richard-1787 I have never seen Norma Shearer look more beautiful than she does in this picture - and that's saying a lot. Nor is she as mannered as in some of her better-known pictures, like *The Women*. Melvyn Douglas, one of my favorite actors, also looks great here. Unfortunately, there isn't anything to the script. They and the rest of the cast, some of them very fine actors, are left with nothing to work with. There is no pacing here either. We just go from one scene to the next with no sense of forward motion. Compare it to *The Women*, for example, which builds to the great final scene where all the women come together and destroy Joan Crawford's character. Or better yet, compare it to another film directed by Robert Z. Leonard just two years before, *Pride and Prejudice*, which is one of the most perfectly paced movies I have ever seen. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that this 95 minute movie was based on a one-act play, and had to be padded. Perhaps the play on which is it based, Noel Coward's one-acter of the same name, just isn't very good. The best of Coward is fun when done well by any cast, but I've encountered some Coward plays, like *Conversation Piece*, that only seem to work when he's in them. He was a very good actor in his own way, and could make uninteresting dialogue sound very clever just by the way he delivered it. Coward premiered this play with himself and Gertrude Lawrence, one of his great partners, in the leads in both London and New York. Their way of working with dialogue together may well have had a lot to do with the play's initial success, more than the play itself.I wasn't bored. Shearer was so beautiful, I spent much of the time just looking at her face. The lead characters have no real depth, so it took no great acting to portray them. Nor are they particularly interesting or attractive. They are leaches who live off the nouveau riche, whom they disdain, so they really aren't particularly likable. You can imagine some of the dialogue appealing to New York theater goers in the 1930s when it was still fashionable to make fun of people simply because they came from Des Moines or Buffalo or Ashtabula or ..... I can't imagine this movie having a lot of success outside a few big cities, though. It's sophistication is pretty thin.

bkoganbing We Were Dancing was one of the small playlets that Noel Coward wrote for his show Tonight At 8:30. Two years earlier Coward told anyone who wanted to hear how much he disliked what MGM did to his production of Bittersweet when Jeannete MacDonald and Nelson Eddy starred in it. MGM must have had the rights for this show before that because Coward said that he would never allow another of his shows to be filmed in Hollywood.Back in the day Norma Shearer and Robert Montgomery did Coward's Private Lives back in 1931 to good acclaim. It's the only reason I can think of why Shearer chose to do this film as opposed to Mrs. Miniver which she was also offered. Other than Greta Garbo, Shearer as Mrs. Irving Thalberg had first refusal on any part there. Of course it was Thalberg who did the choosing and he was gone.Whatever possessed the folks at MGM to take Coward's British based story about a pair of titled individuals who make a living as permanent party guests and bring it to an American setting we'll never know but through séance. Occasionally you'll hear some flashes of Coward's witty dialog, but it only shows how mediocre the rest of the words are.Norma Shearer and Melvyn Douglas do get a solid supporting cast of decent players, but the whole bunch can't lift this film above average.

wes-connors Though she's promised her hand in marriage to a handsome lawyer, frivolous Polish princess Norma Shearer (as Victoria "Vicki" Wilomirska) falls in love with poor noble Melvyn Douglas (as Nicholas "Nikki" Prax) - while "We Were Dancing," according to Ms. Shearer. Although her societal friends suggest otherwise, Shearer breaks up with rich young Lee Bowman (as Hubert Tyler) and marries Mr. Douglas. Shearer and Douglas try to "live on love" with some difficulty. Also, Mr. Bowman and Douglas' former girlfriend Gail Patrick (as Linda Wayne) won't stay out of the picture.This was the first Shearer film after an absence of over a year. Some of the roles the actress reportedly turned down were more publicity than actual fact; but, apparently, she could have done "Mrs. Miniver" (1942) instead of this - and one other film role ("Her Cardboard Lover"), before retiring from the screen. Although it can be defended as having some appeal - on paper - "We Were Dancing" was a wrong turn. Shearer's desire to seem younger than her characters is strained to the brink, affecting both her acting and appearance. Shearer's lightened hair looks more gray than blonde.*** We Were Dancing (4/30/42) Robert Z. Leonard ~ Norma Shearer, Melvyn Douglas, Gail Patrick, Lee Bowman

jimmy860 For all the new scholarship about this neglected actress, people still need to see her in action. Yes-- let's accept the fact that, by 1942, Norma Shearer was past caring about a career in the movies, and let's take this romp for what it is: fun, vibrant, and a showcase for Norma. Her penultimate film brings out her exquisite comic timing, and her bursts of Polish round out the very amusing character of Vicky. Realize that Norma is winking at the camera and her public all through this film, asking only that we accept it on its terms: a fun exercise to help finish out her career (though there is evidence that she, in retrospect, didn't care much for it).