The Common Law (1931) User Reviews (17)

Free love and nude modeling won't keep a girl from finding happiness

[Michael-110 · 7/10 · 10 January 2000]

The common law in "The Common Law" is that a girl is better off married than living in sin. That's a message that the Hays Code censors could have gotten behind, but they never could have approved this 1931 film. In 1931, the Hays Code was in effect but the Production Code Administration and its tough boss Joe Breen, which rigidly enforced the Code, didn't come into existence until 1934. As a result, the studios were able to ignore the Code and get away with sexual themes that would soon become utterly unthinkable. This was a necessity in 1931 because sex brought people into the theaters and the industry was desperate to sell tickets during the depths of the Depression.

Valerie West, an American in Paris, makes her living by being the mistress of a rich American, Dick Cardemon, but she dumps him and starts a career as a nude model. She models for a mediocre but rich American painter named John Neville who falls madly in love with her. However, he evidently assumed she was a virgin because he dumps her when he finds out about Cardemon.

Later Valerie manages to pick up John once again at a very sexy Artists' Ball (there's a still photo of the ball in Vieira, "Sin in Soft Focus" (1999), p. 56). This time Valerie and John decide to live together without getting married, but that causes quite a scandal back home. John's snooty family tries to break them up, but...

The film is a very effective attack on the sexual double standard and on American upper-class conspicuous consumption, snootiness, and prudishness. Attacks on the upper class were quite popular in the early 1930's, given people's desperation in the Depression and the natural tendency to blame the rich for what happened. The film also shows that a smart, spunky, and beautiful girl can make very good despite having engaged in lots of free love (not to mention nude modeling) with rich men. Valerie is not punished for all that sin--in violation of the so-called "compensating values" norm later enforced by Breen and the Production Office. That norm would require that she receive some horrible punishment for engaging in extra-marital sex--but quite to the contrary, Valerie comes out just fine.

The film is an exceptionally interesting example of the kind of movies that were made at the beginning of the sound era but before the curtain came down in 1934 on candid treatments of sexual behavior.

Refreshing pre-code fare

[FilmOtaku · 6/10 · 15 August 2005]

In Paul L. Stein's 1931 film "The Common Law", Constance Bennett plays Valerie West, a "kept woman" who decides that she needs to leave her sugar-daddy boyfriend Nick and make a go of it on her own. She ends up working as an artist's model for painter John Neville, Jr. (McCrea), and while they begin their relationship as friends, the two soon become lovers. Unfortunately, there are a number of factors against them, namely Valerie's past as a kept woman and John's sister Claire (Hopper), who believes that Valerie is less than acceptable for their blue blood family. During his bouts of indecision, he succumbs to fits of jealousy about Valerie's past and finds it hard to trust her to be true to him, especially when she suggests they wait until they are absolutely sure of their love before they get married. Valerie, on the other hand, knows that she loves John but is afraid she will get hurt, particularly when she sees the rich life of which John's family are members.

There are a few notable things about "The Common Law", despite its relatively simple plot and short running time. Being a Pre-Code film, the role of Valerie is juicy without being compromised and saddled with social morays. It is clear that Valerie lived with both Nick and John and was married to neither of them, something that just was not expressed in post 1934 films. (The irony of this censorship doesn't escape me either; one would think that there would be a progression as the medium grows and not a recession.) This is where the title "The Common Law" is derived, and it is only near the end of the film when Valerie begins to feel personal and social pressure that she acquiesces to marry. It is left to the audience to interpret whether she is entirely comfortable with the situation, but she does not hide her apparent joy over her ultimate decision; it almost seems like a weight has been lifted off her shoulders.

Also notable are various obvious innuendos (like when Valerie is leaving Nick and he suggests, not cruelly, that she could perhaps survive well as a call girl) and the first scene in which Valerie poses nude for John, not five minutes after he hires her as a model. She is clearly uncomfortable, but loses her inhibitions quickly and though her form is not clear, the scene ends with a long shot showing her lying naked on the platform. This would have been unheard of in a post-code era where even the amorous Nick and Nora Charles were relegated to twin beds.

Constance Bennett, one of the most popular screen sirens of the pre-code Hollywood era, plays Valerie as tough, savvy and intelligent, but with one look she is able to express vulnerability and sadness. Her incredible beauty and impeccable style (her clothes not only look like they were made specifically for her, but are timeless as well) are literally breathtaking. There is no doubt that she is a star of enormous quality and talent. Particularly during this early period of "talkies", there were a plethora of actors and actresses who may have looked gorgeous but couldn't act their way out of a paper bag. It was those who could that became immortalized and revered, and Bennett more than deserves a place in this upper echelon. Unfortunately, this praise can't extend to the rest of the featured cast. Joel McCrea obviously hadn't hit his stride yet, though he had made over a dozen pictures before this one. Though he plays his usual role, the handsome, earnest and ruffled hero, it would be a few more years before he shows some of the greatness that he exhibited in films like "These Three" or a decade later in "Sullivan's Travels". While he is likable in this film (other than when he is being a jealous ass) it is obvious that there are times when he is waiting for his cues, and the delivery is wooden. I have never seen Hedda Hopper in a film other than when she had a cameo in "Sunset Boulevard", so I was first surprised when I saw her name in the credits and even more surprised when I did more research and saw that she actually did 82 other films BEFORE this one was released. And here I thought she was simply a gossip columnist… though if her work in "The Common Law" is indicative of the rest of her repertoire, then she found her true calling about 130 films too late. Unfortunately, her nosiness and rumored bitchiness in real life could not be channeled into her role as McCrea's bitchy and nosy sister because she was just terrible.

"The Common Law" is a fine example of Hollywood's pre-code era, when women didn't have to be saints, or if they were "subversive" (by Hays Code standards) they would be punished in the end. Instead we have a strong female role in which her strength is complimented by moments of vulnerability, and despite a non-adherence to a strict moral code dictated by some sects of society, there is a happy ending after all. 6/10 --Shelly

Attitude Easily Understood Today

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 20 March 2012]

The Common Law according to The Films Of Joel McCrea casts Joel for the very first time in white tie and tails, costuming he would get quite used to as his career progressed. Fortunately for him he would never get typecast in them the way Franchot Tone was.

This was also one of four films McCrea would do with Constance Bennett, a number that would qualify them as a screen team of sorts. The Common Law is one of those escapist dramas that Depression Era audiences just loved. This certainly showed a lifestyle that they dare not even dream about.

Joel is a rich young man who has gone to Paris to sow a few wild oats and play at being a Bohemian artist. While there he meets up with Constance Bennett another expatriate American who is living as kept mistress to Lew Cody, a really smarmy Frenchman. But she quarrels with Cody and hires out to McCrea as an artist's model. Naturally the two of them click.

But Joel's got a society sister in Hedda Hopper who is scandalized by such goings on. She'll break up McCrea and Bennett and save the family name and honor as she conceives it is.

The Common Law refers of course to marriage without benefit of clergy or at least civil sanction. This PreCode film while not condemning common law relationships does say women are better protected with a marriage license. An attitude easily understood today.

Robert Williams who later made such a hit in Frank Capra's Platinum Blonde has a supporting role as an perpetually inebriated playboy friend of McCrea's. His performance in this film confirms what a tragic loss he was to the big screen.

The Common Law is far more modern than a few films of today are even, definitely worth a look.

Watch it for Constance Bennett and early Joel McCrea ...

[AlsExGal · 6/10 · 5 July 2015]

... because there is nothing at all remarkable about the plot. At the beginning of the film Valerie West (Constance Bennett) is seen packing a bag, ending a "common law" relationship with Dick Carmedon (Lew Cody) as he tells her she will have only prostitution to fall back on if she leaves him. Nothing keeps a gal from leaving you like telling her you have such a high opinion of her! Valerie's reply is "That gives me an idea". (HOW???) and she takes a job as a model for an artist, John Neville (Joel McCrea). It's a nude modeling job, and Valerie is shy about this. Probably the highlight of the film at that time (heck, now, too!) is a long shot that follows in which it appears you have a full nude side view of Constance Bennett, but it is far enough and blurry enough that she must have had some kind of skin tight outfit on. The precode days had their limits you know! This has all the earmarks of any number of films in which rich guy (McCrea) falls for poor girl (Bennett) with shady past but good character while others (his sister, her old lover) try to undermine the situation and break them up. There are some things that distinguish it. One is Joel McCrea as an American in Paris who is not even trying to hide his natural western twang, which really comes out whenever he is playing the part angry It does get funny at times, especially when you meet the rest of his family - understanding dad and plotting sister - and realize that they don't sound western at all! Where on earth did this accent come from? I fault the director here, because McCrea had modern dress parts before and after this and was able to sound not so Western when the role required it.

Let me also commend Hedda Hopper here. She was great as McCrea's snobby sister who is smiling the whole time she is trying to manipulate Valerie out of her brother's life. She almost steals the show, but then nobody steals a show from Joel McCrea in my humble opinion!

pre-code youths in Paris

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 23 August 2005]

It was said, possibly by David Niven, that Constance Bennett would walk into a room at night to play cards and emerge the next morning looking exactly the same as when she went in. I can believe it. Her beauty, glamor, and freshness are beautifully showcased in "The Common Law" about living and loving (freely) in Paris.

It seems strange that a movie made in 1931 should seem more modern than later films, but we can thank the Hayes code for that. In The Common Law, Bennett, when she's not shacking up with some guy, is a model for an artist, played by boyish Joel McCrea. The two fall in love, go through a breakup and reconcile. She is reticent about getting married. Then McCrea's conniving sister, having heard all the rumors, lures both she and McCrea back to America.

McCrea and Bennett made several films together, and they are a beautiful couple. He's big and wholesome; she's delicate and sophisticated. And of course, they're both incredibly beautiful.

It's always interesting to catch a pre-code movie, and The Common Law is a good one.

A movie with an interesting view of marriage as social convention

[jdeamara · 10 March 2003]

This movie has a lot of interesting things to say about marriage. Primarily its message is that marriage is a social convention. Women get married because marriage offers "protection." The emphasis in this movie is on social protection: marriage will protect women from malicious social gossip and from other lecherous males.

John Neville (Joel McCrea) asks live-in girlfriend Valerie West (Constance Bennett) to marry him because he's "in love." She says she wants to wait because she wants to be sure that their love will last. When she marries, she wants it "to be for keeps." As she says, "I'm really quite an old-fashioned girl -- well, with some modern decorations." Valerie soon changes her mind when John's sister (played by Hedda Hopper) arranges a boat cruise inviting his father (played by Walter Walker), her former lover (played by Lew Cody), and another girl interested in John. Unable to stand the social awkwardness, the gossip, and the blatant advances of her former beau, Valerie decides that perhaps getting married even though she's not sure it will last is the best way to go after all.

A critique about society's views of women and marriage, this movie also boasts strong performances by Hedda Hopper as John's sister and Walter Walker as John's father. Hedda is particularly good as the nasty, bitchy hypocrite Claire Collis, who does all she can to break John and Valerie up while feigning ignorance about it. Constance Bennett also gives a strong performance as Valerie.

Being that this was a pre-Code and Constance's character was supposed to be a nude model, I had hoped that they might have snuck in some flashes of skin. Unfortunately, they don't. Even the portraits of Constance nude cover up the private areas. There is some nudity in the film though, a long shot of a group of presumably naked women posing on a float during a raucous French party.

Given the performances and the interesting message the movie has, I'd give it a 7/10.

Amazingly sleazy...but also highly entertaining!

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 10 January 2013]

Joel McCrea plays an American artist living in Paris. He hires a woman (Constance Bennett) to be his nude model and eventually they fall in love. However, when he learns she has a tawdry past, he runs off to brood. Later, at debaucherous party, they meet once again. Soon, he asks her to marry him--she suggests they cohabitate to see if he really wants her. When the scandal of this relationship reaches his rich parents' ears, his mother schemes to pull the two lovers apart. However, in a strange scene, McCrea's on-screen father says that he heartily approves of the pair living together and wishes them the best! What happens next? See this odd film for yourself to find out for yourself.

If you haven't guessed, this film is CLEARLY an example of Pre-Code sensibilities. What I mean by that is that up until mid-1934, Hollywood's sense of morality was FAR looser than most folks would believe today. This was especially true from 1930-34--where adultery, premarital sex, violence, foul language, abortion and partial nudity were not terribly uncommon on the screen. But this moral code was not in line with America and soon folks started avoiding movies and ticket sales dropped. Soon, to lure back families, a strengthened Production Code was enforced--and films became, at times, a bit over-sanitized--but very family-friendly. Because of all this, there is zero chance this film could have been made after the Code was enforced--at least not without LOTS of revisions as well as a clear message that such immorality MUST be punished. But here in "The Common Law", the villains are NOT people who flaunt morality but the narrow-minded folks who don't approve and who, in some cases, are simply hypocrites! So is it worth seeing? Well, the film is well-acted and interesting. And, I do enjoy seeing many of the Pre-Code films because they are so strange and confusing--and entertaining!! So, I'd say this is very much worth seeing and a fine example of the genre.

If this isn't a plot that screams 'I'm a Pre-Code film!', nothing is!!

Cohabitation vs marriage

[hotangen · 7/10 · 7 February 2015]

An American artist in Paris falls in love with his model and wants to marry her, but she say's no. They argue and part. Bennett is beautiful and bohemian. McCrea is handsome and conventional. They meet again at a wild Artist's ball, Bennett wearing a gown and skull cap of glittering sequins that's a knockout. She's irresistibly charming as she woos herself back into the arms of the grumpy object of her affections.

This was another Bennett blockbuster. Variety's reviewer wrote, "It's from the customary Bennett mold (that) will make each a little less strong at the b.o." Those words proved prophetic. Reviewer also criticized the star's acting, "It's becoming as stereotyped as the stories themselves." I liked Bennett's acting, but what awful posture. On the other hand, Hedda Hopper knows how to stand up straight and keep her hands where they belong, but she can't act. Everyone else acts A-OK. The plot of this "risqué" movie is irrelevant. The only reason to watch it - then or now - is to see Bennett work her magic. That's why she was paid $5000 a week.

Racy, Talky, and Puritanical

[Handlinghandel · 5/10 · 22 September 2005]

Joel McCrea was one of the great stars of Twentieth Century movies. I'm not thinking of the Westerns for which he was best known, eventually, but for his light comedy, slapstick, and serious comedy. Not to mention his starring role in one of Hitchcock's very best: "Foreign Correspondent." It seems as if many of the fine directors wanted to work with him. In addition to Hitchcock, Preston Sturges used him -- twice. In "Sullivan's Travels" he is certainly an alter-ego for the writer/director.

Early in his career he did light fare, often paired, as here, with Constance Bennett. He also worked with Miriam Hopkins on several occasions, including the far from comic "These Three." Here he is a painter in Paris. He's from a rich family but he's rebelling. He uses Bennett as a model -- and we see her nude. Not totally but first in her undergarments and then with a towel covering the parts we aren't allowed to see.

So how come he is such a prig when he finds out she is a lady with a past? He sure is, though.

The movie is filled with thudding quips and boring banter. It is fun overall but it definitely could have been a great deal better.

Americans in Paris

[russjones-80887 · 6/10 · 31 January 2021]

Valerie West is a young American living with her wealthy lover in Paris. Tired of him, she moves out and models for an American artist John Neville. They soon fall in love and she moves in with him but when her past comes to light it causes problems.

Pre-code drama which was well received and a box office success. The storyline would have been controversial at the time but now seems outdated and tame, although watchable. Constance Bennett and Joel McCrea star as the troubled couple.

Constance through the Looking Glass

[1930s_Time_Machine · 5/10 · 31 December 2023]

A professionally made and superbly acted reflection of what respectability was considered to be at time when the old world gave way to our modern one. It's the familiar 'can love survive across the class divide' story but done with class.

My only criticism is that Paul Stein's direction is quite humourless and unemotional so it doesn't engage with you that easily. It's much more realistic than typical 1931 pictures but that lack of melodrama doesn't quite give this as much impact as some of its contemporaries. It is however a great time capsule reflecting the sexual and class based hypocrisies that prevailed at the time.

Another silly frustration for any red blooded male is Stein's habit of banishing his camera to the furthest darkest distance possible from Miss Bennett when she takes her clothes off, it's actually a lot more prudish than you might expect from a film about a nude model in 1931! Although she's not especially alluring or erotic, Constance Bennett is pretty fabulous in this. You can see why she commanded such a massive salary - her acting is outstanding, she's totally convincing, you're not watching an actress, you're watching Valerie, a real person, a fairly modern person whom you can really relate to and sympathise with today.

A real benefit in this is Robert Williams who injects just the right amount of good humour as McCrea's friend. Such a tragedy that he died before his career really took off - he would easily have been as good in those best friend roles Frank McHugh or Charles Ruggles monopolised and very likely, a leading man; such a shame. His cheerful nature adds a necessary lightness to this picture because as good as it is, it is a little cold and dry.

Sometimes when they're trying to make you comfortable, they're really trying to make you uncomfortable.

[mark.waltz · 6/10 · 11 May 2021]

In the 1930's, there were a lot of very sophisticated shady ladies ending up in situations that impacted their love life and reputation. Constance Bennett is a model whose scandalous past causes her and her lover, Joel McCrea, to split up. His sister, Hedda Hopper, doesn't think that Bennett is good enough for him and when they reconcile, she invites Bennett to a social occasion simply so she can destroy the relationship for good.

From nude modeling to big costume balls in France to dinner on McCrea and Hopper's father's yacht, this is a sophisticated pre-code women's picture that really goes overboard on the sin and shows the fun side of these movies along with the scandalous side of a basic good girl trying to live down her past and find some happiness.

It's obvious what Hopper is up to by inviting an old flame of McCrea's to this yacht dinner as well, but Walter Walker, as their father, isn't quite as snobbish as his daughter even though he is uppity. The party sequence with tons of balloons and confetti and exotic costumes and dancing on tables is one of the most memorable scenes that I've seen in a pre-code drama of this nature. Lew Cody is the man from Bennett's shady past that Hopper also has there, and it's fun watching her schemes explode in her face. Lots of fun to be had in this early RKO talkie.

Racy and dull at the same time

[ArtVandelayImporterExporter · 2/10 · 26 September 2022]

Sure, we get to see Constance Bennett shed her clothes. That was probably a big deal in 1931. I mean, just a glimpse of those legs, never mind that gorgeous face, would have had me going back to the theatre every afternoon for a month.

Joel McCrea didn't look so bad himself, though the painter's rags didn't flatter him.

Unfortunately, like too many of Constance Bennett's movies, thewhole thing is just a bunch of people standing and sitting around talking gibberish. There's just not enough movement in early talkies, for the most part. The actors don't move. The camera doesn't move. So flat. So dull.

That makes four Constance Bennett movies I just watched - or tried to watch - all in a row, and frankly they all blend together into one amorphous, bland blob.

not much

[mukava991 · 23 March 2012]

"The Common Law," a rather common film for its time, begins with the driving, climactic music of Ferde Grofe's "Metropolis" over the opening credit roll followed by stock footage of Paris. The drama goes downhill from there. This is the old story of the fallen woman who must win the respect of the upright man in her life. The woman in this case is the stylish Constance Bennett, who unfortunately is draped too often in backless gowns which reveal the least attractive portion of her anatomy. She has just broken off a common law arrangement with an older man (Lew Cody, in a convincing portrait of aging dissipation) when she is hired as a model by a wealthy young American expatriate painter (Joel McCrea). Predictably, the young people fall in love but are forced to part when her tainted past becomes known via the gossip circuit. Among the unsavory tattlers are McCrea's plummy older sister (Hedda Hopper) and an alcoholic party boy (the entertaining Robert Williams). The resolution comes about as it always does in these fallen women pix, after much talk, flattering close-ups of the comely young stars and at least one extended scene at a social gathering, usually a night club or house party with lots of live music.

Great pre-Code vehicle for Constance Bennett

[gbill-74877 · 7/10 · 8 September 2022]

Constance Bennett starts this film as a "kept woman" of a wealthy man in Paris, but sick of that kind of life, parts amiably from him and shows up at an artist's doorstep wanting to model. Little does she realize he (Joel McCrea) paints nudes. After working for him for a while, the two become lovers, but when he learns of her past and that the other man is still after her, he becomes upset. It's a love triangle pre-Code style, one with some refreshing views on sexual freedom but some conventionality as well, the contradiction of which I found interesting. This is a fine vehicle for Constance Bennett, who is so natural here, and while Joel McCrea is a little stiff, he's certainly photogenic, and it was nice to see him in a different kind of role.

There are several pre-Code hallmarks here, such as the titillation of Bennett's character posing for the artist and a variety of nudes on canvases in his studio. We see her in lingerie, showing off her legs while reclining, and a long shot of her (or a double) nude ... you get the idea. She tells him not to apologize for kissing her the first time he does so because she liked it, which segues to more canvases with her poses and the two of them eating breakfast, and we know what that means, don't we?

They pair have slept together so he must know she wasn't a virgin, but when he hears that she was a kept woman, he gets his nose bent out of shape. Note that when she left her ex, he implied that she could make a living as a call girl. The inference, despite Bennett's wide-eyed looks, is that she uses sex for money to get by, a common theme in Depression-era films, and it's this that McCrea's character judges her for. One of the annoying things about the film is how long he stays disgruntled and petulant, but they reconcile, and after another night of implied sex together, she tells him that he doesn't have to marry her, expressing a wonderful freedom with her sexuality. How fantastic and modern is this exchange:

Bennett: "When I marry, I want to be sure it's going to be for keeps. Really keeps, and I want you to be so sure. Find out whether we really want each other for life. Life's an awfully long time, you know." McCrea: "But do you realize what people will say?" Bennett: "People! What do I care what people say?"

Unfortunately, the film loses a little steam in its second half, as the love triangle plays itself out back in America. The sister (Hedda Hopper) is annoying in trying to drive a wedge between them by bringing along one of his old girlfriends on a yacht trip, the crusty old father spouts some advice, and the other man makes his drunken overtures, not much of which was very interesting. Compare that to a scene in the first half, where we see graphic art for the 'Atelier Georges Grand Bal des Arts' showing a stylized topless woman holding a cocktail, which transitions to raucous partying and a stage show featuring a group of scantily clad men holding a platform with scantily clad women lounging in a variety of very provocative poses. Ooh la la.

The film concludes by implying that McCrea was right all along to seek marriage, that Bennett should just submit to him and by being married, wouldn't have to put up with men making passes at her (ha!). That can be seen as a victory for conventionality (wouldn't it have been incredible had they just run away as lovers?), but on the other hand, it's notable that Bennett's character had no punishment wreaked upon her because of her pre-marital partners, and she's a happy, smart, and virtuous character, things that wouldn't have been possible after the Code was enforced.

fine looking couple

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 22 August 2022]

In Paris, Valerie West (Constance Bennett) leaves her wealthy lover and starts nude modeling for American painter John Neville (Joel McCrea). She doesn't know about his rich family.

This is a pre-Code talkie. There is some 'inappropriate' sexual content although the actresses don't actually appear in the nude. There is a nude painting and some scantily clad girls which I doubt would be acceptable within the Code. The relationship is fine with McCrea playing a somewhat clueless character. The meet-cute is Bennett being embarrassed to pose nude and McCrea being too obsessed with his art to notice. It's slightly funny but it's also uncomfortable. This is a cute couple but they do have some awkwardness. There are questions to be asked but they are still looking fine. The relationship may get better heat if there is a compelling third in a love triangle.

John Needs to Grow Up

[view_and_review · 3/10 · 12 August 2022]

Valerie West (Constance Bennett) wandered into the studio of John Neville (Joel McCrea) after breaking off her affair with Dick Carmedon (Lew Cody). It was a big deal back then because Valerie was giving Carmedon only what a wife should be giving her husband. In other words, she was now tainted goods.

Valerie began modeling nude for John and bada-bing bada-bang they fell in love. There was an issue though, John didn't know Valerie's past and everyone else did. Furthermore, John was from high society which made his involvement with Valerie doubly bad.

Throughout the movie people kept mentioning Dick Carmedon like he was a boogeyman. "Oh, don't you know she was with Dick Carmedon?" It was a roundabout way of saying she was under the sheets with a man who wasn't her husband.

When John became aware that Valerie used to be with Dick he got in his feelings and decided not to propose to his model turned sweetheart. To me it was another gimme-a-flippin'-break moment from early 20th century films. Too many times I've seen people fall in love while not knowing much about the other only to be surprised to hear that the person has skeletons in their closet. It's as if it's impossible for them to fall in love with anyone other than a pure, sinless soul. Like their heart is supposed to tell the difference between an angel and a fallible human being, so once they find out the object of their love is fallible they are crushed. It's very infuriating because the solution is so simple: before proposing, or accepting a proposal, REALLY GET TO KNOW THE PERSON. That means their family, their friends, and even their secrets. You don't have to know all their secrets, but at least the ones that may resurface one day.

John made the decision to cut Valerie out of his life once he found out about her past. She was rightfully upset because she never hid anything from him. If he had asked, she would've told him, but she genuinely thought he wasn't interested in her that way. All the same, John cut Valerie off clean.

Remember this is a romance though, so somehow they were going to have to reunite. Well, Valerie essentially crawled back into John's life as though she was the guilty party and the one needing to make amends. The petulant, moody John took her back. Their relationship would face one more obstacle set up by John's sister, Claire (Hedda Hopper), as she attempted to expose Valerie. Claire's devious plan didn't work and John and Valerie ran off to get hitched and, presumably, live happily ever after.

The whole thing was a joke. Somehow John was made to be the victim in all this when he was far from it. He fell in love with a woman he knew little about and he acted like an angry brat the rest of the movie once he did learn about her past. He was a child. A grown child, and that's why he was portrayed as the victim. He was an innocent child while Valerie was the worldly woman. How dare this worldly woman play with the emotions of a child? But that's not at all how I saw it. John was a naive, gullible, Mary Sue. He was a man-child who needed to grow up, and by all indications, that never happened and never was going to happen.