AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

mark.waltz Did the urbane character George Sanders get bitten by some bug while in Africa that made him decide that he needed to seduce every woman he walked by? It seems that way as he makes his way through Paris society treating street whores like a countess, and treating countesses like street whores. Of course, once he gets them, he tosses them aside as soon as his appetite is filled. That is all but one whom he can't seem to get out of his mind, and that is the graceful widow played by the magnificent Angela Lansbury. Having been the victim of Dorian Gray some two years before while Sanders watched from the sidelines, Lansbury is a lady here rather than a poor down-on-her-luck singer, yet one not so obsessed with her station in life as intently as she is on remaining true to the one man she loves. She's a widow with a sweet young daughter, and upon meeting Sanders at a dinner party given by Sanders' old pal John Carradine and his wife Ann Dvorak, she's smitten. The problem is however that so is pretty much every woman Sanders encounters, and that includes the very married Dvorak.What is the truth about Sanders' character here? That is the mystery that rolls through this somewhat over-long melodrama, sometimes slow, sometimes mesmerizing. Is Sanders a simple Don Juan, or is he a Libertine, or does he secretly hate women for some reason, wanting to break their spirits and destroy them? Look how he treats cafe singer Marie Wilson who makes a scene when he ignores her after he shows up after meeting Lansbury, having first met Wilson, insulted her publicly, then seducing her for "what the heck's" sake. He's not above seducing all the married women in society, and while his charm is obvious, it is also clear that he will never sincerely mean what he tells them. The film gives the impression that when he is seducing one woman, he's thinking of another woman in his mind, particularly Lansbury who writes him a love letter of such poetic beauty, you'd think he'd change his womanizing ways instantly. But Sanders' character is obviously insane, if not violently so, definitely a sociopath. It's watching his character rise and fall that makes this so fascinating, even if he is definitely one of the biggest rogues to be seen on screen.I wanted to see more of both Carradine and Warren William, who ironically was sort of the George Sanders of the early 30's with his ultra womanizing characters seducing then dropping practically every lady in sight. Of course, both could play the gentlemen and be noble, but villains are always more fascinating, especially if they are played with many layers. Frances Dee is excellent as a troubled married woman who allows herself to be seduced with tears behind her eyes as she realizes she's being pulled into intrigue by the devil himself. Susan Douglas also gives an excellent performance as Dee's daughter who as Sanders ages becomes the latest victim, one which will surely lead to his doom as the world catches up to his sins. This isn't an easy film to watch, but it is one that if totally alert, you can get through like you would the world's most famous epic novels. And in the end, Sanders is a character you do feel sorry for, because with someone as wonderful as Lansbury's character there pining for him, you just want him to wake up and realize the missed opportunity he's turning away from.

dougdoepke In the 1880's, a handsome rake schemes his way to the top of French society leaving a trail of exploited women in his wake.I was about to slam Sanders' performance as a wooden one-note. Note how in the many close-ups his expression rarely changes, conveying little or no emotion, regardless the situation. Then it occurred to me. That's exactly right for such a heartless egotist as Duroy. In fact, he feels no emotion. Instead he's a walking calculator in the way he uses people. In place of warmth or animated charm, he seduces women with a strongly masculine presence and complete self-assurance, which Sanders conveys, in spades. Note too, how in the dueling scene, Duroy looks on impassively while his opponent musters strength to shoot him. Now a lack of emotion while staring death in the face is either evidence of an iron will or a simple lack of feeling. Of course, as an actor, Sanders can emote subtly or otherwise when called upon, as his lengthy career shows. So I figure his impassive manner in this movie is intended to define Duroy's character, and is not a deficiency on either the actor's or director's part.Anyway, the movie itself amounts to a triumph of parlor room refinement. I especially like Lansbury. Her baby-face Clotilde provides enough meaningful emotion to engage the audience in ways that Duroy does not. In fact, the actresses, including a poignant Marie Wilson, are all well cast. Still, pairing the 40-year old Sanders with a girlish Douglas, half his age, amounts to a real stretch. But catch some of those parlor room sets that are doozies. The one with the checkered floor and striped wall had me cleaning my glasses. Overall, it's an oddly affecting morality play, with a style and taste that make even the painted backdrops somehow appropriate. Too bad this was the great Warren William's (Laroche) last movie. In terms of a commanding presence, he and Sanders belong together, as William's pre-Code films abundantly show. Nonetheless, this is one of the few features of the time to make a thoroughly dislikable character the central figure. And that took some guts. No wonder the film was an independent production.

Tom Sanchez "The Private Affairs of Bel Ami" is one of the most unusual films to come out of Hollywood during the Golden Age of Hollywood (1920-1950). An adaptation of a Guy de Maupassant work, "Bel Ami" honestly and bitingly portrays an "homme fatale", a man who uses sex to gain social, economic, and political power. This is the only film, to my knowledge, that portrays such a phenomenon that in real life has been much more common than is commonly held.George Sanders was never better than as Georges DuRoy. His playing displays the numbing of feelings, desperation of a life of poverty and low social rank, and misogyny that propel him to do what he does. No film character in the Golden Age of Hollywood was as blatantly hateful of women as Georges DuRoy. Witness the scenes with Sanders and Marie Wilson!The female characters display a moderness in attitudes, relationships with men, and an awareness of their roles in their relationships with Georges DuRoy that is startling not just for 1880, but for 1947, when the film was released. Only French and some Italian films of the 1960's have equalled that frankness by female characters of what their place is in the lives of men.Ann Dvorak carries much of the film gracefully and with a strong, frank portrayal of a woman much like Georges DuRoy and unapologetic about it. This is definitely Dvorak's finest and the showiest role of her career. Unfortunately, it did not propel her to major stardom and she retired from acting only three years after filming "The Private Affairs of Bel Ami".Angela Lansbury proved here in this early film of her career what a fine character actress she is. Her portrayal of Clothilde could've been pathetic. Instead, Clothilde emerges as well-rounded character who is never tiresome to watch.Marie Wilson never got a dramatic part like the one in this film as a Folies Bergere dancer. She only proves the point that behind every great comedienne lies a fine dramatic actress. She truly evokes a character, not the dumb blonde comedy relief that was her stock-in-trade.A surprising number of top character actors in this film! The film's look and score are very noirish. That only highlights the modernity of the characters in the film, much like 2000's "Moulin Rouge".The movie looks and plays like an RKO-Radio film noir of the mid-'40's.Cool concept. The startling use of color for the one scene in which it is used only adds to the uniqueness of this film's acting and look.The only drawback is the use of decidedly obvious painted backdrops. They only highlight the low budget that was obviously involved in making the film. Too bad, while the rest of the sets appear well-lighted and -appointed. An arresting film! Definitely worthy of critical and popular reevaluation!

som1950 Although hard to get into this film, with a protagonist who is very unlikable and who, for all his scheming, seems to be falling upward in the social hiearchy more than effectively manipulating those he seeks to use, the movie is worth watching in order to contemplate the young and beautiful Angela Lansbury and the older, wiser, but still beautiful Ann Dvorak. And for the climactic duel.(And some might find the couture sufficiently haute to be worth watching.)The score by the great French composer, one of Les Six, Darius Milhaud, is pedestrian. Milhaud is not responsible for the annoying song "Bel Ami" which recurs far too often during the seemingly interminable 112 minutes of the movie in the version I saw.