The second film based upon Michael Arlen's novel The Green Hat (previous is the silent A Woman of Affairs with Greta Garbo). This sound version stars the lovely and talented Constance Bennett in the lead as a woman whose background precludes an English aristocratic family from accepting her as one of their own when the Herbert Marshall's character falls in love with her. The rest of the movie revolves around this star-crossed love and the consequences of trying to do the right thing instead of following your heart. I found Marshall's performance too wooden but it is offset by excellent supporting characters. The story line appears to suffer from cuts in content that cause inadequate transitions. Fans of Constance Bennett will be amused at the similarity of the ending of this film to one of the main events in a follow-on work, Topper. An interesting, but not completely satisfying film that probably bears comparison to the original novel. Gowns by Adrian.
Add a Review
-
Jim Tritten1 September 2005
-
Handlinghandel2 September 2005Filled with people one really ought not know. Do not worry, though: They conveniently die off.
First we have Boy. He marries Constance Bennett, even though she seems to have a reputation. Exactly what has given her this reputation is never made clear. But she really wants to marry stuffy Herbert Marshall His father is having none of it, thank you very much.
So Boy to the rescue. But Boy too has a past. We are never told what it is but Bennett's brother Gerald has a strangely intense relationship with him and maybe Boy was -- Well, my dear .... Oh, it's too painful.
Gerald is photographed intriguingly. He has a drinking problem and his scenes, as the movie stride along, are shot in a way that prefigures film noir.
Bennett does a good job. But the whole thing is overdone in the extreme. One has a feeling that if a fly were to light on one of the character's hands, the others would rush to him or her: "My dear," they would say. "How can you bear it. You are so, so brave." -
jbacks322 October 2010This is an MGM chick flick, 1934- style. Constance Bennett, a first class actress, is Iris, a penniless heiress (I'm still trying to get my brain around how she and her drunken brother can live so well despite their circumstances... they have servants who work whilst politely grumbling over not being paid) who loves the Napier, (Herbert Marshall) son of a prominent English family with interests in India. His father (Henry Stephenson) bans their marriage and each goes off in different directions while carrying awfully large torches for each other. My problems with the production: 1) Marshall is ill-fitted as the somewhat spineless son--- he's 44 here (!) 2) Stephenson is a real one-dimensional turd until the big revelation. 3) The ending (I won't give it away, but it doesn't really fit with Iris' temperament). Connie Bennett ranks (along with Kay Francis and Bebe Daniels) as one of the most underrated actresses around and is always fascinating to watch... even in pedestrian soap like this.
-
Hollywood's British colony with the exception of star Constance Bennett filled out the roles in this drama about the British upper classes. I know that American audiences during the Depression did like to see how the upper crust lived. But these noble sacrificing people were a bit much.
Herbert Marshall who appeared regularly in these kind of dramas is going out with Bennett. But dear old dad disapproves because of the unsavory reputation she and brother Hugh Williams have. Henry Stephenson was always playing these upper crust British types as the British like to see themselves is the father.
As a dutiful son and member of Parliament he obeys. Marshall even makes a more suitable match in Elizabeth Allan. As for Bennett she nobly sacrifices herself and Williams does likewise.
A little honesty all around and none of these plot situations would have developed. Outcast Lady should stay outcast. -
hotangen30 January 2015Constance Bennett is terrific in this not so terrific film. Late in life she told an interviewer she was no Sarah Bernhardt but her self-appraisal was off target and doesn't apply to her performance as the outcast lady. MGM filmed this story in 1929 with Garbo and audience comparison of the 2 interpretations may have been a factor in the 1934 version's box-office failure. Or maybe it was something else.
In the early scenes Iris is a young woman in love, bubbling with happiness, for she's about to marry her true love, played by Herbert Marshall. But Marshall is miscast. He's too old to play Napier, Iris childhood playmate, who allows his father to make major life decisions for him. Iris and Napier don't marry. Years later, Iris marries 'Boy', a man with a secret, which she discovers on her wedding day. Boy's response to her discovery is incredible. Iris then makes her own incredible decision that results in the ruination of those she loves as well as herself. Iris tells a lie. This saves Boy's reputation while destroying her own. More years later, the truth is revealed, but it's too late to be of use to anyone. That Bennett succeeds in making these incredible happenings credible is impressive.
And Bennett is graceful and alluring on the dance floor. A wonderful scene shows the pleasure seeking merry widow in her Adrian gown dancing the tango in a nightclub on the Riviera. She does appear to be enjoying herself and her partner. But we know better. Under that gay exterior there beats the broken heart of a noble woman. Or something like that.
Variety's reviewer wrote, "It's a very good acting job by Constance Bennett and if the story hadn't been such a patch-quilt it might have been one of her memorable performances." I agree. The story is to blame. BTW, the secret Iris guarded is somewhat mysterious. Being referred to as Boy's "purity" has misled today's viewers, but the audience of 1934, especially the males, would have known that Boy had a disease, at that time incurable and considered so shameful that it was spoken of only in confidence with one's doctor. MGM's genius producer, Irving Thalberg, as well as the Production Code were responsible for this hash. -
planktonrules2 November 2010Occasionally, I read a review of a film and think to myself "I think that sums up the film every bit as good as I could...probably better". So, because of that, you might want to read the review of David (Handlinghandel), as he hits the mark.
The film begins with Constance Bennett and Herbert Marshall becoming engaged. However, when Constance tells her friends, she is shocked to hear how dead-set against it his father (Henry Stephenson) is. Apparently, she is poor and has quite the past--though what exactly this is, we don't know.
Four years pass--Constance is about to marry another when Marshall returns for her. Considering he's a limp weenie who left her when his father objected, I can't see how this makes a lot of sense. And, it didn't, so they pledge eternal friendship. Jolly good, eh what?! What happens next, you'll need to see for yourself....if you care.
Through so much of the film, the characters are so well-mannered and stilted that the entire thing is pretty dull. It's odd that during the Depression so many Hollywood films featured pretty rich folks with rather mundane problems. After all, who cares about the romance of Sir Reginald Muckity-muck or the ennui that comes with vacationing on the French Riviera or difficulty getting good servants when so many out there (about 25%) were unemployed and whose families subsisted on rat sandwiches?! And here, to make it worse, are some of the dull rich folks and low-energy performances! As a result, shortly into the film I just wanted it all to end...or for there to be some ill-mannered buffoonery (such as one of the characters using a cocktail fork to eat their pheasant....oh, the horror!).
Too many pained looks from Marshall, a dull script and unlikable characters sink this one. Just because it was made by MGM doesn't mean it's worth seeing. -
AlsExGal29 January 2017I am spoiling this film and "A Woman of Affairs" almost completely, so if you don't want to know the details do not read on.
This film is a sound version of the silent film "A Woman of Affairs", but lacks the poetry of that silent version, mainly because, although Constance Bennett and Herbert Marshall are very good actors, they do not have the chemistry of John Gilbert and Greta Garbo, but then who did? In this film, Bennett plays Iris, and Hugh Williams plays Gerald, her brother who likes alcohol just a little too much. They are not framed as "The Mad Merricks" as they were in "A Woman of Affairs", but as a family living off of faded finery, a result of the bad luck of the family. Iris and Gerald grew up with Napier (Herbert Marshall), and on a trip back from India, where he has been in the British foreign service, Iris and Napier spend months together where they fall into adult love and want to marry. But Napier's dad, who has always been friendly to Iris, tells her upfront she will ruin Gerald's life with her bad genes and bad luck if she does so. So Napier goes back to India, hoping to make his fortune there so he can marry Iris, but his luck never does turn.
Years pass, and Iris finally marries the guy who has always been crazy about her, although she is just fond of him - wealthy Boy Fenwick. A note is handed to Iris on their wedding day. And it says that Boy has been to prison in the past for some "horrible crime" which is never explained. When Iris confronts Boy on their wedding night, Boy admits this is the truth and then pitches himself out the window. To save Boy's reputation, Iris makes everybody who is at the scene that night agree to the falsehood that Boy jumped to his death because of finding out "what kind of woman" Iris was on their honeymoon. And the misunderstandings just keep on coming until there is a tragic end for just about everybody. There is also more of a detailed explanation in this film of why Gerald put Boy on a pedestal as he did.
Thus visual cues are replaced with dialogue, and the dialogue is much more specific than in "A Woman of Affairs". In the silent version, Garbo just says her new husband "died for honor" and lets everybody assume the rest. There was never a note, instead it was the police at the door with the new husband looking on in horror as the handcuffs came closer to him. He was going to be charged with embezzlement. Then there is Garbo's loose ring that falls off when she gives in to passion with John Gilbert's character, a ring whose difficulty staying on her finger she has earlier said mirrors her difficulty in behaving with good character. There is Garbo lying in bed in her pajamas on her wedding night playing with the overhead light, turning it on and off, mirroring the ambivalent feelings she has for her new husband. She has moved on, but did not really want to.
In both films, when Garbo/Iris falls ill, she goes looking for her flowers and when she finds them cradles them as one would a baby, pretty much settling the issue that she has lost Gilbert's/Napier's baby and it is this loss, not just the loss of a child but the loss of having a piece of her true love that she can keep forever, that has driven her mentally and physically ill for a time.
I'd advise watching "A Woman of Affairs" and this film back to back. Everybody is quite good in their roles and I would probably say that this is one good example of where the poetry of silent film could not be improved with the addition of dialogue. -
disorientatedmovie8 November 2017How an actress so magnificent is not more celebrated leaves me shaken with incomprehension.
I love her in comedies such as "My man Godfrey" and "Merrily we live" but in this she suffers so gallantly and beautifully. In my first feature film I style Elizabeth Mcgovern after her and in this film she shimmers and shines.
I cannot recommend it more.
See it and love it and cherish it.
Her sister Joan always said she knew who she was and what she could bring to the screen and boy in this does she deliver the goods. -
blanche-230 June 2021This movie is totally dated.
Outcast Lady stars Constance Bennett, one of my favorite actresses, along with Herbert Marshall, Mrs. Patrick Campbell, Hugh Williams, Elizabeth Allen, Henry Stephenson, Ralph Forbes, and Leo G. Carroll.
This film is a remake of a 1929 film of Garbo's - I'm sure it was better.
Constance is Iris March Fenwick, a woman from a less than successful family who nevertheless had childhood playmates from prestigious families: Napier (Marshall) and Boy (Forbes), both of whom are in love with her.
Napier wants to marry her, but his father (Stephenson) feels it will be detrimental to his career - Iris has no money and no status. He decides to take a job out of the country, make good, and then come back for her.
It doesn't work out that way, and Iris several years later marries Boy. On their wedding night, she discovers a note that someone slipped her, stating that Boy had been in prison under another name. We're not told the crime, but it must have been heinous, because when she shows Boy the note, he jumps out a window.
Iris is blamed, for reasons that aren't terribly clear. Well, first off, people think she pushed him. That aside, people believe that Boy discovered he had made a horrible mistake in marrying Iris and jumped to his death in horror. I guess I don't have the imagination for this - I can't imagine, after knowing her for years, what he discovered. I guess the implication is she had too much sexual know-how.
Iris bravely refuses to tell anyone the real reason for Boy's suicide. Everyone hates her. She then travels and has dalliances. Her brother, Gerald (Marsh) is a down and out alcoholic. He won't speak to her since he blames her for Boy's death. I mean, he sounds like he was in love with him.
Iris wants to help Gerald but since he won't have anything to do with her. Will she finally decide to tell him the truth about Boy?
This thing was totally over the top, so melodramatic, I wanted to scream. The end didn't surprise me at all.
Constance, of course, was gorgeous and in beautiful Adrian gowns. She's very appealing. It's highly doubtful that Herbert Marshall, fourteen years older than both Bennett and Forbes, was a childhood playmate. Still, he's noble and earnest.
Marsh as Gerald comes off as a crazy man. Some of that can be attributed to the acting style back then, and the rest can be attributed to the script.
These actors have all been in better films. -
marcslope13 March 2019That's allegedly the source material for this stilted "women's picture," directed by Robert Z. Leonard wishing he were George Cukor. Constance Bennett, lovingly photographed and lively, but lacking the British accent of everyone around her, loves Herbert Marshall, but his father won't permit his son to associate with her disreputable clan, so Herbert runs off to India. Constance dithers for four years then marries a very rich nice man, who's also adored by her young brother, to an extreme that can only be called suspicious. On their wedding night she learns that her groom committed some unspecified unspeakable crime and went to prison under a different name, and he's so ashamed by the revelation that he jumps out of the window. Her brother renounces her and runs off to drink and ruin, while she tells a lie to preserve her late husband's honor. Marshall, meanwhile, marries nice Elizabeth Allan, though his heart's forever with Connie. The brother dies, Elizabeth sends Herbert back to Connie, the truth comes out, Herbert's rotten father apologizes, and Connie's so devastated by the revelation that she jumps into her roadster and slams suicidally into a tree. It's a stiff but entertaining one, with unlikelihood piling on top of unlikelihood and everybody being insufferably noble. The only other notable element is Mrs. Patrick Campbell, third-billed but on screen for only a minute or two. Worth a look to see just how excessive women's weepies could be at the time.
-
HotToastyRag13 May 2021Constance Bennett and Herbert Marshall have known each other since childhood, but his father, Henry Stephenson, doesn't want them to marry. He sends Herbie away on business, and Constance isn't able to wait. True love has its time limit, I guess. She marries Herbie's best friend, Ralph Forbes, for revenge. Constance really isn't likable in this movie, since her character is both stupid, stubborn, and immature. Later in the movie, she's in knowledge of certain truths that could clear up a lot of confusion and a lot of hurt; but she refuses to tell what she knows. And she's oblivious to the one who's loved her all along. She uses men and doesn't care, but instead of a villainess, we're supposed to feel sorry for her.
It's a big melodrama that can only be seen in the silver screen. If you like the cast, you can try it out. I found it too over-the-top for my taste. It could have been fixed with a better heroine, but I just couldn't get immersed. Plus, I felt the two leads were miscast. Constance Bennett seemed too tired to actually care about anything, and Herbert Marshall didn't seem like the type of man who would let his father boss him around. If you like this movie, you might try out the silent version, A Woman of Affairs, starring Greta Garbo and John Gilbert. -
kcfl-18 April 2019In his review Hotangen wrote (1/30/15): "BTW, the secret Iris guarded is somewhat mysterious. Being referred to as Boy's "purity" has misled today's viewers, but the audience of 1934, especially the males, would have known that Boy had a disease, at that time incurable and considered so shameful that it was spoken of only in confidence with one's doctor."
But the gist of the film is the "unspeakable crime" Boy committed. Can't be murder; he served just a few years.
I haven't read the source book, but I'm speculating he was jailed for "unnatural acts." Homosexuality so shameful he self-defenestrated when his new wife found out.
In other words, this could be an Oscar Wilde situation (also used by Joyce Carol Oates in "The Falls.").
All in all a silly story.