DbcultAccessing Vault...
5.7/10
Archivist John
Senior Editor
A definitive 5.7/10 rating for a film that redefined the boundaries of cult cinema. Charming Sinners remains a cornerstone of transgressive art.
Honestly, if you like watching people in expensive-looking silk pajamas talk about their feelings while holding tiny glasses of sherry, you will have a great time with Charming Sinners.
It is definitely for people who enjoy pre-code stuff where the morality is a bit messy and not so black and white.
If you hate movies that feel like a stage play where the camera barely moves, you should probably go watch Border Law instead because this one stays in the living room for a long, long time.
The story is based on a play by Somerset Maughm—I think I spelled that right—and it feels like it.
It is London, or at least a version of london built on a Hollywood backlot where everyone has a very specific kind of fake-posh accent.
Ruth Chatterton plays Kathryn Miles.
She finds out her husband, played by Clive Brook, is having a whole affair with her best friend Anne.
In most movies from this era, the wife would be screaming or fainting or maybe heading for the nearest bridge.
But Kathryn just... doesn't.
There is this one moment early on where she is just looking at a vase of flowers while she realizes what is happening.
You can see her brain clicking into place.
It is way more terrifying than if she had started throwing plates.
The sound quality is a bit hit-or-miss because it was 1929 and they were still figuring out how to hide microphones in the furniture.
There is a scene where someone sets down a tea cup and it sounds like a bomb going off. ☕
I noticed a weird shadow on the wall behind Clive Brook in the second act that looks like a giant hand, and I couldn't stop looking at it for five minutes.
Speaking of shadows, this isn't nearly as dark as The Shadow on the Wall, but it has its moments of being pretty cynical about marriage.
William Powell shows up as the 'other' man, Karl.
He is basically playing the same charming guy he always plays, but he does it so well you don't even care.
He has this way of leaning against a doorframe that makes everyone else in the movie look like they are trying too hard.
The movie gets much better once Kathryn decides she is going to have her own fun.
She doesn't want revenge; she wants freedom.
It's weirdly modern for a film that is almost a hundred years old.
Most of the male characters are kind of dim-witted compared to her.
Clive Brook’s character, Greg, is so oblivious it actually becomes funny after a while.
He thinks he is being so smooth, but he is basically a child.
There is a scene near the end where he tries to be all stern and 'husband-like' and it just falls flat because Kathryn is already three steps ahead of him.
The sets are really nice, though.
Everything looks like it costs a fortune.
I kept wondering if those were real silk curtains or just something that looked good on the orthochromatic film they used back then.
If you have seen The Invisible Bond, you might notice some similarities in how they handle the 'unhappy wife' trope, but Chatterton brings a much sharper edge to it here.
It is way more interesting than something like Betty Be Good, which just feels like a chore to get through.
I did find the middle section a bit slow.
There is a lot of walking in and out of doors.
Sometimes a character will say something, and then there is this long, awkward silence while the other actor waits for their cue.
It makes it feel very real in a strange way, like you are eavesdropping on a conversation you shouldn't be hearing.
The ending is the best part.
It isn't a 'happily ever after' in the way the studio probably wanted.
It’s a 'happily ever after' on her terms.
I liked it more than I expected to.
Just don't go in expecting an action movie.
It's a movie about people being naughty in very nice clothes.
Which, honestly, is sometimes all you need on a Tuesday night.
IMDb 5.3
1928
Community
Log in to comment.
