Watching L'amour qu'il faut aux femmes: A 1930s Manual for Love

Is it worth watching?

If you are looking for a fun Friday night movie, skip this. Seriously, it's not for you. This is for the kind of person who likes digging through dusty bins at a thrift store or someone who wonders what people were actually talking about in 1933. If you like history or weird old French stuff, give it a go. Everyone else will probably be bored out of their minds within ten minutes.

It is definitely not a date movie. Unless your date is a film historian. Or a doctor.

The "Scientific" Romance

So, the first thing you notice is that this movie is trying to teach you something. It’s based on work by Theodore H. Van de Velde. He was this Dutch guy who wrote a book called Ideal Marriage. Everyone in the 30s was reading it under their bedcovers. The movie feels exactly like that book—half romance, half medical textbook.

It’s a bit weird to watch now. The characters talk about their feelings, but then it feels like they are reading from a pamphlet. One scene has a couple arguing, and the lighting is so dramatic it looks like a horror movie. Then a doctor shows up and everything gets very clinical. It’s a strange mix. It’s not quite as intense as Liebe in Uniform, but it has that same early 30s European weight to it.

I kept waiting for someone to just hug or cry. But no, they have to discuss the theory of why they are sad. It’s very 1933.

Small things I noticed

• The hair is incredible. Seriously. Every woman in this movie has hair that looks like it took four hours to do.
• There is a desk in one scene that is way too big for the room. The actor almost trips over it.
• The sound quality is... well, it’s 1933. It sounds like everyone is talking through a tin can.
• Gina Manès has this look in her eyes that makes you think she's in a much better movie. She is really good, even when the dialogue is clunky.

There is this one shot of a woman looking out a window while it rains. It goes on for a long time. Too long. You can tell the director thought it was very deep. I just thought about how cold she must be.

Why it feels off

The pacing is all over the place. Sometimes things happen fast, and then suddenly we are in a room watching a man smoke a cigarette for three minutes. I think they were still figuring out how to make sound movies feel "natural." It’s not like Dark Red Roses where the drama feels a bit more theatrical. Here, it’s trying to be real life, but real life doesn't involve doctors giving lectures in the middle of a breakup.

The script was written by a bunch of people, including Willy Haas and Jean de Létraz. You can tell. It feels like four different movies fighting for space. One part is a melodrama. Another part is a documentary. It never quite settles down.

It’s definitely not Lolita. It’s much more polite than that. But for the time, talking about "what women need" was pretty bold.

Random thoughts I wrote down

The sets look like they are made of cardboard. I’m pretty sure the walls shake when someone shuts a door. 🏠

The music is very loud. It starts up whenever someone says something important. It’s like the movie is poking you in the ribs saying, "Hey! Pay attention! This is the emotional part!"

I wonder if people in 1933 actually took notes during this. It feels like a classroom. I half expected a quiz at the end.

The Cast

Olga Tschechowa is in this too. She was a huge star. She has this way of walking into a room that makes everyone else look like they are standing still. Even when she isn't doing much, you can't stop looking at her.

The men are mostly forgettable. They all have the same mustache. It’s hard to tell them apart sometimes. Raymond Maurel is fine, I guess. He does a lot of serious nodding.

Is it a total disaster?

No. It’s just... old. And specific. It’s a time capsule. It tells you more about what people were worried about in 1933 than what they were actually doing. They were worried about being modern. They were worried about science and love.

If you watch it, watch it for the atmosphere. The flickering light. The way people held their cigarettes. The weirdly formal way they said "I love you."

It’s not a masterpiece. It’s a curiosity. 🏺

I think I liked the parts that weren't supposed to be the main focus. The background extras. The way the street looked in the outdoor shots. Those felt more real than the actual plot.

Don't expect to feel "inspired." Expect to feel like you just sat through a very long, very fancy lecture in a language you only half-understand.

Quick notes for the nerds:

• Watch for the shadow work in the office scenes. It’s actually pretty cool.
• The editing is jumpy. Sometimes a character is on the left, then suddenly they are on the right. It’s a bit dizzying.
• The film is based on "The Love Women Need" which sounds like a tabloid headline, but it’s actually very serious.

Anyway, I’m glad I saw it, but I don’t think I’ll ever watch it again. It’s one of those movies you check off a list. Like eating your vegetables. It’s good for you to know it exists, but you’d rather be eating cake. 🍰

If you want something with more of a story, maybe try The Pride of the Clan instead. It’s older, but it feels more like a movie and less like a school project.