evening1 With all the talk of temptation before his strangely named -- but ultimately forgiving -- wife, Clemency, goes on vacation, it is obvious that dapper lawyer Jim is going to stray.For such a smart and accomplished barrister, he falls for every temptation his eager would-be paramour drops in his path. Still, it is entertaining to watch this story unfurl.Ronald Coleman gives a sensitive performance as the elegant yet uninsightful husband. (Why on earth would he accept a job judging a silly beauty pageant?) The casting of his wife and lover is intriguing -- the women could have been dead ringers for each other.Yet Henry Stephenson, playing the wily friend John Tring, is the most interesting character in this drama. In the end he seems like some kind of puppet master, having orchestrated the ultimate test of the Warlocks' marriage and ultimately overseeing their somewhat unlikely reconciliation."Call no woman respectable until she's dead," this cynic intones.It's highly ironic that the seductive character Doris, played ably by Phyllis Barry, commits suicide near the story's end. The Wikipedia listing for this actress notes that she died of a barbiturates overdose some 20 years after the film's production.PS: Does anyone else wonder where this film got its title? PSS: OK, I read the other reviews, and now I get it...

MartinHafer Despite the fact that the film stars the ever erudite Ronald Colman, there just isn't much to recommend this bizarre Pre-Code melodrama. Much of it is because the message is muddled, inconsistent and bizarre...and the characters are completely unlikable.Colman plays a very well-respected barrister who has every reason to be happy. And, he loves his wife and tells her and everyone else how lucky he is. Because of this, what follows really makes no sense. At the insistence of his 'friend' (Henry Stephenson in a VERY atypical sort of role for him), Colman takes one stupid step after another and is headed for an affair. Again and again, Colman says 'no'--and only seconds later, does exactly what this young lady wants. Now here is the weird part--although he spends time with the lady, tells her he loves her and kisses her, no sort of sexual relationship is even implied!! So, we are expected to believe he is now cheating on his wife BUT doesn't want to sleep with the lady! Huh?!? The young lady turns out to be a bit flaky. Although he insists repeatedly that he loves his wife and won't leave her, she persists in pushing him to do exactly this. Now considering that Colman plays a real wienie who always caves in, you can understand her expectations. But, when he continues to refuse to leave his wife, she responds by killing herself and the film tries very hard to make you feel sorry for Colman--who just seems like a giant idiot and an unlikable one at that.So what is the point of the film? Should you have lots of affairs ONLY just be certain the ladies involved are non-suicidal? Is adultery okay as long as you don't 'do the nasty'? Can the audience care about a man's predicament when he creates it himself, is awfully unlikable and a dope? All I know is that I just didn't give a rat's behind for him or the story. A weird combination of Pre-Code morality and prudishness. Clearly one of Colman's worst films.

vincentlynch-moonoi The foundation of this film is really understood in the segment where Ronald Colman judges a beauty/swimming competition. As the organizer keeps saying to him -- there will be no class distinctions here today! And that's what this film is about -- an affair between a well known barrister and a common girl, and the disgrace it brings to the barrister. Without understanding that, you'll wonder what all the fuss was about.In Naples, the disgraced London barrister (Ronald Colman) is about to divorce his beloved wife Clemency (Kay Francis) and start anew in South Africa. But before parting she asks him to explain how the affair happened, which is done through a long flashback: When Francis goes to Venice with her sister, Colman meets a "shop girl" and has an affair. It appears that it is not platonic, and after all, this is 1932 England. Unfortunately, the woman he falls for is rather emotionally needy, and when the affair ends, she commits suicide. While Colman cannot be held legally responsible, at the inquest he is held morally responsible. After Colman and Francis separate, his friend who knew of the affair (and actually encouraged it), convinces Francis to think about what it would mean to her to never see him again...hinting at suicide. Francis surprises Colman by showing up on the boat to South Africa.This is a very "old" film...what I mean by that is that this is definitely 1932. Today's audience would find this a bit stodgy. However, it is one of Ronald Colman's great successes, and he is wonderful here. I often enjoy Kay Francis, but she seemed a bit stiff here...although maybe she's supposed to be; nevertheless, I would not find this one of her great film roles. Henry Stephenson plays the elder barrister who encourages the affair, and it is through him that we see the attitude toward class; although not a very sympathetic role, I always delight in his screen appearances.For buffs of old films, or fans of Ronald Colman (like me), I recommend this film.The flashback ends. After Jim leaves to board his ocean liner, Tring comes to talk to Clemency. While he accepts a share of the blame for what happened, he reminds Clemency that she may never see her husband again. She rushes to the ship to accompany Jim.

bkoganbing According to the Citadel Film Series book The Films of Ronald Colman, the movie-going public did not take to Colman in Cynara playing an adulterous husband. His image as the ultimate civilized man of the English speaking world did not jibe with infidelity. Still Colman does give a decent performance in a rather dated melodrama.Colman when we meet him is one happily married if somewhat bored man to Kay Francis. He's a successful barrister. But when Francis is on a girl's holiday, Colman rather casually drifts into an affair with young Phyllis Barry. Of course it ends in tragedy as these things do, especially back in the day. It does resolve in the best tradition of stiff upper lip English dignity which I think today's audience will not understand. But that would also be in the Ronald Colman tradition as well.King Vidor got good performances out of his cast. Kay Francis as the wronged wife has little to do here, but look martyred. A favorite character actor of mine Henry Stephenson lends his worldly wisdom to the proceedings. And there is a nice performance by Viva Tattersall as Barry's friend and Colman's accuser.Cynara is a nice, but terribly dated film. Audiences back then were put off by this digression from the Colman image. Audiences today will be thrown by all those rather silly romantic notions and the idea that we must preserve appearances at all costs.