Pretty Good

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

"Perfect Understanding" is a love story – not a romance, but a story of real love. And, it's about faithfulness and infidelity, jealousy and hatred, and forgiveness and happiness. The story takes place in 1933. The setting is among the wealthy in England and on the playgrounds of Europe. The leads are an American heiress and a landed Englishman who have met and fallen in love. Gloria Swanson plays Judy Rogers, who has come to England after her recent inheritance. Laurence Olivier is the wealthy Englishman, Nicholas Randall, whom Judy has fallen for. He is the nephew of Lord Portleigh (played by Nigel Playfair). Naturally, there's a love triangle in the person of Lady Stephanie Fitzmaurice. She's the woman "destined" for Nick before Judy came along. Yet, she has been married to Sir John Fitzmaurice for some time. The plot has an interesting twist in one of the characters, Ivan Ronnson. Played by John Halliday, he is a world explorer who goes off for years at a time on adventures of discovery. Apparently, he's a friend of Lord Portleigh. Ronnson is an observer of the goings-on. While being a member of the cast, he's always on the sideline -- never in the thick of things. He feels love for Judy. While he adds a philosophical overtone to the plot, he's also a potential third member of another love triangle – being the other man in Judy's life. As filmed in 1933, this movie is a bit heavy with melodrama. It seems to have carried over some of the old techniques of the silent film era that don't serve up well with sound. The first is the heavy musical score and crescendos to emphasize dramatic scenes or spots in the story. The second is the overly long panning, with no dialog, to close-ups of characters – in this case, Judy, for dramatic effect. Some of the technical production is not the best, and the script at times seems unnecessarily and laboriously slow. The acting is very good and a nice look especially at a young Laurence Olivier in only his seventh film. Both he and Swanson give very good performances here, but not exceptional ones. Olivier was age 25 when "Perfect Understanding" appeared on the silver screen. Swanson was old enough to be his mother and about to turn 44. They are a fine match here, but without his mustache, he likely would have had a much more boyish appearance that would have contrasted with the more mature (though quite beautiful) appearance of Swanson. The better significance of this film is that it is a fine morality play. The story shows many things well. The harm that infidelity does to a marriage based on deep love. The hurt, confusion and distrust that come from infidelity. It's interesting in that the greatest jealousy comes from the one who has been the betrayer. Nick becomes incensed with jealousy after he was unfaithful. It is a fine portrayal of dealing with hatred and having love restored through suffering, faithfulness and forgiveness. This film does pack a lot into what seems to be a nice simple love story on the surface. There are some other subtleties here worth mentioning. I wonder about the very release of this movie in 1933. Most the world was reeling from the effects of the Great Depression. That included England and the rest of Europe, as well as the Americas. So, here's a film about the very wealthy who seem oblivious to the world around them, except for how they might enjoy it. How did audiences receive a film like this at that time? Few people in the world would be able to take a honeymoon all around Europe that lasted for many weeks. And then there is the hedonistic lifestyle shown in Cannes on the French Riviera. The wealthy youth in the Cocktail Regatta were a sharp contrast to the reality of life for the vast majority of the world's peoples. Some of the films made about the high life of society in New York and elsewhere during the Depression could be seen as uplifting spirits. They were about good times that the everyday people could dream about or imagine as possible one day. And they usually involved people having a fun time with comedy and romance. Not so this movie and its setting. The movie has some philosophical and other interesting lines. The Quotes section on this IMDb Web page for the film has those bits of dialog. Here's a description of some of the "fun" to be had at the playground for the rich of the day, at Cannes, France. Miles Malleson plays The Announcer for the Cocktail Regatta. He explains the event: "Now the object of the race is suicide. The competitors line up here at the bar. They swallow their cocktails… They swim out to their boats and they start up the motors, with luck. Then they make for… At the raft there, they pick up more cocktails. Ah, yes, they do. Then they head across to the island where, if still conscious, they have yet more cocktails. And from there they head back to the finish here, if there is any. And let there be no moaning at the bar when they put out to sea."

"Perfect Understanding" is a simply dreadful film--very, very dated, dull and filled with folks you really cannot relate to or like. It also features the rather odd romantic pairing of Gloria Swanson and Laurence Oliver--a pairing that doesn't quite work.The film begins with Swanson singing--something you just don't need to hear unless you are a masochist. Fortunately, Olivier's character didn't love her singing either, though otherwise they play rich folks who have nothing better to do than go to parties, travel the world and talk...a lot. And one of the things they love to talk about is their love for each other. However, Swanson's character is apprehensive to marry, as she's afraid that over time their love will fade. So, they agree to marry and stay married until they begin to argue (ooo, how romantic).The biggest problem about this film is that it was the Depression and folks were out of work. So, such a mannered and dull film involving the rich and lazy seems strange--and hard to enjoy. The characters seemed rather one-dimensional and annoying. In particular, Swanson's acting didn't help, though Olivier did a nice job in spite of the film's many shortcomings. Dull and probably not worth your time.

Yes, yes, I know that Sir Laurence thought that all his films before "Wuthering Heights" were garbage. But this is a forgotten gem. Sure, people may not like it, and I get why, because this film doesn't introduce anything new. It's got Judy (Gloria Swanson), an actress I really like, paired with Nick Randall (Laurence Olivier), in a film that involves at first, a good deal of fluff, and then it takes a turn for the dramatic. Honestly, I have to say, the last half hour of the film didn't impress me. Yes, I'm a sucker for fluff and light-hearted stuff, and the fact that Laurence Olivier was looking his best here, at age 26, didn't really predispose me not to like this film. But I have to say about the character of Nick, he was a complete blockhead in the last half hour. He admitted his mistake and wanted forgiveness, but when he thought that Judy did the same thing, gosh, he totally flew off the handle and absolutely frustrated both me and her. You did the same thing, Nick, so you may as well take responsibility. But the jealousy part plays out very realistically, so I don't mind too much. The ending was a bit rushed, though.Still, watch this movie if you're either a Laurence Olivier fan who just wants to see him (and not mind characters being blockheads), or if you're a Gloria Swanson fan. Nothing new, but enjoyable all the same.

Gloria Swanson had formed a film company just to make this film. Unfortunately, this is precisely the type of film that her most famous character, Norma Desmond, likely wanted to make in Sunset Boulevard. It is really a silent film with dialog replacing the text screens. The actors make grand extravagant gestures, turn their faces to and fro while fluttering their eyelids. The incessant music swells at appropriate moments to indicate high drama. The dialog seems like a nuisance to be summarily added and neglected - after all Swanson had done pretty well for all those years without dialog - why worry about that now.The quite modern premise of the film, a semi-open marriage, and the conflict brought on by the juxtaposition of the end of the flapper era avant-garde attitudes with the conservative Victorian mores ensconced in the judicial attitude towards divorce should have made the film more interesting that it was.However, the only real interest and tension is generated by incredible boat race where cocktails are drunk at every station to make the race more difficult! Prohibition was about to be repealed and the celebration of alcohol consumption in such stark contrast to today's attitudes is fascinating.Tighter editing, better pacing and dialog might have made this worthwhile. As is, it is a curio from the early years of sound, and of interest to the historian and perhaps to the film buff as a primer on the world of Norma Desmond.