Design for Living <\/em>is often ranked as a lesser Lubitsch, largely (and largely unfairly) because it\u2019s such a huge departure from Coward\u2019s original. The plot is rearranged and expanded, and the screenplay (by Ben Hecht) scraps most of Coward\u2019s arch and acid dialogue. (Coward quipped that the film only kept three lines from his play, and one of them was \u201cPass the mustard.\u201d) These changes blunt some of Coward\u2019s bite, but they\u2019re not automatically for the worse. In some ways Lubitsch\u2019s subtler approach to the material has aged better for a world where subjects like polyamory and bisexuality are not as outr\u00e9, but still tricky in all-too-human ways. <\/strong>If Design for Living<\/em> doesn\u2019t fizz along quite as smoothly as some of Lubitsch\u2019s earlier sex comedies, it\u2019s because he\u2019s attuned to the bittersweet snags and pangs that come with figuring out that your love life requires unconventional arrangements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not all urbane wit is built quite alike, <\/strong>and Coward and Lubitsch are in some respects a study in contrasts. Coward is crystalline and cutting; his characters alternate between egomaniacal extemporizing and lacerating self-loathing. <\/strong>The three lead characters (two men and a woman) are sometimes so tortured by their \u201cerotic hodgepodge\u201d <\/strong>that they yearn for death and oblivion. <\/strong>Where Coward is biting and caustic, <\/strong>Lubitsch is silky smooth, a master of the subtle skewering. <\/strong>Coward\u2019s advocacy for sexual freedom belies some stereotypically British prudishness; Lubitsch has more Continental, laissez-faire attitude toward infidelity, and laughs gently at the inevitable absurdities of human desire. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This approach makes the material softer and also more fun. <\/strong>Unlike Coward, Lubitsch <\/em>begins at the beginning, and <\/strong>shows the trio\u2014painter George <\/strong>(Gary Cooper), commercial artist Gilda (Miriam Hopkins), and playwright Tom <\/strong>(Frederic March)\u2014meeting as young wannabe artists. We see the complicated bonds of love and friendship grow between them, and the undeniable chemistry that sizzles when all three are together. The stellar cast bounces off each other brilliantly. This is one of Hopkins\u2019s greatest comic performances: both sexy and sexual, luminous and ravenous, it\u2019s easy to see why everyone\u2019s in love her. <\/strong>Where Coward\u2019s Gilda castigates herself for her own sexual allure, <\/strong>Hopkins feels refreshingly little about having and wanting two different men. <\/strong>Once the trio decides to try and solve their dilemma by living together platonically, a wistfulness emerges beneath her effervescence, as \u201ctrying to play jokes on nature\u201d makes balancing true friendship and desire constantly bittersweet. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In their roles as best friends and rivals, March and Cooper are an accomplished double act. Cooper is just drifting away from his dreamboat years and settling into the cragginess of his late-career persona. March is warmer and more polished, but they work in sync, with winking wordplay and comic gestures that perfectly match each other. Even with the freedom that Hollywood had in these last years before the Hays Code prudishly restricted depictions of sexuality, male homosexual desire was often a bridge too far, so Lubitsch\u2019s film cuts out much of Coward\u2019s not-quite-declarations of the sexual attraction between the two men. But it\u2019s really a case of showing and not telling; you don\u2019t have squint to see that there\u2019s \u201csomething queer here\u201d, in the tenderness of their perfectly coordinated bachelorhood. And for all Lubitsch\u2019s skill in making the love scenes between Gilda and Tom and Gilda and George charged with his shimmering eroticism, it\u2019s also clear that the two men are the most attractive when they\u2019re together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The film gets extra zing in the way it links bisexuality and nonmonogamy to a bohemian, anti-capitalist lifestyle. The erotic tension of the trio\u2019s bonds fuels artistic creativity. \u201cStay an artist \u2013 that\u2019s important,\u201d Gilda tells George before she runs away from both of the men. <\/strong>For all that Lubitsch\u2019s films take place in a world of frictionless glamour, his works of the 30s never forget the depression and questions of finances. A sad and guilt-ridden Gilda thinks she\u2019ll feel better with \u201c100% virtue and three square meals a day,\u201d so marries the fuddy-duddy ad man. Instantly she\u2019s trapped, she\u2019s meant to play the trophy wife and lady of the house to an endless parade of tedious clients; it crushes her spirit and she\u2019s reduced to hiding on balconies. In the film\u2019s climax\u2014where Tom and George come to Gilda\u2019s rescue by spectacularly crashing a tedious party for her husband\u2019s clients\u2014their deftly-orchestrated chaos feels delightfully joyous and absolutely right. Gilda and the men take off, renewing their \u201cgentlemen\u2019s agreement\u201d that there will be \u201cno sex,\u201d but the glint in their eyes and Lubitsch\u2019s winking ambiance suggests this agreement will be repeatedly, and happily broken. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As the camera fades out on the trio, it signals an exciting new beginning, and also the end of the era: the Code, instituted the following year, will strictly ban these stories from being told. As often with Lubitsch\u2019s films, we are left with a wistful longing for something that is slipping away.\u00a0 “Design for Living” is now streaming on the Criterion Channel<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/crookedmarquee.com\/stage8\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/design-scaled-1024x667.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/crookedmarquee.com\/stage8\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/crookedc-01.svg\")
<\/p>\n\n\n\n