Envy (1930) Review: A messy, weirdly fun pre-code swap

If you have about an hour and want to see what passed for a 'scandal' in 1930, Envy is worth a look. It’s for people who like watching early talkies where everyone stands a bit too close to the flower pots because that's where the microphones were hidden. You will probably hate it if you need fast editing or actors who don't look like they are posing for a still photograph every five seconds.

The whole thing kicks off with two couples who are just... bored. They have these nice houses and nice clothes, but they look like they want to scream. It reminds me a bit of the vibe in Manslaughter, where the rich people are just looking for any kind of trouble to get into.

The Great Swap

So, they decide to trade. Not forever, just for an evening. They think it’s going to be this big, sophisticated adventure. It’s funny how they try to act so grown-up about it while looking absolutely terrified the whole time.

Romney Brent is in this, and his energy is... specific. He has this way of moving his hands that feels like he’s trying to catch a fly that isn't there. It’s a bit distracting, but in a way that makes you realize how much theater acting was still bleeding into movies back then.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of Envy (1930) through its definitive frames.

Madge Evans is the real reason to sit through this, though. She has these eyes that seem to actually understand the camera. When she looks at the wrong husband, you can almost feel the movie get slightly more interesting for a second.

• The living room sets look like they were decorated by someone who really, really loved velvet.
• There is a scene with a silver cigarette case that goes on for way too long.
• The sound has that constant hiss, like the movie is breathing on you.

There’s this one moment where one of the wives stares at a door for about ten seconds too long. It’s supposed to be dramatic, but it just looks like she forgot her next line. I love stuff like that. It feels real, even if it’s technically a mistake.

"Maybe we just need a change of scenery," someone says, or something like that. But you can tell they just need a hobby.

The writing by Geoffrey Kerry is okay, I guess. It’s a bit stiff. It doesn't have the snap of something like The Married Flapper, but it tries hard to be edgy. For 1930, talking about swapping partners was pretty bold.

Does it actually work?

Not really. The ending feels like they realized they only had five minutes of film left and had to wrap everything up fast. Everyone just kind of decides to be okay again. It’s very sudden.

Cinematic perspective: Exploring the visual vocabulary of Envy (1930) through its definitive frames.

I noticed that the lighting in the final scene is weirdly dark. It’s like the bulb was dying and they didn't want to stop the take. It gives the whole thing a spooky vibe that doesn't really match the plot. 🎬

If you've seen things like The Sin of a Woman, you know the drill with these melodramas. They want to be naughty but they also want to give you a lesson. Envy is more interested in the gossip than the lesson, which is why it’s better than some of the others from that year.

It’s not a deep movie. It’s barely a movie. It’s more like a filmed play where the actors are slightly nervous about the cameras. But it’s got a charm to it. It’s a tiny window into what people thought was 'risky' back when my great-grandma was probably sneaking into theaters.

Check it out if you’re a completionist or if you just like Madge Evans. She really is doing her best with what she’s got. The rest of it? Well, it’s a good way to spend an hour if you’re bored yourself.