The Rich Are Always with Us (1932) User Reviews (19)

Sweet story, charming actors, and beautifully directed.

[Mme_Jannings · 7/10 · 24 August 2010]

When I first got this movie, I didn't watch it right away, thinking that, most probably it was a light comedy drama movie, but the actors interested me, especially George Brent and Bette Davis. Knowing that, in this movie, starring Ruth Chatterton, who was married with George Brent at that time, was happened to be the movie where Bette Davis and George Brent fell in love, appealed to me. Later on Chatterton and Brent would divorce but Brent and Davis never married although they kept a relationship for quite long.

But when I saw this movie I realized what a great actress Ruth Chatterton was. And for a time when actors and actresses would say their line the best right and straight forwarded way, Ruth Chatterton speaks in such natural way, at times repeating one or two words in a sentence, as if there was no camera at all. Something that nowadays actors do, at times not so naturally.

Bette Davis still not being "caught" by the clever camera, appears very glamorous, beautiful and determined, but her eyes, alas, the camera doesn't really focus the moment she is sitting on a couch and looking to the right, slowly... what would made her later on "Bette Davis' eyes". Anyhow she is so wonderful here that Davis fans will really love her play.

The romantic scenes are very well filmed, and because everything seems so naturally sophisticated, Brent kisses and embraces with a great gentleman's style. What he was in real life.

This movie's plot is very simple, but it is very well portrayed and love has a great importance as a meaning, like in so many classic movies. Only that in this one, love goes beyond "you and me"

Bette Davis is wonderful in an otherwise routine film.

[Macoco · 6/10 · 2 February 2000]

Although the film reads as a fairly typical marriage / divorce romance film, Bette Davis stands out as a feisty third wheel to George Brent and Ruth Chatterton. She is at her most playful and spirited in the scene in Brent's apartment before he leaves for Europe. Wonderful stuff.

were was the Depression in all this?

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 16 March 2016]

All these rich people and no one seemed to know a Depression was on.

Ruth Chatterton, George Brent, and Bette Davis star in "The Rich Are Always With Us." from 1932.

Then ten-year marriage of Caroline Van Dyke (Chatterton) and Greg Grannard is falling apart. It's one of those things where everyone flirts openly no matter if the spouse is standing right there or not.

Julian (Brent) is mad for Caroline, but she resists him, and, sensing Greg may be on his way out, pushes the issue. She says no and leaves for Paris, intending to file for divorce.

Julian follows her. Greg is having a hard time financially - I guess the Depression did hit him. Caroline returns to the U.S. to help -- she's filthy rich and always has been.

And so it goes, with Malbro (Davis) in love with Julian as well.

Elevated by the performances. Bette Davis is so young and fresh, she's marvelous. Brent looks very elegant in his dress clothes and plays the bachelor well.

And Ruth Chatterton - I can never figure out why I love her so much. Although forty at the time, she plays a thirty-year-old, which she often did. And I think they could have helped her a little by not giving her such awful clothes. She came from a stage background and really had a way with a line. Very natural, and yet somehow manages to be sophisticated at the same time. The whole film has a level of sophistication one doesn't see today.

Okay film - see it for the performances, particularly the early Davis, who nearly walks away with the film. And check out Brent lighting two cigarettes and giving one to Chatterton - guess that preceded Now, Voyager by a few years.

The Stars Shine in Silly Story

[drednm · 11 May 2006]

Almost silly plot but the three stars are very good. Ruth Chatterton plays the "richest woman in America" who has had a string of bad marriages but is being romanced by novelist George Brent. He is pursued by "the pest of Park Avenue," Bette Davis. Chatterton loses current husband (John Miljan) to gold digging Adrienne Dore.

Chatterton runs off to Paris for a divorce while Davis pursues Brent. Brent goes to Paris after the divorce but Chatterton can't make up her mind. He goes to Romania! Back in New York, Chatterton learns that the new wife is pregnant and that Brent and Davis are an item. Wrong on both counts. Things come to a head when Chatterton learns Brent is planning a year in China to write. That settles it.

The next morning the trampy wife can't wait to break the news of the evening's romance but Davis decks her and throws her out of her house. The old husband and trampy wife crash into a tree on their way back to town. She croaks but the mangled husband is calling out for Chatterton......

Total drivel but entertaining because of some snappy dialog and three tops stars.

Berton Churchill, Sam McDaniel, Cecil Cunningham, Walter Walker, Virginia Hammond co-star......

the rich fall in and out of marriage

[ksf-2 · 6/10 · 10 January 2019]

An EARLY bette davis film that no-one has ever heard of. she had only been in hollywood about a year. This one stars Ruth Chatterton and George Brent. The rich get in and out of marriage, almost on a whim. Hijinx follow.... history remade, since chatterton and brent actually WERE married for a bit. Great trio of lead actors. Davis WON a couple oscars over the years, chatterron was nominated a couple times, and brent was pretty good himself. It's a silly little pre-code talkie, a fun, fluffy little period piece, taking place over thirty years. Directed by Alfred Green, who had started in the silent films. This one must not be shown very often, as it doesn't have many votes on imdb.

High Society Blues

[lugonian · 7/10 · 10 November 2019]

THE RICH ARE ALWAYS WITH US (First National Pictures, 1932), directed by Alfred E. Green, marks the Warner Brothers/First National Pictures debut of Ruth Chatterton, following her success in MADAME X (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1929) and several other dramatic roles under the Paramount banner. Though briefly a stock player for Warners (1932-1934), her association would be short lived first in favor of Kay Francis (also from Paramount), then finally Bette Davis, who also appears in this production. As much as THE RICH ARE ALWAYS WITH US is virtually a Ruth Chatterton film, many familiar with the title would associate it with Bette Davis, who actually plays a secondary role here opposite George Brent, her second of eleven films with him, and Brent's first of four opposite Chatterton, whom he would actually marry and leading to a short-lived marriage.

The story begins in 1900 where women are seen discussing the Van Dyke's birth of a daughter they call Caroline, "the richest baby in the world"; then to 1920 where gossips talk about Caroline Van Dyke's marriage to stock broker, Gregg Grannard, and finally 1930 where Caroline Van Dyke (Ruth Chatterton), "the richest woman in the world," is dining with Julian Tierney (George Brent), a novelist. As much as Julian loves Caroline, his feelings aren't the same with Caroline's best friend, Malbro Barkley (Bette Davis), who loves him. At the same time, Caroline's husband, Gregg (John Miljan) is seen dining in the same restaurant with his client, Allison Adair (Adrienne Dore). Later at a party, Caroline entertains Julian while Gregg spends much of his time with Allison. After Caroline catches Gregg kissing Allison, she then realizes her marriage is over, especially after having her woman to woman talk with Allison, who claims she can make Gregg happy. Going through divorce proceedings in Paris, Julian follows her there with intentions on marrying her, but takes the next airplane back to the states when he feels Caroline still cares for Gregg enough to help with his financial business matters. Though Caroline and Julian get together again, Allison, who hates Caroline, does what she can to scandalize her good name, showing Gregg the type of woman he married. Others in the cast include: John Wray (Clark Davis); Walter Walker (Dante); Sam McDaniel (Max);' Berton Churchill (Judge Bradsha); and Virginia Verrill (Singer of "Trying to Live Without You").

As much as Bette Davis excelled in playing unsympathetic characters in some of her later films as OF HUMAN BONDAGE (RKO, 1934), the meatier role here actually goes to Adrienne Dore, the young blonde who takes a woman's husband away from him and falls out of love for him after her marriage to him. Yet is is Davis who's career prospered for the studio while Dore drifted to obscurity. Yet, for a Ruth Chatterton movie, this production is agreeable high society material.

Short and sweet at 71 minutes, THE RICH ARE ALWAYS WITH US is of sole interest of young Bette Davis early in her career. Yet it is a good way to rediscover its now forgotten star, Ruth Chatterton, best known for her oft-revived DODSWORTH (1936) starring Walter Huston, in one of her lesser known gems. Available on DVD and cable television's Turner Classic Movies should indicate films such as this are always with us. (**1/2)

With America then writhing in the throes of the Great Depression . . .

[oscaralbert · 6/10 · 14 September 2019]

. . . the always eponymous Warner Bros. tags this flick about the total lack of Ethics, Morality, and Common Sense among the USA's Fat Cat One Per Center Money Bags Leech Class as THE RICH ARE ALWAYS WITH US. This ironic title begs the question, "The Rich might have always been with us in the Past, but SHOULD they be with us still in our (then) upcoming Post-Depression Future?" When you watch THE RICH ARE ALWAYS WITH US with THAT question in mind, the obvious answer is a resounding "Heck, NO!!" As the thick-headed, weak-willed, banal, nonproductive Rich factotums of this story go about their meaningless affairs--mindlessly squandering the hard-earned wealth of the Working Class--Warner Bros.' prophetic prognosticators clearly are offering this tale as a "Call to Arms." Warner is warning us that if the Rich are allowed to persist in their own vices, a day may come when a self-proclaimed "billionaire" buffoon (not unlike the "Greg," "Julian," and "Dante" characters here) may waltz into the POTUS seat of our once-respected White House solely on his ability to bamboozle We Productive Normal Average True Blue Loyal Patriotic 99 Per Center Union Label Progressive Working Stiff Citizens by lying, prevaricating, and corruptly siphoning off our U.S. Treasury Gold for himself, his Crime Family, his Big Apple Mob, and the rest of his "Wealthy" ilk!

Not always rich, but poor it is not

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 2 December 2019]

The main reason to see 'The Rich are Always with Us' is the cast, a very talented one put to good use. In terms of the cast, although Ruth Chatterton was the star, it was most interesting for seeing a young Bette Davis in a very early role before she became one of film history's most esteemed actresses. The subject was also intriguing and had potential to be funny and charming if done well while having some depth at the same time.

Can see totally why 'The Rich are Always with Us' won't work for all tastes, evident from the reviews here. Can see too why others would find a lot to like about it. Personally did like 'The Rich are Always with Us' myself but would in all honesty would have liked to have loved it, with the potential it had it should have been better than it was. That is not a knock as again to me there was still much to like and a lot is done well, the best elements done excellently even.

Will start with those good things. The best thing is the acting, which is very good and very polished. Chatterton commands the screen with zest, dignity and poignancy, the discussion of how to go forward was very moving without being overwrought, and George Best underplays while still with enough charm to make his appeal to the other characters believable. Davis comes out on top with a spirited performance that livens up the film when she appears, especially in the apartment scene. The chemistry between the actors is both sweet and witty.

Opinions on the script seem to be quite divided, for me while not perfect it was one of 'The Rich are Always with Us' strengths. Loved its arch wit, its thrust, its sophistication and it had some affecting bittersweet moments too. The story, which left me a bit more conflicted, breezes by mostly thanks to namely the cast and the energetic yet also sensitive direction. The production values are not elaborate, but it is nicely filmed and the set design is attractive.

Less attractive are some of the costumes, why was Chatterton's wardrobe so unflattering here? Can understand the criticisms for the story, which is 'The Rich are Always with Us' weak link. Not only very flimsy, sometimes it does struggle with having enough content, but it can be quite silly, doesn't do an awful lot new and the glimpses of depth (which are actually mostly through Chatterton's performance) are not enough.

Also found the ending rather forced and too tidy.

In conclusion, nice enough and to be seen for primarily the acting. 7/10

Who wants to be a millionaire?

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 20 November 2013]

There's a difference between sexual attraction and sexual compatibility insists the wealthy Ruth Chatterton, telling her husband's obvious mistress that in spite of the fact that she is keeping company with another man. It is obvious that these wealthy sex games are like toys for tots and that tragedy will certainly strike one of them. As far as pre-code movies go, this has the plot, if not the sass, of most of Warner Brothers' pictures of this era. What is lacking also is a sparkling cast with John Miljan as the husband, George Brent as the other man and Adrienne Dore as the vindictive other woman who gets a star for her bitchiness if not her cleverness.

Newcomer Bette Davis shows some spark as one of Brent's admirers and is allowed to be a bit more gracious for the most part than usual roles of this nature. Her character seems to go from being Chatterton's confidante to obsessed with Brent yet still standing on Chatterton's side when Dore begins to get too nasty. Missing from her performance is her usual clipped speech which is a refreshing change. But this is Chatterton's film all the way, and she eats up the scenery every chance she gets even though her character is lacking in the morality she seems to be demanding in everybody else. While Warner Brothers had its share of decent society dramas, Paramount (Chatterton's former home) did them better than any other studio so in comparison, this one seems a lot less substantial than the others and almost lifeless in comparison.

A merry marital mixup, sort of

[marcslope · 6/10 · 24 August 2018]

Based on a contemporary novel, and adapted pretty well, this literate comedy-drama has rich Manhattanites generally marrying people they don't love and not marrying people they do. John Miljan and Ruth Chatterton, the richest woman in the world, have a teetering-on-collapse ten-year union complicated by a) Ruth flirting rather aggressively with a besotted George Brent, b) fellow heiress (one line of dialog suggests they're sisters, then that's dropped) Bette Davis lusting after George, c) Ruth not sure whether she loves George or not, and d) John canoodling with, and eventually divorcing Ruth to marry, Adrienne Dore. Post-divorce, Ruth still feels responsibility toward John, complicating her romance with George. You'll be pleased to know it all ends happily, though one of these four dies--and good riddance, the movie suggests. The dialog's fairly snappy, and Alfred E. Green keeps it moving nicely. Ruth and George, married in real life for a spell just around then, seem well matched despite her being 12 years older than he. He's at his handsomest here, and she, despite highfalutin speech patterns (she's always saying "cahn't"), does a lot of acting with her body language and facial expressions. A fairly entertaining trifle, and it's fun watching Warners try to glam up the young Bette.

Flimsy story, worth watching for performances

[surangaf · 5/10 · 25 July 2015]

There are 3 short clips at the start of this movie, set in 1900, 1920, and 1930, respectively, taking place in powder rooms where high society women gossip about Caroline Grannard, lead character, 'richest woman in the world', played by Ruth Chatterton; she is born, gets married, and lunching with writer Julian Tierney (George Brent). Interior decoration, dress, and even background music, are all period appropriate. While Warner Brothers probably had these sets and dresses and extras lying about from other movies, and whole thing cost very little, question that interest me is why all that for a simple exposition that would have taken two lines of dialogue in the movie proper? Did the director and producers wanted filler to pad up something so insubstantial that it cannot even stand on its own for 1 hour and 10 minutes? Seems so.

Plot here involve romantic and marital entanglements of rich society people, mainly on who the lead character really loves, her (soon ex) husband she 'mothers', or the writer who she keeps hanging without deciding (to the annoyance of a rather spoiled society girl (Bette Davis) who is in love with him). Nothing else, there is no higher purpose, no socio political commentary, no deep psychology, no insight into human nature and relationships, no simple enjoyable love story/villainy even. While there is no absolute requirement that movies should have some of that, absence do make them rather boring.

However, this is not boring, mainly because of the acting. Chatterton is so good that i want to see more of her movies. As others have noted, in this movie she has a way of repeating and even stammering some dialogue that is so naturalistic that i initially wondered whether they had run out of takes and used the least bad. But it happened frequently enough, and there were similar stuff with her gestures, that it was soon clear it was deliberate. She comes from a stage background, but when modern 'method actors' use similar techniques, you can spot them right away. Almost all the others were rather good too, though from a different style. Brent as usual underplays his part. Energetic Davis (3 years before her breakthrough role in 'On Human Bonadge') in that phase of career when Warner tried to make her blond, sexy, and glamorous (successfully in my opinion though she herself thought otherwise), found the right foil in Brent (with whom she was to star in quite a number of her best movies), as demonstrated by her scene with him in his apartment. John Miljan, who plays husband, and Adrienne Dore as his lover, were also good.

The rich are not just with us but everywhere in this film ...

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 3 April 2011]

... in which even "the poor writer" (George Brent as Julian Tierney) has posh roomy quarters and a full time servant in the person of Max (Sam McDaniel, Hattie Mc Daniel's brother).

In 1932 Warner's capitalized on their recent raid of Paramount's talent to put one of those stars (Ruth Chatterton) in the kind of drama that she did so well - playing a woman of means in the Great Depression that the average person could relate to and even find likable. Here Ms. Chatterton plays Caroline, born "the richest girl in the world". At age 20 she marries successful stock broker Greg Grannard (John Miljan). Then the film fast forwards to ten years later. Caroline is enjoying a rather robust flirtation with writer Julian. Julian wants it to be more, but you get the feeling that Caroline, although fond of Julian, is just doing this to feed her vanity and assure herself that she is still desirable, that she doesn't really want to upset her life as she has been living it all of these years.

It would never occur to her that her husband might feel the same way. He too is carrying on with someone else - the bratty Allison, who, unlike Julian, is not respecting of her lover's desire to leave things as they are. She lures Greg into an embrace where Caroline is sure to spot them and it leads to Greg being granted the divorce that Allison wants him to get so she can get her hooks into him. Complicating matters is Bette Davis as Malbro (wherever did they get that name???) as a socialite who wants Julian at any price and I mean that literally. One of Malbro's selling points to Julian is that if he married her he wouldn't have to work anymore.

I found the story interesting and the performances superb. Chatterton especially shines in the scene where she, her husband, and Allison are discussing how to go forward - divorce, open marriage, end the affair - after she spots Allison and Greg together. She gives the part and the scene the dignity and the subtlety it requires to be believable. All through the film, even after the divorce, she struggles with her desire for continuity - represented by Greg who is still very much in her life - versus her desire for passion, represented by Julian, who wants her to cut off ties with Greg entirely and marry him.

Even in such a small part you see can see what made Bette Davis great. When she turns into a ball of fire on screen in the few scenes she had center stage you can see how she blew the frost right off the first generation of talking film actresses. An interesting aside - the iconic moment in "Now Voyager" where Paul Henreid lights two cigarettes in his mouth and passes one to Davis was actually done here first. This time it is in a moment shared between George Brent and Ruth Chatterton.

Call me Malbro

[Handlinghandel · 5/10 · 29 May 2006]

Where in the world did the screenwriters come up with such a first name? It is attached to the flirty character very well played by Bette Davis.

Ruth Chatterton was always good. She and Davis are both rich (though exactly what the origin of the axiom in the title is, I'm not sure.) She is married to an insufferable stuffed shirt. George Brent is also interested in her. Why she wants to stay with her husband is unclear. It's not as if he's faithful.

Chatterton is not well served by the film. She is costumed and made up in a highly unflattering way. Superb film actress though she was, even in 1932, she was no spring chicken. And the movie is filmed in a way that accents this.

The situations are a tiny bit racy but don't accept an ooh-la-la sort of pre-Code movie. It's a drawing room comedy of a second- or third-tier. Davis's character's name is probably the most memorable thing about it.

Great Cast but Boring Characters

[Michael_Elliott · 22 March 2011]

Rich Are Always with Us, The (1932)

** (out of 4)

A nice cast can't save this tiresome drama about boring rich people and their boring, pathetic lives. Ruth Chatterton plays Caroline who has the great fortune of being the richest woman in the world but this doesn't stop her husband from leaving her for a "normal" woman. She has a man (George Brent) who wants to marry her but there's another rich woman (Bette Davis) after him. All three remain friends as their money and personal lives continue to grow frantic. I can't imagine this film going over too well in 1932 considering what the country was going through at the time. It's hard to imagine poor folks lining up for this thing and enjoying what was in front of their eyes because even when viewed today these characters are all one-note and rather boring. The screenplay is a major bust because there's not a single character written that you'll care for or want to see happy at the end. I'm sure great movies could be made about unhappy rich people but this here isn't it. It's never too clear what the film is trying to accomplish because on one hand it wants us to feel sorry for these people but on the other why should we? The screenplay doesn't give them any personality and in the end it's just impossible to care for them, which is a major problem in a movie like this. Director Green should also be taken to task because you can't tell anyone was behind the camera. There's not an ounce of energy to be found anywhere as there's no atmosphere and the look of the film is quite flat as well. The one saving grace are some fine performances by a more than good cast. Chatterton was always good at playing this type of woman but the screenplay really lets her down. Both Brent and Davis are good in their roles but the screenplay doesn't help them either. THE RICH ARE ALWAYS WITH US isn't one of the worst films ever made but once the end credits come up there's really no purpose in the entire film.

Well acted but not a film I particularly enjoyed.

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 12 November 2019]

It seems odd that so many films made during the Depression were about rich, pretty and sophisticated people. After all, with 20% of the population out of work and wages incredibly low, you'd think the patrons in the theaters would grow sick and tired of these fancy stories. But, despite this, the major studios made tons of films involving the lives of the rich and successful. Perhaps it was all escapism....with the average folks looking at what life COULD be like if.

In the case of "The Rich Are Always With Us", the film not only is about these rich folks but has a very healthy dose of Pre-Code sensibilities as well. What I mean is that before July, 1934, the studios often made movies with incredibly adult themes. Adultery, abortions, insanity, homosexuality and many topics which became taboo with the new Production Code had been pretty common in the years leading up to 1934. For example, the film actually uses the word 'sex'--very unusual even in the Pre-Code era....and it also treats marriage in a rather cavalier manner...one not allowed in films only two years later.

Caroline is an incredibly rich woman who is married to Greg. Despite this, she hangs out a lot with her male friend, Julian (George Brent) and Greg hangs around with Allison. The difference is that Caroline and Julian see it all as harmless flirtation...but Greg and Allison are actually lovers. When Caroline discovers this, she is incredibly understanding (too much so!) and encourages the pair to marry...and she's soon off to France to get a divorce and get Greg out of her system. Following the divorce, Julian arrives in France and asks Caroline to marry him...though she hesitates and he leaves. He's not about to beg her and is going to get on with his life. He ends up spending much of his time with another lady on the rebound (Bette Davis). And as for Caroline, it's difficult to say WHAT she wants. She ends up persuing Julian...but also starts spending time with Greg! What's to become of this...especially when Greg's new (and incredibly jealous) wife gets involved?!

As you watch the movie, it's very likely you'll feel like the characters are all being too polite and sophisticated. Normally, you'd expect divorcing people to hate each other or harbor SOME ill feelings....but not during most of this film. Caroline later DOES show some feelings....and keeps them to herself. After all, it wouldn't be polite to get angry!

So it this any good? Well, although it's hard to connect with and care about these people, the acting and direction were very good. Also, the ending is pretty limp....and really seemed a bit contrived. Overall, just an okay time-passer....and it should have been much better.

Dated, silly--but George Brent really appealing in a real-life romance

[rhoda-9 · 5/10 · 3 September 2020]

I had always thought George Brent rather wooden and recessive--the reason so many tempestuous leading ladies loved acting opposite him (no chance of being outshone). But as Ruth Chatterton's would-be lover (they married after making the movie), he is very sweet, even exciting at times, and shows genuine enthusiasm when grappling with her in the back of a taxi.

Unfortunately, Ruth allows only hugs and a stolen kiss and then fights him off, in a manner more suited to a frightened teenager than to a middle-aged woman. (Though we are told that her character is 30, Ruth was actually ten years older; Brent was 28.) This happens even though she is divorced from a husband who left her for a petulant little drip half her age. Although Brent keeps proposing marriage, she thinks it's too soon, and lectures him in such arch dialogue as "You're not the least attractive of men, and I'm not the least susceptible of women." We are supposed to admire Ruth for being chaste and noble, but today she just seems ridiculous.

Wasted and demeaned in the movie is a young and very beautiful Bette Davis, who is in love with Brent, and follows him everywhere, annoying him with endless silly chatter. In real life as well Davis was keen on Brent but he wasn't interested. But only two years later his marriage to Chatterton had ended, her career was nearly over, and Bette had made Of Human Bondage, which made her a star. Talk about backing the wrong horse!

A Case of Wanting Her Cake and Eating It, Too

[journeygal · 8/10 · 8 November 2019]

The title "The Rich Are Always With Us" is long and well, stupid, as the only correlation to the movie is that the protagonist, Caroline, is crazy rich. Maybe it was a snide allusion to the fact that the movie was filmed during the Great Depression but the rich are carrying on as usual.

This movie is just 71 minutes long, but manages to tell a story. Back then, directors used headlines or calendars or something along those lines to illustrate the passage of time. This one starts by showing "1900" and two women gossiping about a new baby named Caroline, the richest child in America. Then "1920" and two women are gossiping about Caroline getting married. And then "1930" and the movie opens. If it was filmed today, those few moments would be drawn out to create a 2 or 3 hour movie, in order to tell the story before they get to the actual story. If nothing else, I appreciate how movies back then were not bogged down with so much info and pre-story the way they are now.

It does, however, put you at a slight disadvantage when the film actually begins, as all you know is there's a rich 30 year old woman named Caroline and ACTION! Basically it is about the lives of five people--Caroline Grannard, of course, and her husband Greg, who are on the verge of a divorce. There's also Malbro (played by an impossibly young and beautiful Bette Davis) who I believe is Caroline's best friend, but there is a phone call between the two where Malbro asks "How's Mother doing?" so maybe they are sisters? George Brent plays handsome author Julian Tierney. Malbro likes him, but she is quite aware that he is in love with Caroline so she's more chummy than romantic with him. There's also the whiny and annoying Allison Adair who appears to be a hangers-on, of sorts. She has her eyes set on Greg. The Ven diagram needed to sort this out would be ridiculous... Caroline is likable, but you also want to yell at her. She has a perfectly fine husband, all the money and fabulousness a person could ever want for, yet she is in love with Julian. She admits this, but she also is having a hard time letting Greg go, especially when she realizes Allison is attempting to get her hooks into him. When she sees the two kissing, she decides it is time for the divorce so she goes to France to take care of it. Julian has asked Caroline again and again to marry him and she keeps putting him off. He has to go to Europe on business so they briefly meet up and it appears that Caroline finally realizes that she stands to lose him as well, if she doesn't make a decision soon. Back in the states, though, she finds it hard to cover her jealousy when she first hears that Greg and Allison have married, and then later hears they are expecting a baby. Despite her indecisiveness it finally looks as if she and Julian are making a go of it. And then she gets word that Greg and Allison were in a dreadful accident. Allsion was killed and Greg might not make it. So of course Caroline rushes to his side and Julian feels as if he will always be second best. He decides to go to Europe and never return. However, Caroline surprises us all when she realizes there's a judge recuperating in the hospital as well. She has the judge officiate at an impromptu wedding for her and. . . Julian. A twist ending, I love it! Movies in the 30s and 40s almost always had the woman 'doing the right thing' instead of following their heart. Despite the stupid movie name, I thoroughly enjoyed this one.

The Rich Are not "With" Us

[view_and_review · 4/10 · 15 June 2023]

One thing is for sure: the meaning of this title is in the physical/literal sense, not the sentimental/commiserate sense. They may be with us, as in they exist around us, but they are not "with" us, as in they're on our side and relate to us. It is so easy to hate rich people and this movie did nothing to ameliorate such sentiments. "The Rich are Always with Us" is a movie about high society philandering with class. That was already such a well-tread topic even in 1932 that adding to that genre wasn't worth it.

High-society super-rich girl Caroline Grannard (Ruth Chatterton) was married to a stock broker named Greg (John Miljan) and both had side pieces. Caroline was fooling around with a writer named Julian Tierney (George Brent), who loved her to pieces, while Caroline's best friend, Malbro (Bette Davis), had a hankering for Julian.

Recap:

Caroline married to Greg but messing around with Julian. Caroline best friends with Malbro who has a crush on Julian. A triangle with extra going on.

Meanwhile, Greg (Caroline's husband) was seeing a socially stupid girl named Allison (Adrienne Dore). Both Greg and Caroline had good reason to be seen with their paramours so long as an appearance of business and propriety was kept. Greg upset that arrangement when, in a rather sloppy fashion, he was caught kissing Allison. Although Greg was a bit embarrassed, Allison was not. She was quite bold and pretty much threw the relationship in Caroline's face.

That opened the door for Caroline to get a divorce and marry Julian if she so pleased, but it seemed she still had a soft spot for her pathetic husband.

"The Rich" was so full of pretentiousness and desperation. Everyone was either pretentious, desperate, or both. Julian was desperate to marry Caroline. Malbro was desperate to marry Julian. Allison was desperate to marry Greg. Greg and Caroline weren't desperate, but they were certainly pretentious. The whole mess between them all seemed unreal like a game that only rich people play. Regardless of how one felt or what injustice was done they all had to go on being dignified and classy because appearances meant more than anything. The most undignified person was Allison and she paid dearly for it.

It was just another movie that made rich people appear fake and unlikeable. Sure, you can call it a romance, but even the romantic talk was stiff and unrelatable. The song and dance they all did was so out of tune and out of touch that it made the whole movie tasteless.

2.99 on Amazon Prime.

More than a quick roll

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 13 March 2015]

George Brent in The Rich Are Always With Us got to work with two very important women in his life. Brent was married to star Ruth Chatterton for a bit after this film was released. Also in the cast was Bette Davis who Brent later got involved with and who had him as her male lead in some of her best films.

This one however will never be ranked as one of the best film for any of the trio above. Chatterton plays a Gloria Vanderbilt type heiress who married John Miljan after the end of the Great War. Miljan was a stockbroker and his marriage to Chatterton brought him lots of clients and lots of business. But Miljan has always had a roving eye and now its roved to Adrienne Dore who's a pretty and predatory piece of fluff who wants a lot more than a quick roll in the hay.

That's a situation that does not please Brent who plays a novelist who's always had a thing for Chatterton. That in turn does not please pretty young flapper Bette Davis who has a thing for Brent, something she would have in many films to come.

Davis is so alive and so electric in her presence that she sweeps the film away from the stars when she's on the screen. You wish you would get more of her, but her big break for stardom was two years away with Of Human Bondage.

While so many millions were wondering where the next meal and/or paycheck would be forthcoming in 1932 still these films about the rich and their problems were a box office draw. The Rich Are Always With Us was true escapist entertainment.

With the exception of Davis and Dore all the rest in the cast act like romantic saps. I will say that as to the ending Ruth Chatterton does two things that the forthcoming Code would never permit.