I love this movie so much

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Blistering performances.

I just rewatched this one last night. This 1930 MGM film tells the story of a happily married couple, whose marriage crumbles under the taint of infidelity.Norma Shearer portrayed Jerry Martin, a happily married New York socialite, who discovers that her husband, Ted (Chester Morris), had a drunken one night stand with some blowsy woman. She tried to pretend that it was water under the bridge and openly forgave him. But his infidelity continued to bother her. And when he leaves New York for a business trip to Chicago, she has a one night stand with his best friend, Don (Robert Montgomery). Jerry confesses her infidelity and discovers that as far as Ted is concerned, what was good for the goose, was not for the gander. Furthermore, Ted is not so concerned about the pain of the infidelity as he is about his pride and that someone in "their set" is laughing at him. This is the last straw for Jerry, and a divorce follows with what must be a pile of alimony because Jerry seems to lack no luxury even though she lacks a job. Not bad work for a fairly short marriage.I understand that the Jerry Martin role nearly evaded Norma Shearer, because husband and MGM production chief Irving Thalberg did not feel that the role suited her. She used a series of sexy photographs taken by George Hurrell to convince Thalberg that she could do the role. And she certainly proved that she was the right woman for the role. What I liked about Shearer's take on Jerry was that she was a complex woman who discovered that she could not hide her feelings - whether she was disturbed by her husband's infidelity and hypocrisy; or her longing to reconcile with him, despite enjoying the company of other men. Shearer certainly deserved her Oscar.Although he had some moments of over-the-top acting as Ted Martin - Jerry's husband, Chester Morris did a pretty good job portraying the newspaper man, who tried to dismiss his own infidelity and discovered how his wife truly felt in the worst possible way. What I found interesting about Ted is how alcohol led to a great deal of his troubles. It was booze that encouraged him to cheat on Jerry. And it was booze that he indulged in following the breakup of his marriage and loss of his job.Robert Montgomery was at turns rather funny and sexy as Don, Ted's best friend with whom she cheated. There's a funny midnight scene in a deli where everybody is in top hat and tails, and Ted is talking to Don about how he would still like to kill the guy that broke up his home, if only he knew who that was. Don makes a polite but speedy exit.Many have dismissed Conrad Nagel as a boring actor, who performance in the movie was not worth mentioning. Mind you, his role as Paul, Jerry's former boyfriend was not as splashy as Morris or Montgomery's role, Nagel still managed to invest quite a bit of angst in his role as a man who is dealt a double blow in life when the woman he loves (Jerry) marries another man and he finds himself in a loveless marriage to a woman (Judith Wood), whose face he had disfigured due to a drunken car accident.The attitudes and personalities of most of the major characters seemed relevant today. Despite the late 20s/early 30s wardrobe and slang, the so-called "Bright Young Things" were not really different from the Twenty and Thirtysomethings in the dating scene, today. Do remember,also, that though this film was post stock market crash, that it was still pre Depression. Things were still rolling pretty good for most people at this point.I realized that the movie had a "happy ending" that many modern viewers might not care for. But for me, it was an ending in which both husband and wife were humbled. They not only forgave each other, but forgave themselves. I bought it.

. . . Dr. Bernard reassures Paul, who's in love with the doc's daughter, Jerry, who's fallen for gridiron hero Ted, whose best friend Don soon will prove happy to observe that time-honored footballer tradition of loosening up the bride, but not before Dot, who's in love with Paul, becomes Paul's defaced booby prize due to his dalliance with Doc's illegal booze, the same outlawed elixir that will throw Ted into divorcée Janice's clutches, causing Jerry to swill down a bathtub of gin in order to endure the pain of bedding half the drunks of New York City during what is clearly intended as a Morality Play on behalf of Temperance, Sobriety, and Mormon Tea. Jerry's career reminds me of those old-time hockey announcers, who're always shouting, "He shoots, she scores!" But since this story takes place in the Dark Ages before the invention of Kegel Exercises, Ted certainly has a leg to stand on in his insistence that the customary Double Standard be strictly observed.

The dramas of the early sound era were often awkward, phoney-looking things. A lot of this has to do with the acting. Most actors were of course experienced in silent cinema, but a lot of players with stage experience had also been brought in as was deemed appropriate for "talkies". Silent screen acting tended to be over-the-top so that meaning could be expressed without words, and stage acting also tended to be over-the-top so that meaning could be expressed to people sitting in the back row. But this excessive style didn't really work in the more authentic setting of sound cinema. Of course, movie people weren't stupid; they were aware of what did and didn't work and the industry adapted quicker than is sometimes thought.And of course, there were some actors and actresses who simply seemed to get the hang of it straight away. Norma Shearer was among a small number who survived the transition from silents to talkies with her career completely intact. One thing Shearer had was a remarkable presence – she's able to project herself with just a simple gesture or pose, and in The Divorcée she's often standing with her shoulders slightly forward in understated aggression. And within this context she is able to give a restrained performance, conveying a great deal but with a degree of credibility that makes the drama seem more believable. Shearer deservedly won the Academy Award for her work here. Compare her to previous year's winner Mary Pickford in Coquette, a slice of ham from a bygone era, and you can see how much things have changed.Let's also take a look at the director Robert Z. Leonard. He's not too well remembered these days because he isn't deemed an auteur, but at the time he was among the forefront of Hollywood professionals. Two things in particular are worth noting about his style in The Divorcée. First is that he uses a lot of camera movement to really engage us in a scene (who says early sound films were static?), often using a noteworthy pan as a character appears. Secondly, he gives us an awful lot of the interplay between characters in simple wordless glances between them, for example the jealous look of Conrad Nagel when Shearer and Chester Morris announce their betrothal, or later a silent, spiteful exchange between Shearer and Mary Doran. There was a temptation for talkie directors to shoot things before the assembled actors as if for a stage play, but here Leonard is making subtle close-ups that cut across the action, and in so doing giving depth to the story outside of the dialogue.This picture is now often classified as a "pre-code" movie for its depiction of Shearer's promiscuity after she becomes the titular divorcée, although even by the standards of the day it's pretty tame. However, thanks to its fluid direction and naturalistic acting, it is nevertheless a movie that seems a few steps ahead of its time, and points towards the increasingly sophisticated sound cinema of the 1930s.

I found that this movie, while groundbreaking and heralded in its day, is extremely dated and corny. I'm a big fan of classic film - especially the late 30's into the 40's. But most of the talkie films of the late 20s and early 30's seem more like carryover of the style ofsilent films. The acting is so melodramatic and exaggerated. Their voice, instead of speaking and emoting naturally, is so over-the-top as to sound ridiculous - nobody talks like that.I also found the 2 lead characters rather unattractive. Norma Shearer was no great beauty to me in this - she rather looked like a transvestite that is not at all feminine. Maybe they wanted a more masculine appearance for her so as to make her more fitting competition in a man's world and man's sport (infidelity).Chester Morris was strange looking as well. His profile showed his nose to look almost smashed into his face. It made him look as though he was constantly smelling something foul on the set. And his makeup was so unnatural - his lipstick was darker than the ladies.The theme of the film was no doubt controversial in its day. I suppose it was an early stab at women's liberation - that "what's good for the is good for the gander" so far as infidelity is concerned.The film provides a nice look at a young Robert Montgomery, just in his 2nd year in films. I think he gives one of the more natural performances.