User Reviews

Camille (1936)

This melodramatic tale of true life in the face of the strictures of social reality is tried and true. You feel for both the male lead (Robert Taylor, who is quite good) and the female (Grate Garbo, of course, who is excellent). That's the whole point. These are two people who are not quite appropriate because they come from different social levels, but there is a sense they could make it work if they wanted to.

But outside forces get in the way. Chief among them is the man's father, who wants to save his son from a marriage that will ruin both husband and wife. This is a key role in the film, and a critical if brief 10 minutes or so. The father is played, importantly, by Lionel Barrymore, who does little else int he movie. But here he makes his case to the Garbo with amazing force. It's a great scene, even if you wish Garbo would leap up and say, no, no, I'm going to follow my heart.

But exactly what happens is what the movie is about. The rules of the culture of the time (1800s France) prevent an honest sense of two people marrying out of simple love for one another. In a way, that's the whole point of continuing the old Dumas story, which has resonated for decades into the Hollywood era. I'm not sure it would work now, except as an historical drama. This is set in the period (around 1850) and feels legit. Unlike the curious (and not bad) 1921 silent version, which sets it in a 1920s culture, this one transports us back to the original. Fair enough!

There is a contrived quality to the plot, for sure, partly because of its origins. While this doesn't ruin the whole enterprise, there is a slight feeling of being led along the whole time. Garbo and Taylor are both terrific, however, and we feel some honesty to their feelings for one another. It's on that basis that the movie works. And it really does, even through the over the top drama in the last scene. Moving and beautiful overall.

Lavish and luxurious poduction of the Alexandre Dumas clasic about a dying woman , Margarita Gautier nicknamed La Dame aux Camille : Greta Garbo, a beautiful woman who has found success as Parisian courtesan , but has never found love , until she has a love affaire for a younger and innocent gentleman called Armand : Robert Taylor , while another suitor, a wealthy Baron goes after her by giving money . Still, Camille agress to give him up, realizing her scandalous past will jeopardize hus future .

Nice film graced with the vulnerable and distant quality that only the great goddess Greta Greta Garbo could deliver by giving one of the best acting of her short career . As the attractive Garbo , beautifully dressed in gowns by Adrian, plays the sick courtesan providing sensibility and sweetness that only she could bring to character .The combined magic of Metro Golwyn Mayer's big studio and Greta's extraordinary presente along with the handsome Robert Taylor -soon to be one of MGM's biggest stars- legitimized this vintage film , an archaic creaker into an unforgettable flick. There are various adaptations based on this story , though this one remains the consummate rendition of this popular and tragic love story .

The motion picture was competently directed by George Cukor and it is still a masterpiece of its kind . Cukor was one of the best Hollywood filmmakers shooting several classic and successful movies with penchant for melodrama , comedy and musical, such as : David Copperfield, Little Women, Adam's rib , Born Yesterday , The Women , Corn is Green, Dinner at eight , My Fair Lady , Les Girls , Gaslight , A star is born , Philadelphia Story, Holiday , Heller in Pink Tights , I Should Happen to You, What price Hollywood? , Double Life , Woman's Face , and his last one : Rich and Famous, among others. Rating : 7/10 . Above average . This Alexandre Dumas story somewhat manages to escape the clichés and stands as one if the most telling monuments to Garbo's unique presente and magic in a movie . The yarn will appeal to Greta Garbo and Robert Taylor fans .

While I am a huge fan of the films of Hollywood's Golden Age, I not especially impressed by this classic film. Most of this, I think, is that the film hasn't aged well. The extreme melodrama and over-acting sat fine with early audiences, but today it just seems awfully silly and campy. While Greta Garbo's performance is at times way over-the-top, my biggest problem actually was the character played by her very ardent suitor, Robert Taylor. Despite very little apparent reason, he is totally smitten with a woman who is essentially a high-priced prostitute and chases her repeatedly even though she gave every indication through the first half of the movie that she was a heartless skank. As a result, Taylor just looked like a very pretty wimp--not the sort of man that anyone in the audience could respect. Only after being lied to and emotionally abused did he finally show some backbone--but by the end of the film, this had once again vanished and he was back to being a wimp. I sure would have liked to have Jimmy Cagney handle this role--he wouldn't have put up with it or chased after Garbo like a moon-eyed puppy! Now back to Garbo. While I have always felt that her performances have aged poorly (she was so often given scripts that were too formulaic and melodramatic), I must admit that the times in the movie when she needed to cry, she was incredible. This is especially true in the side shot of her as you see tears almost shooting from her eyes--that is great acting. But, then to have her droop around for so much of the film with what appeared to be TB detracted from the overall effort. It just seemed a bit overdone.

The same day I saw this film, I also saw the silent 1921 version starring Nazimova and Rudolph Valentino. For 1921, this style of film was perfect, but even by 1936, it must have caused a few groans among the patrons since the plot was definitely getting very old indeed. The only HUGE improvement in the 1936 film was the role played by Lionel Barrymore as Robert Taylor's dad--it was much more sensitive and compelling than the character in the earlier film and did a lot to give the story life.

The bottom line is that if you don't particularly care for old movies, this movie will probably be very dull and tough viewing. If you love old films, you might be able to look past its style and enjoy the picture--at times I could do this, but frankly there are just so many better romances out there.

When you think of the lavish 30s films of MGM, Camille is near the top of the list. Great story and flawless production here boasting perhaps the most shimmering of Greta Garbo's ethereal performances as Marguerita Gautier (Camille). Familiar and much filmed story, this is nevertheless the best of them all. Matching Garbor is the hopelessly romantic Robert Taylor in his best 30s role. Also good are Lionel Barrymore, Henry Daniell, and Jessie Ralph as the maid. Great comic relief is provided by Laura Hope Crews (Prudence)and Lenore Ulric (Olympe)--what a pair of vultures! But the center of this gorgeous film is Garbo. She is so frail looking, her voice so soft. Garbo plays Marguerite as a frailty incarnate. She never overacts the part as most do with the endless coughing and fainting. One of George Cukor's triumphs. Rex O'Malley and Elizabeth Allan are dull but have small parts. I also spotted Eily Malyon and Zeffie Tilbury, and Joan Leslie is listed in the credits. I think this is Garbo's best performance, but she lost the Oscar to Luise Rainer for The Good Earth. Also nominated that year: Irene Dunne (The Awful Truth), Barbara Stanwyck (Stella Dallas), and Janet Gaynor (A Star Is Born). Wow----how could you choose just one?

Camille (1936) : Brief Review -

Greta Garbo's Greatest Performance? Well, i might have second thoughts but Greatest Role? You have my Vote. Camille may lack intelligence but it's surely a Timeless Love Saga! I must say that Camille finds an intermediate point between two ends of criticism- Underrated and Overrated. If I say that film is not that great then it would feel underrated, and if I say that it's too good then it would seem like an overrated piece. I wasn't expecting much from the film but I must say that it has surpassed my personal expectations. It's a regular story filled with soapy elements but it is definitely a sensible and heart touching film somewhere towards the end. The beginning is terrible though. I was losing all the faith in the first half but it turned the entire picture into positive one in the second half. A Parisian courtesan must choose between the young man who loves her and the callous baron who wants her, even as her own health begins to fail. If I have to point out faults, then I would say the entire first half is immaturely written. Maybe, I don't know why, but almost 90% romantic films are not that smart. Not every film can be intelligent like 'Sunrise' (1927) or 'Casablanca' (1942), and even bringing these two film in comparison with others is not fair so let's just skip that part. I believe, the romantic films are meant to be little dumb so it's fair if it doesn't make much sense unless it drags too much. Camille drags too much in the first half with all three characters behaving childishly but I'm glad that it recovered from it and became a matured child in the second half. Garbo is phenomenal, perhaps, her greater role in my opinion until i find a better one. Robert Taylor is charming, Henry Deniell is fantastic in his role and Jessie Ralph, Laura Crews and Lenore Unric add some vital fun. Inconsistent George Cukor scores higher marks than what i expected, maybe that's why i call him inconsistent and unpredictable. Overall, a very good attempt in typical 'Love-story' club.

RATING - 7/10*

By - #samthebestest.

"Perhaps it ill be better if I live in your heart, where the world can't see me. If I'm dead, there will be no staying of our love."

The novel/play by Alexandre Dumas Fils LA DAME AUX CAMELIAS has attracted a lot of artists. Verdi wrote his opera LA TRAVIATA basing its content on this play. The film industry have also made a lot of adaptations of the play from the period of silent era up till modern times. However, if one hears a movie title CAMILLE, what usually comes to one's mind is the film by George Cukor with Greta Garbo and Robert Taylor. Why? There is something magical about this version that made it stand a test of time, something that helped it be appreciated for almost seven decades. Is it performances, cinematography, or Garbo's presence that make it so enchanting to watch? The answer is not so easy because the movie is a masterpiece of beauty at multiple levels.

The performances are absolutely outstanding. It is difficult to say if Garbo gives her best performance in CAMILLE or GRAND HOTEL. I think that it is more a matter of personal preferences. One thing is sure - she does something more than acting. She totally feels the role, every movement, every gesture is extremely natural as if you were watching reality not a movie. As a result, Garbo achieves something really outstanding in CAMILLE, some kind of the ultimate masterpiece of performance. Robert Taylor very well fits to the role of Armand Duvall. He manages to stress the most important feature of his role - delicacy and sincerity. Henry Daniell is a perfect choice for Baron De Varville - cruel, unemotional, cynical, and very selfish. I shall never forget the scene when Marguerite plays a lyrical piece on the piano expecting Armand's visit. However, it is Baron who comes unexpectedly. While Armand is trying to get to the house, Baron plays the piano and Marguerite has to behave as if she wasn't expecting anyone. The scene ends with hysterical laughter of them both and a magnificent acting. Laura Hope Crews also gives a lovely performance as Prudence Duvernoy stressing her frivolity and extravagance. Consider her performance at the party at the mansion. Yet, Lionel Barrymore, though not given much time on screen, is memorable, particularly in the scene of his meeting with Marguerite. What a lovely presentation of two different world views! Not a better or a worse view but DIFFERENT views - Marguerite attached to love and emotions and Monsieur Duval to social ties and reputation.

The cinematography is superb. Almost each scene has a "soul" which makes watching the movie a real admiration of beauty. The most memorable decorations are in the scene in a candle-lit boudoir filled with delicate lighting and shadows. Marguerite is looking at her reflection in the mirror and suddenly notices Armand from behind. A delicate classic musical piece is being played in the background. UNFORGETTABLE! The film's gorgeous imagery is a very strong point for the movie.

Perhaps, you will wonder why I praise this movie so much. But if you asked me if I can ever forget CAMILLE, my answer would be "never" because the imagery of this movie and the effect it has on a viewer is endless. How is it possible to forget a beautiful scene of Marguerite's first meeting with Armand? Is it also possible to skip a lovely idyllic pastoral sequence with sheep and flowering trees? How to forget a touching moment when Gaston, Marguerite's true friend, is putting a beautiful bunch of camellias at her side while she is lying ill in bed? Finally, the touching final shot and Marguerite's beautiful words that I entailed at the beginning of my review. These words, which purely refer to spiritual love, are the last words that Marguerite says.

Yes, CAMILLE is a masterpiece, one of the very few movies that promotes real beauty. It is not only a tearjerker. It is not only a story of love. It is a movie that teaches high respect for precious values in life. 10/10!

Basically Garbo is still the only reason why I still like this very heavy handed melodramatic movie.

"Camille" is a movie about the all old themes love and death. The one moment it's happy and the world is a wonderful place, while the other life is depression is it ever could become. It's an movie with constantly changing dramatic moods and tones in the movie, which just becomes a bit too much for me after a while. I can handle and appreciate heavy dramas but when it's being overly melodramatic it becomes more of an annoyance to me, also since it starts making more and more a staged impression.

It's a fine looking movie with its sets and costumes and George Cukor of course is more than a capable director. So basically it's a very well made movie but it's story and the way it progressed made me not really like this movie.

I guess it's a good story on its own right though, also since there are a total of 47 movie versions based on the novel and play "La dame aux camélias" by Alexandre Dumas fils, which is more than any other novel I have ever heard of.

It might very well be true that this movie features Greta Garbo's finest performance. It was also her personal personal favorite one. She plays her role with both class and emotion and above all keeps her role real and humane. The best and most powerful and classic moments of the movie all feature her. Her acting still makes this movie worthwhile and an interestingly watchable one.

Watch it for Garbo.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Maybe it helps to be a romantic. But for my money, this is the greatest romance that was ever put on film. It has the perfect stars. Greta Garbo was the star of the age--any age--still beautiful and absolutely created to act in films. Even in silent films, her acting is measured and understated. She never falls prey to exaggeration nor pretense. I think that is the secret to her effectiveness. Allow me an example: after accepting money from Baron de Varville for a disguised outing with her lover Armand (which the Baron already suspects), she kisses him gently on the cheek only to be reviled with a harsh slap from the baron, who then departs. The camera moves in on that incomparable face. The head slowly lowers, the lips slightly part, a low moan expresses the guilt, shame and humiliation which momentarily consume her. Then she spies the money clutched tightly in her hand. Recognizing she now has the means to escape with her lover, a slight smile emerges reflecting her change of mood and restored joy. It is a scene like no other.

As for her co-star, Robert Taylor was castigated as being too callow for the role. In fact, most critics today realize he was exactly what Dumas intended: young, impressionable--and certainly irresistibly gorgeous in his dewy youth. That beauty often caused the young Taylor undeserved venom from the critics. He was a very capable actor and probably set the standard for the contemporary romantic leading man we see even today. Rumors that Garbo dismissed him as unimportant are not true. She liked him very much and was greatly impressed after he sent her mother flowers when they all attended the premiere of CAMILLE in Stockholm.

CAMILLE? A great movie with a great cast, including the marvelous Henry Daniell, whose Baron de Varville is very Jekyll and Hyde. I encourage anyone to see it. It is one of the finest films of the 20th Century.

Time has not been good to Greta Garbo's most acclaimed performance.She's quite good as the courtesan of 1840's Paris,but I found her acting a bit melodramatic. Robert Taylor has the looks and youth to make his character believable.I enjoyed the performances of scene-stealers Laura Hope Crews and Henry Daniell tremendously. The production is beautiful and I enjoyed this romantic film a lot. It is very melodramatic, almost to the point of becoming laughable,but director George Cukor manages to keep the balance. For those of you who like dreamy romances the movie is recommended.I'm glad it is finally released on DVD.

I noted that between the play and the opera La Traviata which is adopted from Camille, there are well over a dozen filmed versions around from all parts of the globe. Still this exquisite film from Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer with its brightest star stands as the best and best known.

Through a misinterpreted glance and a smile, society courtesan Marguerite Gauthier and young Armand Duval meet at the Paris Opera. Marguerite meant to get the attentions of the imperious Baron DeVarville, but got Armand's instead.

With the revival of tuberculosis as a byproduct of the AIDS virus, today's audiences have some idea of the death sentence that Marguerite was under. She's chosen to live for the present without care or worry for tomorrow and tomorrow's bills. Impetuous young Armand thinks he has found the love of his life and so does Marguerite, but she realizes at a certain level always that it is too late.

The characters as realized by Greta Garbo and Robert Taylor will stay indelibly with you long after viewing Camille. Garbo said the role was a favorite of her's. Her performance in her voice, her body, and face capture the zest for all the immediate living she has to do.

Robert Taylor was quoted as saying that he bettered himself as an actor by just being around Garbo, that one couldn't help doing that. As Armand he made such an impression in his period clothes and his romantic lines that he became probably the number one movie heart throb in the nation.

George Cukor directed this and said of Taylor that usually the role of Armand is played by middle-aged men who look ridiculous saying those same lines. Taylor represented callow romantic youth of the 19th century and the dialog rings true when he says it. Cukor and Taylor worked again together, but future teamings were less classical than this.

Camille also helped launch the career of British actor Henry Daniell in films as one imperious and snarling villain. The man with the built in disdain in his voice, Henry Daniell essayed so many roles as a bad guy his mere appearance on the screen told you who was the villain. DeVarville, cold, haughty, and imperious was THE Daniell part and set a high standard for Daniell that he met many times in his career.

Two other players in this you will enjoy, Jessie Ralph as Marguerite's maid Nanine and Laura Hope Crews as the world's oldest courtesan. Crews is best remembered as Aunt Pity Pat Hamilton in Gone With the Wind and in Camille it's as if Aunt Pity Pat decided to open a bordello, a chic one for the upper classes to be sure.

This film further proves that the assembly-line system of Hollywood studios back then should also be taken seriously in terms of artistry. Just because movies were produced run-of-the-mill doesn't mean that they weren't paid critical attention to by their makers. The usual impression on studio-era Hollywood is: take a formulaic narrative style, maybe adapt a stage play for the screen, blend in a handful of stars from the stable and the films rake in the profit at the box office. Not quite, that's the easy perception. George Cukor, another of those versatile directors, made it apparent with Camille that filmmaking as an art may still flourish despite (and even within) certain parameters. Camille is beautiful, in so many respects. And it's not just because of Greta Garbo.

Sure, the acting is amazing, the casting is perfect. Garbo is luminous, mysterious, cruel, and weak at the same time. Robert Taylor surrenders himself to be the heartbreakingly young and vulnerable Armand. Henry Daniell's coldness and sadism is utterly human and familiar. The others are just plain wonderful. The writing contains so much wit and humor, devotion and pain - but it never overstates anything. The rapport and tensions between lovers, friends, and enemies are palpable and consistent. The actions flow so naturally, just like every scene, that checking for historical inconsistencies seem far beside the point.

There is so much that I love about Camille that it's hard to enumerate them all, but with every little discovery comes the realization that this is "but" a studio production, so it makes the experience more exquisite. Camille is a gentle, poignant romantic movie that, like Garbo, takes its place delicately and self-effacingly in the history of American cinema, but makes itself indelible in the heart and mind of the lovelorn individual viewer.

A Parisian courtesan (Greta Garbo) must choose between the young man who loves her and the callous baron who wants her, even as her own health begins to fail.

I watched this because I am a fan of the camera work that Karl Freund did, but I do not know which was his and which was William Daniels. So to try and even make an intelligent critique seems impossible, and I will not even try.

The film as a whole is a great update on the older (1921) version, and far more watchable if you are not a fan of silent films. I am a bit surprised how few adaptations there appear to be, given how long the play has existed. Unless they just go under other names to be confusing...

There is some talk online about who is better, Greta Garbo or Barbara Stanwyck. I am a Stanwyck fan, but hey, I am not going to say Garbo did a bad job here. She nailed it.

I didnt care for this film one bit. overlong..unbelievable and mediocre. the best thing about it was jessie ralph,,,henry daniel......laura hope crewes.....BUT IT PROVE TO ME ONE THING. ROBERT TAYLOR DOES NOT HOLD A CANDLE TO MR. TYRONE POWER IN LOOKS AND IN ACTING. what is the fuss over greta garbo.....pretty yes.....but dam does she overact and have an annoying voice. as for the movie im usually very sensitive well...i didnt cry at all at the final death scene. couldnt wait for it to end. i cried more with the film OLD YELLER..... .

Most Greta Garbo fans rank this as her finest work--and it probably is. Not only is she highly competent in the title role, but the supporting cast shines just as brightly--everyone from Laura Hope Crewes to Henry Daniell to Lionel Barrymore. And Robert Taylor is the ideal romantic hero at the peak of his darkly handsome good looks. He and Garbo make a wonderful pair.

George Cukor's direction is full of richly observed details of behavior, never flinching from the occasional coarseness of the characters. All of the technical work is above reproach and those familiar with the story of the Lady of the Camelias will not be disappointed. Lionel Barrymore makes a brief but effective appearance midway through the film. His scene with Garbo is delicately played and gives added credence to Garbo's nobility in letting her lover go.

Biggest drawback is the film's pace--some editing may have helped--but the final result is still impressive.

I do not know if "Moulin Rouge" from 2001 is a remake of this film, or are both adaptations of the same novel by Alexandre Dumas (son), but although somewhat differently developed, the stories that these films bring are essentially identical. Although I do not like musicals and I really like black and white classics from the first half of the last century, to me, "Moulin Rouge" is better in every way. For the role of Marguerite Gautier, Greta Garbo was nominated for the Oscar, but she did not leave a good impression on me, and the chemistry (if there is any at all) between her and Robert Taylor can not be compared with that of Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor six decades later. On the technical side, I have nothing to complain about, apart from the certain extent of over-acting, but while I saw "Moulin Rouge" countless times and every time I was emotionally destroyed, "Camille" was quite boring and I do not intend to ever reprise it.

6/10

Alexander Dumas fils, the author of "La dame aux camelias", created a powerful novel that has been made into an opera, "La Traviata", as well as a play and this film just titled "Camille". The story of Marguerite Gautier, the famous Parisian courtesan has moved audiences since it first came out in France.

George Cukor seems to have been the obvious choice for directing this adaptation of the book. Mr. Cukor had a great eye for detail, as well as for guiding his female stars into performances that defined a lot of careers in the movies. He was not strange to working with the divine Ms. Garbo, and their collaboration in this film seems to have been a match made in heaven.

The film clearly belongs to Greta Garbo who, as Marguerite Gautier, runs away with the film. This seems to be a role tailor-made for the star. It's without a doubt one of her best screen portrayals. Ms. Garbo clearly understood this woman, who is tormented into resigning the man she loved when his father comes to her to ask the famous courtesan to have pity on his family and to let the young man go free.

The selection of Robert Taylor to play Armand Duval was a coup for the studio and for the production. Mr. Taylor, who went to be one of the favorite stars at MGM exuded charm and seems to have had no problems playing opposite Greta Garbo. In fact, Robert Taylor contribution to the film is enormous.

This film has always been a perennial favorite among fans of Greta Garbo. We remember seeing it at MOMA with a rapt crowd that applauded so loud at the end of the screening for what seemed to be forever.

The supporting cast is excellent as anything that was assembled by MGM. Lionel Barrymore is seen as Monsieur Duval, Armand's father who pleads with Marguerite to let his son go. Henry Daniell plays the Baron de Varville with great style.

William Daniels was the cinematographer. He clearly understood how to photograph Ms. Garbo and he is at his best in this film. The great art direction by Cedric Gibbons shows what this man was capable of doing. The screen play shows such names as James Hilton, Zoe Akins and Frances Marion among the writers.

"Camille" is a film that will live forever thanks to the luminous Greta Garbo and the inspired direction of George Cukor.

"Anna Karenina" was such a soporific (and let's say it) disappointing experience that I wasn't too enthralled by the premise of "Camille", the "next" costume romantic drama starring the great Greta. Yet I decided to watch the two films almost back-to-back because I felt the former didn't do justice to the acting potential of the alliterative icon, and there were many other personal reasons.

First, the film is included on the American Film Institute's Top 100 Romances (if you check many reviews I wrote, you'll see I'm a big AFI buff).

And there's the tragic story of Marguerite Gautier, a high-class courtesan who was putting on a generous and bon-vivant front in her inner circle only to make up for her own insecurities, in other words, a complex performance, made of hopefulness and poignancy, adoration and desperation, where Garbo would demonstrate that the face of the 'Face' could be the underrated container of genuinely true and truly genuine emotions.

Finally, there's the name of George Cukor who was competent enough not to have a dull movie as an offering. The film is immune to dullness and despite a few low spots, I wasn't disappointed.

Yes, the film has the look of these MGM period productions that would make a name out of William Wyler in the early 40s, but what strikes first is the way Garbo starts as an all-smiling, all-greeting woman whose charm is made of a positive attitude irradiating all around her. She doesn't need to overplay the emotions: a simple glimpse, a witty retort, an intonation can convey all the needed emotions and belie the 'I vant to be alone' reputation and the whole publicity around "Ninothcka".

Indeed, Garbo didn't wait for Ernst Lubitsch to laugh and glide with positiveness: any smile from Marguerite, the Lady with the camellias was sincerer than the so-called breakthrough moment where she laughed at Melvyn Douglas' fall in the restaurant. So the reason to watch "Camille" is Garbo's acting, that's her movie and she's so expansive, generous and versatile that every other actor pales in comparison... except maybe for the female players.

"Camille" is also a splendid, though not too showy exhibition of the decadence that prevailed during the 19th century within the Parisian high society... and decadent isn't just a fancy word: there's a party sequence with hysterical screams, naughty jokes, drunken games and debauchery I didn't expect to emerge from such a respectable MGM production and certainly not under the Hays Code guidance. There are moments where you're literally caught in that wave of subversion and let yourself transported so enthusiastically that even the handsome Armand Duval (Robert Taylor) feels like a party-pooper when he asks Marguerite to dismiss the guests. I wish that party could last longer, it was so exhilarating I almost forgot a plot had to move on.

Yes, it was so fun to enjoy the jovial, rotund and gossipy Prudence Duvernoy played by Laura Hope Crews; Lenore Ulric also steals the show as the manic Olympe. Garbo, in contrast, looks more distinguished and dignified but as the film goes on, it becomes obvious that the happy-go-lucky nature is only there to hide a deep stigma and a low self-esteem. Marguerite is courtesan, much more she's full of debts, which means she's a woman in the lowest position of the highest society, and whose beauty is the only asset she depends on, after her man's wealth. With the stiff and pompous Baron de Varville (Henry Daniell) she was doomed to contemplate a potential freedom in any smooth talking playboy and then fate struck with the young Armand Duval (Robert Taylor).

There's something tragic that emerges from their initial exchanges. At first, he's courting her but she dismisses his attempt and reduces it to mundane flirting, is she tempted or does she know nothing good can come out of their relationship? In fact, she's too depressed deep inside to let any intrusion of love, and yet she starts to believe and abandon her soul because the need for love in her heart is the only thing that doesn't decline in her body, her healthiest spot. And so we're transported in that tale of deception and self-abandonment, so regretful to watch the spectacle of Marguerite's descent into hell but consoling ourselves with the certitude that Garbo was a true first lady of cinema.

As Anna Karenina, she was the Garbo mocked by the Looney Tunes cartoons, in this film, she's just an acting monument who fully deserved her Oscar nomination. The flipside of the coin is that it's truly a woman's movie, all actresses are great, but I wasn't as impressed by Taylor's acting as I was by his looks, he's incredibly handsome but he's simply dwarfed by Garbo's intensity. As the Baron, Daniell has a glorious acting moment where he confronts Marguerite and tests her loyalty while frenetically playing the piano and the sexual tension was as thrilling as the crescendo of a can-can dance. But I'm afraid that the romance between Camille and Armand can only offer a few bucolic pictures and a sight of passion sterilized by a Hays Code injection.

Indeed, there's more in her eyes and words than anything the poor playboy can give. So the ending which seems to be the apotheosis of a gripping romance ends up being a rather anticlimactic despite all the intentions of Cukor to make it an emotional climax. Lionel Barrymore also makes a honourable presence as the man who'll lead the plot to its fatal conclusion, making Camille that tragic heroine who sacrifices love out of love, and the great measure of love lies in the ability to renounce to it.

Speaking of great, isn't that remarkable (and fitting) that it's the anagram to Garbo's name.

Camille could top the Elephant Man for the most moving film of all time. Everything about this movie is beautiful, the acting, the cinematography and one of the saddest endings on film.

The story is wonderful, based on a work by Alexandre Dumas Junior. The opera La Traviata also happened to be inspired by the story, and I noticed a number of similarities between this film and the opera, like the death scene, and when Armand insults Margherite(throwing money in her face, like in the opera).

The cinematography and costumes were gorgeous, and an example of French extravagance, despite the fact that Camille was made in the 30s. The music, especially in Margherite's death scene, was so hauntingly touching. Through the music, we felt the romance between Armand and Margherite. Also Margherite's death is the most heart-rending death ever on screen, whether in romance or a biographical drama.

The performances were exceptional. Greta Garbo was the movie. The whole movie is worth watching just for her performance, which was more than outstanding. This movie was referenced in the 1982 musical Annie, which was where I got introduced to the movie. Robert Taylor, I usually find a bit dull, but I felt a great much-needed restraint here, in possibly his best performance. Everybody else was great as well, particularly Lionel Barrymore as Monsieur Duval.

In conclusion, a beautiful and inspired film, so worth watching for Garbo's performance and her character's death. Believe me, it is a million times better than most of the rubbishy sentimental romantic dramas out now, and that's a fact! 10/10. Bethany Cox

This is based on the sentimental novel by Alexandre Dumas fils. It is the story of a courtesan who is being kept by a rich man. She lives in the early 1800's, a harsh time, and has pretty much all she wants--except true love. When the handsome Robert Taylor (Armand) comes along, she is willing to do anything for him. He feels the same way but it is dissuaded by his uncle because her past will ruin any prospects he has. Greta Garbo is Camille, playing the part to the hilt. She is another one of those fragile beings that made up her career. Everything is orchestrated to bring about the striking conclusion. Part of the problem is that this ending has been parodied so many times and is so gut wrenching, it's almost too much to watch. All the characters are handsome or pretty and the milieu of France is well crafted. But it really seems dated now.

Greta Garbo is "Camille," in the 1936 MGM film directed by George Cukor and also starring Robert Taylor, Henry Daniell, Lionel Barrymore, Laura Hope Crews, Jessie Ralph, and Rex O'Malley. Based on the Alexandre Dumas fils novel/play LA DAME AUX CAMELIAS, it is the often told story of the tubercular Marguerite Gautier, a courtesan, and the young man, Armand Duval, with whom she falls in love, only to have to give him up so he can fulfill his promise and take a respectable place in society. Verdi based his very famous and constantly done opera, "La Traviata," on the Dumas material. During the film, themes from the opera can be heard throughout.

Though the libretto of the opera sticks closely to the words spoken by Marguerite and Armand, the opera's story is slightly different. One difference is that Armand (Alfredo in the opera) learns from his father the reason that Marguerite (Violetta in the opera) gave him up, where in this version, he doesn't seem to know about it; the other is that in the opera, Duval Sr. asks Violetta to sacrifice her life with Armand for the sake of Armand's sister, who is about to be married.

MGM pulled out all the stops for this film; the production values are glorious. Adrian's costumes are absolutely magnificent, and Garbo is a vision in them. This is Garbo's greatest performance. Though a neurotic, shy, and not a terribly exciting woman in real life (for the book "Garbo" by Barry Paris, I transcribed something like 100 hours of phone conversations she had with art gallery owner Sam Green) she had an amazing, vivid imagination and could transport herself in performance to create effective characters that are larger than life. Added to that ability is her unique beauty, her slim figure, and her beautiful speaking voice. She is a perfect Marguerite - vulnerable, passionate, full of humor, generous, joyous and melancholy. Marguerite's death scene is classic. Her face is never more beautiful or serene as in those last scenes, and even after repeated viewings, it tugs at the heart.

Garbo is surrounded by an excellent cast, including Henry Daniell as the Baron, her cruel lover/financial resource; Laura Hope Crews as a loud, silly old courtesan; Jessie Ralph as Nanine, Marguerite's loving caretaker; and Rex O'Malley, who does a beautiful job as Gaston, a gentle and kind friend to both Marguerite and Armand. This role is very small in the opera. It's a much better part here, and O'Malley makes a great impression.

Lionel Barrymore's performance as Duval Sr. has been criticized as being melodramatic, and it's true that he does refer to Marguerite as "Margaret," but in my opinion, he comes off well and restrained in a role that, unlike Gaston, is actually smaller in the film than it is in the opera.

Robert Taylor was 24 or 25 when he played Armand. Like most of the absurdly handsome men in films, he was dismissed by critics as a pretty boy who had no acting ability. It isn't true. He handles some sappy lines very well because he says them sincerely, and he portrays an innocent and romantic quality in the face of Marguerite's worldly ways. Two things trip him up, neither of which is his fault - he's about two or three years away from true handsomeness, which would have made him a little less callow in appearance; secondly, the makeup man really slipped with the pancake, the powder, and the eyebrow pencil. He's wearing entirely too much makeup, which is a distraction and - I mean, this is Robert Taylor we're talking about - totally unnecessary. The makeup should have been directed toward making him slightly less beautiful and more handsome. A bigger problem than both of those is that when he's in a scene with Garbo, there is very little chemistry between them. As a performer, Garbo often stood alone and wasn't what one would call an ensemble player, and she rather overpowers him.

A gorgeous movie, one of the most romantic films of all time starring an enigmatic woman who was a goddess among the Hollywood goddesses. Once World War II hit, the types of roles she excelled at would no longer be popular, and she would find herself retired at the age of 36 to walk and wander the world, no longer in films, but never forgotten.

Quite dull.

Based on the Alexandre Dumas fils novel and play, and set in France in the mid-1800s, a story of romance and social machinations.

And that's all it is really. Just one long examination of mid-1800s upper class types and social intrigues and manipulation. Complete with the inevitable duel.

It all feels so stuffy, irrational and overwrought, especially by today's standards. Who knew relationships were so complicated in the 1800s...?

Really only for people who like 1800s romances and period pieces.