Movie Rankings list of 195 films from 1935. So, it must have bombed at the box office.
The movie was shot in a New York studio - a carryover from the silent film era when New York was the first mecca of movie-making. The only print or online historical reference I could find was a TV Guide article that said the film "was a favorite of sophisticates, pseudo-sophisticates, and anyone who could recognize the real-life people upon whom the screenplay was based." Well, that assessment pretty much reduces the likely film audiences. And, since this was smack dab in the middle of the Great Depression, it's hard to imagine a mostly grotesque downer movie such as this having much public appeal
There's just too much else that's not good about this film. The first thing that struck me was how stagy it is. The sets look like stage scenery. The screenplay is heavily dialog with no action or movement. And, the characters overall are mostly stilted and wooden. Coward, himself, is the most obvious - the worst at this. With the exception of Cora Moore (Julie Haydon) - but just some of the time, all of the cast utter their lines expressionless and emotionless. Any middle school class of students could read the lines of this play as well as this cast delivers them. That isn't acting - its sitting for a bland monologue reading.
Although Coward was a very diversified and talented artist, he is most known and will be forever renowned for the great body of his screenplays. He was not much of a screen actor, and certainly not a leading man. This was just the second of 19 films he made, and first of just two leading roles. Only two more of this cast are actors that movie audiences even in 1935 would have recognized. They are Eduardo Ciannelli as Maurice Stern and Lionel Stander as Rothenstien.
The other technical aspects were rudimentary to poor. The camera work is second rate. Oh, there is the tricky over-imposing of scenes for the effect of Tony's death at sea, but even that seemed crude. Mallare's office setting seems almost grotesque. And the music is awful in places.
Where the title and references to Anthony Mallare are of a scoundrel, it would be much more accurate to label him and the film, a lecher. He is a lecherous, cold-hearted, self-centered, egotistical cad. But his long cynical and ego-centric lines of dialog soon wear very thin and become grating. The script quickly takes on an aura of nihilism. There's too much that's weak about this drama. The witticism of the writers in the script is lost or drowned out by tedious cynicism and sarcasm. And the narcissistic pale of the play takes its toll in eliminating anything to enjoy about this film. The redemption at the end is conflicting and doesn't work to salvage the film.
Here are some sample lines from the film.
Cora Moore, "Why did you lie to her? It's painful to be lied to." Anthony Mallare, "My dear, women shoot you or drag you into court if you refuse to lie to them and pretend that you still love them."
Cora Moore, "You look so evil with a glass in your hand."
Anthony Mallare, "Would you say, my dear, that Mr. Decker was madly in love with you?" (Cora nods her head.) Mallare, "That settles it. I'm not. I never will be. The most I can offer you is one month's diversion and six months of farewell."
Anthony Mallare, "I don't approve of child labor as a rule, but so much depends on the child."
The film was written by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur who collaborated on a handful of plays and films. They also co-directed this film. It's a drama, morality play, and a fantasy that becomes apparent only in the last third of the film. The scenes of Mallare's redemption are conflicting. Repentance is missing and sorrow by someone else as a means of a good eternal judgment is a novel idea but not very believable. The movie won an Academy Award for most original story. None of the four films nominated that year are memorable but the others had fair to good box office sales. The Hollywood voters would have known the writers, and some probably saw the film. But it's Oscar win may have surprised many movie audiences who would not have seen the film or even heard of it.
Most of the story's characters were supposedly based on real people in the publishing and writing fields. Considering that fact, and the cast that was assembled for this film, and its being made in 1935, it's not very likely that many movie audiences would be familiar with the actors or the real people their characters were based on. Indeed, contrary to a couple of previous reviewers who inferred the success of this film, it must have flopped. This film isn't mentioned in any of the Hollywood and movie books in my library. I couldn't find any box office info on it, even though it won an Oscar and was distributed by Paramount, a major studio of the day. It doesn't appear at all in the Ultimate Movie Rankings list of 195 films from 1935. So, it must have bombed at the box office.
The movie was shot in a New York studio - a carryover from the silent film era when New York was the first mecca of movie-making. The only print or online historical reference I could find was a TV Guide article that said the film "was a favorite of sophisticates, pseudo-sophisticates, and anyone who could recognize the real-life people upon whom the screenplay was based." Well, that assessment pretty much reduces the likely film audiences. And, since this was smack dab in the middle of the Great Depression, it's hard to imagine a mostly grotesque downer movie such as this having much public appeal
There's just too much else that's not good about this film. The first thing that struck me was how stagy it is. The sets look like stage scenery. The screenplay is heavily dialog with no action or movement. And, the characters overall are mostly stilted and wooden. Coward, himself, is the most obvious - the worst at this. With the exception of Cora Moore (Julie Haydon) - but just some of the time, all of the cast utter their lines expressionless and emotionless. Any middle school class of students could read the lines of this play as well as this cast delivers them. That isn't acting - its sitting for a bland monologue reading.
Although Coward was a very diversified and talented artist, he is most known and will be forever renowned for the great body of his screenplays. He was not much of a screen actor, and certainly not a leading man. This was just the second of 19 films he made, and first of just two leading roles. Only two more of this cast are actors that movie audiences even in 1935 would have recognized. They are Eduardo Ciannelli as Maurice Stern and Lionel Stander as Rothenstien.
The other technical aspects were rudimentary to poor. The camera work is second rate. Oh, there is the tricky over-imposing of scenes for the effect of Tony's death at sea, but even that seemed crude. Mallare's office setting seems almost grotesque. And the music is awful in places.
Where the title and references to Anthony Mallare are of a scoundrel, it would be much more accurate to label him and the film, a lecher. He is a lecherous, cold-hearted, self-centered, egotistical cad. But his long cynical and ego-centric lines of dialog soon wear very thin and become grating. The script quickly takes on an aura of nihilism. There's too much that's weak about this drama. The witticism of the writers in the script is lost or drowned out by tedious cynicism and sarcasm. And the narcissistic pale of the play takes its toll in eliminating anything to enjoy about this film. The redemption at the end is conflicting and doesn't work to salvage the film.
Here are some sample lines from the film.
Cora Moore, "Why did you lie to her? It's painful to be lied to." Anthony Mallare, "My dear, women shoot you or drag you into court if you refuse to lie to them and pretend that you still love them."
Cora Moore, "You look so evil with a glass in your hand."
Anthony Mallare, "Would you say, my dear, that Mr. Decker was madly in love with you?" (Cora nods her head.) Mallare, "That settles it. I'm not. I never will be. The most I can offer you is one month's diversion and six months of farewell."
Anthony Mallare, "I don't approve of child labor as a rule, but so much depends on the child."