Heaven Can Wait (1943)

My second mention of Ameche today in this film here, where he plays a bon vivant who after he dies figures the only place that could possibly take him is Hell (my second mention of that place as well.)

Laird Cregar as the Devil is good but is given little to do other than look menacing, be charming and listen to Don Ameche tell his life tale.

This light Fantasy (the only fantastic element is the afterlife segment set at the Devil's office) might remind one of Defending your Life, which is simply about living life to the fullest; but is dishonest in that a one-sided narration suffices to make one’s case in the final judgment, and that unpleasantness is simply omitted, (does not one hurt others when one cheats on one’s wife?)

Despite hinting at something else, the couple’s initial meeting is as innocent a meeting as is possible; the only problem being that she’s engaged to his stuffed-shirt cousin.

Later there is a red-herring meeting with a showgirl, which also ends up being an innocent affair.

But when actual cheating could have been admitted it is simply avoided altogether. Are we to believe this guy never did? What does the film take us for?

And, if no cheating occurred, then why would he think he belongs in Hell?

The honest way to tell the story is simply to say: "I drank champagne with my French teacher and woke up the next day hungover," instead, the story is told in the following, dishonest manner: "I woke up so sick one day, I was incapacitated. My family was worried sick and fussed over me. Eventually, my grandfather figured out I was hungover. My French teacher was also discovered to be hungover, and was fired."

What is the purpose of a dishonest confession?

If the way to hack the system is simply to be dishonest, then there's not much point to the system, is there?

Other than that, he seems a well-to-do ne’er do well, except that he luckily inherits the family business and somehow remains successful enough to pass it on to his own kid when the time comes.

Some guys are just lucky, I guess; but I had an uncle who fit the rich, spoiled character’s description, as a result, was unsuccessful in business; was a multiple divorcé; and was disowned by his children in his old age, a much more realistic series of consequences.

The film teaches us all the wrong lessons (other than ‘do not be a stuffed shirt’) but to what purpose?

According to the Criterion liner notes, Lubitsch was subverting exactly the type of movie that Ameche was being featured in, (not having seen them it's not surprising I entirely missed this. Ameche for me is a guy who was in Cocoon); there is a perverse aspect in filming the biography of "a man only interested in good living, with no aim of accomplishing anything, or doing anything noble."

Had the film been more open about an underaged boy's night out drinking with an older tutor would the point be better made about, despite it all, it still being an innocent affair?

As it is, we have no idea what it is that actually happened.

They could have simply sneaked a bottle together after everyone went to bed or they could have gotten drunk separately on their own. But it is supposed to be a confession, and as such it's wishy-washy and doesn't amount to much.

Maybe they got drunk and had sex.

Since the narrative is so oblique, no one knows; but the parental disapproval later on with the son and the showgirl might be a belated clue.

How come that story is more explicit?

In many cases film makers made the Code work for them. Here it works against the film.

I'm not sure I buy the Criterion liner notes, but their take on the character matches mine; and at the very least that's a possible explanation, except, why would Lubitsch much care to comment on Ameche's career? That I don't get.

With Marjorie Main, Spring Byington, Allyn Joslyn, Eugene Pallette, Signe Hasso, Louis Calhern, Tod Andrews, and Clara Blandick.