Screenplay vs Film

I’ve been reading the screenplay for Trouble in Paradise and it’s been really eye-opening to see how much got cut from the beginning of the script. Ernst Lubitsch literally cut the film to the most necessary, never explaining things to the viewer, leaving just enough so that they’d get it as the story unfolded. If I thought the film was any bit slow, the screenplay is even slower. The beginning alone takes forever to get to Gaston. It might also be that screenwriting was different back then to what it is now. There’s a lot more explaining of each shot instead of simply just writing cinematically, which may be a result of playwriting I suppose. Whichever the case, none of this takes away from the fact that the script is well written.

In one of the things I’ve read or seen it was stated how Lubitsch went completely by the script, very little deviations occurred. The same can be said here. All the dialogue is completely the same in the script as it is in the film. Again, the shots were explained so well that you could see them playing out before you. And for someone who stuck by the script so well, you wonder why he did cut out some scenes considering he collaborated with his screenwriters. Apparently because English wasn’t Lubtisch’s first language, he wanted an American writer who could tell him just the right dialogue to put in. So the script was pretty much set before the cameras started rolling. But again, the beginning needed to speed up. Too much time is spent on the canal with other gondoliers and then going up through the hotel’s different guest rooms and its occupants on the way to François’ room and then eventually to Gaston’s room. This cut was a wise move because instead you get right to the point, Gaston’s a thief and this is a story about him and Lily. The fact that the victim is François, who turns out to be one of Mme Colet’s suitors, is a great set-up that pays off later on.

Another line cut off from the script was during the hotel scene with Gaston and Lily the day after they stole Mme Colet’s handbag. In the film, upon realizing the anniversary of them meeting in Venice is coming up, they both fall into each other’s arms and they make plans of going back with Lily saying the rest of the room’s numbers as the scene fades into the following scene. In the script, the scene continues with Gaston saying, “And we’ll celebrate the second anniversary of the day we didn’t get married!” According to the DVD commentary, the decision to cut this line was due to the censors at the time not approving it. That line along with the Major’s line near the end of the film in which he states he’s not the marrying kind because he likes to take his fun and then leave it. Lubitsch decided to keep the latter but took out the former.

What I find a bit of a wonder, though, is why he chose to cut out two parts of scenes, both with Mme Colet. The scene that follows is Mme Colet receiving people at her home who claim to have found her handbag. Here Mme Colet is seen talking to an old lady who obviously doesn’t have her purse as it’s a very old tattered purse. The scene cuts straight to the foyer where there are about a couple dozen people waiting. This scene actually reminded me of Annie when Daddy Warbucks puts out an ad to find Annie’s parents and all these couples show up claiming to be her parents. But I digress. In the script, this bit continues with the lady telling Mme Colet how lovely the purse is and wouldn’t she like to buy it. Mme Colet feels sorry for her and agrees to do so. I believe it was in the commentary as well that notes that this part of the scene was written to show Mme Colet’s generosity, but Lubitsch decided cut it. Perhaps I’m one of the few who thinks that scene would’ve been good to leave in, simply because I had trouble with Kay Francis playing the role of Mme Colet as a generous woman, although in hindsight I do see she was written as such.

The other bit cut out from Mme Colet’s last scene in the film is after Gaston says goodbye and leaves. When the door closes, the phone rings. Mme Colet picks it up and it turns out to be another person asking if she’s still looking for her missing handbag. Sadly, she informs the caller the bag has already been found and when asked how long ago she says two weeks and three days. I actually like this bit, but perhaps it was cut because this scene had already turned too serious.

Reading the script helped me get a better grasp of Mme Colet, at the same time it helped me see how down to the last detail Lubitsch went by the script. Of course, it could very well be that the script was written after the film was made, but even still the fact that the cut parts of the scenes were included was beneficial in seeing the importance of editing. I think after reading this I see that for me personally another actress may have been better suited to play Mme Colet. I think I see Francis as too cold and snobbish to properly play a generous and flighty woman. And Miriam Hopkins is such an amazing actress that I wish there would’ve been more of Lily all around. Of course, the true star is Herbert Marshall as Gaston, and Marshall played him true to the script.

Viewing with commentary

Got a chance to watch Trouble in Paradise with the Criterion DVD commentary by Ernst Lubistch biographer, Scott Eyman, and it turned out to be quite insightful. Many of the trivia bits I’ve found across the Internet probably came from this commentary. Also, it brought more insight into the Lubitsch touch and what made it unique amongst the other films out in its day.

Something that stood out came toward the end of the commentary, in which Eyman notes how this movie was a precursor to the screwball comedy and Lubitsch’s style might not be recognized as what the genre turned out to be. In fact, he notes some might consider it dull and passé. Well, I wouldn’t call it either of those adjectives, but it was a good point considering some of the questions I’ve been pondering on for the past couple of weeks.

The film started out as a play and one of the writers Lubitsch brought on to adapt it for the screen was Samson Raphaelson, another playwright who worked in Hollywood for many years but his main focus was playwriting. This mention of Trouble in Paradise being a stage play reminded me how early film was quite like an extension of the stage play. The way films were in the early ages of cinema is a lot like a play in the sense that there tended to be more dialogue in early films. Perhaps why this film is so funny is precisely because the dialogue is sharp and witty. Never are things mentioned flat out. Subtext is key here. Things like “her whole sex appeal is in that safe” turn upside down what is really meant, which is “I only care about her money.”

A perfectly good point made in the commentary is how the characters never say what they mean. Eyman points out that never do you hear, “I want you, I like you” between Mme Colet and Gaston, just as you never hear Gaston or M. Giron say to each other, “I distrust you, I want to destroy you.” It doesn’t need to be said because it’s perfectly implied through their actions. Dialogue is key to the screwball comedy, yet it’s not about saying just any silly joke. It’s all in what you say, how much you say, how much you reveal. The viewer can then interact without being constantly told what is going on.

Another thing pointed out in the commentary was how Gaston is put in the difficult situation of being caught between two desirable females, which was not typical of the time. Usually, and this is still true today, if a lead character is caught between two lovers one of them has to be unlikable, that way the job of choosing is easier. But here, that’s not the case. This was a concern of mine when re-watching the ending of the film. I think part of the problem for me is that I didn’t want to like Mme Colet and this probably comes from watching Kay Francis in roles in which she plays the insufferable wife or fiancée who won’t let her man be happy with his true love. I don’t want to like Mme Colet, but she doesn’t do anything bad. Her only sin is being rich and careless about it. This for me, though, makes it easy to not like her, because she’s an idiot to be so generous and trusting. But Gaston sees that with her he could be rich and happy, and just as well he could take her money and run off with Lily and be rich and happy with her. So it presents a conundrum, of which he ultimately decides to leave Mme Colet to be with the one who truly understands him like only another thief could.

I think perhaps what I got most out of when listening to the commentary is how much style Lubitsch had. He had an attention to detail and used film to his advantage. The way he cuts scenes and what he chooses to focus on, shows how he used the medium to its utmost advantage. One of the scenes pointed out is the focus on the gondola ashtray, which is also another scene of showing and not telling. Another scene is Mme Colet in Gaston’s arm near the end of the film, from the reflection in the mirror to their silhouette on the bed. I think all these things pointed out helped in understanding Lubitsch’s choice of pace that had been bothering me since I first watched it. This is simply his style of things. And it’s also made me wonder how a bold and adventurous filmmake would have fared in today’s era of filmmaking. What kind of films would Lubitsch have made today? How far would he have pushed the envelope? How would he be embracing 3D and digital technology?