criterionforum.org

There was something either on TCM of FMC where they spoke about upcoming DVDs this month and they spoke of Heaven Can Wait and said it was Lubitsch's most successful film. They might have said his most successful film at Fox, but that's hardly a statement.

What a treat, and it looks fantastic. The Moyers program on Raphaelson is as charming as the Fuller interview on Pickup On South Street.

The lack of conflict and redemption certainly appeals to this fan of the ambiguous, but I can imagine folks who demand such things will feel cheated. The lack of an overwrought score will also confound those who need their emotional cues shouted at them.

Is it only me who finds it odd that people would have a problem w/ the idea of a man living an unexceptional life, full of misdemeanors but no actual crimes (to paraphrase), who is then not sentenced to eternal hellfire and damnation? Are Lubitsch and Raphaelson perhaps holding up a mirror to society, and instead of looking inside themselves, which at least Henry Van Cleve does in the film, society (or at least those w/ a problem) cast(s) judgement on the filmmakers.

it's outrageously hypocritical of Henry to be acting the jealous husband with Martha

It's also strictly in line with human nature, as are most things in the film, including Martha's positive reaction Jaime also notes.

I'd Just like to chime in by saying I was totally charmed by this Lubitsch gem.I just love it when Criterion release these Technicolor films.Gene Tierney is just too hot!

Gene Tierney and Grace Zabriskie have an eerie resemblence.

That makes sense why she was then cast in Twin Peaks.

OMG you are right!Good eye?

Hi everyone--I've been lurking around here for a few months, but I finally caved in and registered specifically to discuss this amazing film.

Intrigued by its cover design and back-cover description, I rented Heaven Can Wait the day the DVD came out, and man, was I impressed! This is the first of Lubitsch's films I have ever seen, and if HCW is any indicator, he's sure to become one of my favorite directors.

The fact that a studio movie from the 1940's could be so ethically ambiguous is amazing to me. Most films I've seen from the Forties paint their characters as either saints or devils, with no room in between [like The Lost Weekend, for instance], yet somehow Lubitsch managed to make a film all about womanizing that didn't glorify or condemn the practice. In addition to being an adulterer, Henry is a superficial, selfish and lazy ass, yet like Gene Tierney, we forgive him and support the Devil's decision to send him back up the elevator.

Speaking of which, no, the alternate ending was not appended to the DVD version, though it would help to explain the title.

According to DVD commentators Molly Haskell and Andrew Sarris, HCW was not a very popular film upon its release. Haskell and Sarris speculate that in the WWII days, most movies depicted battles between good and evil, and a movie this eccentric simply didn't appeal to the public.

As for the DVD quality itself, the Technicolor was excellent, and as always, Criterion did an outstanding job with the transfer.

Welcome to the forum Penny Dreadful =D> If you liked HCW you should check out the Criterion edition of Trouble in Paradise.You will not be disappointed.And yes it is quite a nifty little cover. Best

Penny, be sure to check out TROUBLE IN PARIDISE, TO BE OR NOT TO BE, SHOP AROUND THE CORNER, THE MERRY WIDOW, LOVE PARADE, MARRIAGE CIRCLE, SMILING LIEUTENANT, and NINOTCHKA. Truthfully though, I've noticed among my friends that the first Lubitsch film you watch is always your favorite. Everything after that is a little dissapointing.

I too am intrigued that you rented the film from the cover design.

JusteLeblanc wrote:Truthfully though, I've noticed among my friends that the first Lubitsch film you watch is always your favorite. Everything after that is a little dissapointing.

Not to just be a contrarian, but I am having the opposite reaction to his films. I caught Shop Around the Corner a few years ago on TCM and was bored to tears (have yet to revisit it as well.) But every film since I've enjoyed more than the last (holding Trouble in Paradise in the highest esteem.) I would love to see more of his silents, can anyone familiar with this Lubitsch era compare them to his more widely known sound films?

I loved THE MARRIAGE CIRCLE, though I didn't think it was as good as TROUBLE IN PARADISE.

You should take another look at SHOP AROUND THE CORNER if you haven't already. It's his most Capra-esque film (not just in the casting) but I think it's just as charming as NINOTCHKA.

I too am intrigued that you rented the film from the cover design.

Yes, I'm a sucker for anything with the hand-drawn style, like original poster art or melted-looking cartoon angels. That look is so rare in these days of cheesy Photoshopping, whether it be on billboards, magazine covers, or DVDs.

This is slightly off-topic, but I find it odd that the major studios always opt to put boring designs on their covers, even going so far as to requesting TWO covers for The Life Aquatic and using the ugly one. In my opinion, odd little drawings and cartoons stand out from the pack and would draw positive attention to the product.

At any rate, I'll be checking out Trouble In Paradise next. Thanks for all the recommendations!

JusteLeblanc wrote:I loved THE MARRIAGE CIRCLE, though I didn't think it was as good as TROUBLE IN PARADISE.

I, on the other hand, prefer "Marriage Circle".

;~}

I must say that while I have enjoyed the Criterion Lubitsch's I loved the non Criterion films, especially the new release of "Design For Living". Was wondering if this was pre code because it seemed more free and continental, plus of course it starred the young and amazingly handsome Gary Cooper. Also thought "Little Shop Around The Corner" was witty and that both of these films had something extra - an attention to detail in the sets, the quickness of the dialogue that seems absent from the two Criterions. Waiting for the Garbo set to see more. Dont get me wrong the Criterions have there charm too, just in smaller amounts.

Yes, Design For Living (1933) is absolutely considered a "pre-code" (that is, before the regular enforcement of the 1930 Motion Picture Code) film.

How about "Eternal Love"? It doesn't sound like it has much humor....

So, I wonder about this (and it's rather expensive).

I haven't seen it. I hear it's great though, but you're right, not as funny. It still has a lot of charm. I'd netflix it.

Has anyone seen Angel? I think that one's serious as well.

I saw Angel at the National Film Theatre, London not too long ago, in a gorgeous print. The film feels like an exercise in stylishness more than anything else, but it's carried off gracefully. It's like one of those old-fashioned plays where you know just what the characters are going to be like and more or less just what's going to happen to them, but you get real pleasure from watching events unfold as they're supposed to, and from seeing in the actors that they know that you know that they're not fooling you for a minute, and that they're along for the ride as much as you are. As too many little theatres have proved, it takes a lot of skill to make that work. Herbert Marshall is always very watchable and too often underrated; Melvyn Douglas is a real pro; and Dietrich, well, she spends her time being Dietrich in just the sort of outfits you'd want Dietrich to be wearing. I enjoyed it a lot, and have been keeping my eye out for a DVD release (if the film's been restored, or is for whatever reason still in great shape, why not do the transfer?), but no such luck.

Geeky sidenote #564: Want a mini-restoration comparison? The clips of the film featured in the Haskell/Sarris chat haven't yet been digitally scrubbed - there's multi-coloured (green!) dirt and speckling galore.

I first saw this film on TV back in the 80s and immediately loved it (and was surprised that it didn't seem to be better thought of by critics), but in the intervening years could not remember what I loved about it, and consequently undervalued it.

I saw it again on Christmas Day (highly recommended timing!) and understood exactly why I'd undervalued it. The film is so miraculously light and delicate that, after you've seen it, it's easy to forget its emotional depth and overlook its brilliant humour. The film is consistently witty, and often sparklingly funny, but the humour isn't packaged into big comic scenes (just as the pathos isn't packaged into big dramatic scenes) - it runs through the entire film like a fine thread.

Lubitsch encompasses a wide range of moods not by shifting gears continually, but by artfully integrating comic, dramatic and romantic material into perfectly balanced scenes. When major characters vanish between scenes it's profoundly moving yet utterly underplayed. As in real life, the real sadness comes from our sense of loss - the world of the film is a lesser place without Hugo or Martha in it - rather than the manipulations of a tearful death scene. A wonderful, moving, and devilishly funny film.

I can't believe I never posted about this film. I blind bought it, and now, if forced to choose my favorite film of all time, this would be it.

Nice to hear it. I will check it out very soon. Please elaborate on why you love it so much. I'm intrigued. Thanks.

SncDthMnky wrote:I can't believe I never posted about this film. I blind bought it, and now, if forced to choose my favorite film of all time, this would be it.

We can't believe you didn't either, and shame on you for holding out on us until now! The insight contained in your post will certainly inspire many here to reassess this undervalued gem.

<insert sarcastic emoticon here... >

Well, I haven't sat and analyzed the film really, I just find it the most watchable of anything I've seen. Don Ameche is incredibly handsome and charming , Tierney is beautiful, and the supporting cast have perfect timing with their dialogue. The story is light and uplifting in dealing with afterlife and very well paced. I have a great fear of death in my youth, And I was raised a christian. As was mentioned in this thread, the idea that a selfish man can still be worthy of heaven is Ideal, as I am not as selfless or moral as I would like to be. Also, I have an incredible lack of confidence with women, and I procrastinate. Henry Van Cleve is on the opposite side of that spectrum and every time I watch the film I am inspired to do something about my life and be a better person, but that only lasts so long.

I'm young and Naive, and I don't think I can fully grasp why I like this film so much, or why I like any film so much. I think it's all for very personal reasons buried deep inside. I have spent most of my short life observing things rather than participating, And films like this inspire me to just go out and do something. I talk so much about my aspirations but I rarely do anything about them. I'm slacking off in college after I told everyone I couldn't wait to go, just stuff like that. There are probably other things buried deep inside that make me love this film, but I couldn't write them. I feel like I have all the potential energy of the universe in me, but no medium to express it through. I think I'm slowly overcoming this, or maybe thats just bullshit I'm telling myself too, but a viewing of Heaven can Wait always appeases my need for Instant Gratification with my life.

Sorry if that makes no sense at all.

Sorry if that makes no sense at all.

No need to be sorry. Every bit of what you just wrote makes perfect sense.