Although the so-called "Lubitsch touch" is evident every now and again (e.g. when Cooper moves a chair, he inadvertently discloses all the rubbish underneath it; March listening and reacting to his play being performed off-camera; Cooper breaking furniture off-camera), this is a disappointing movie. It suffers from excessive talk. Admittedly, some of it is witty, some of it is amusingly brittle, but a great deal of it is just plain dull. Cooper is miscast, and that doesn't help either. He does his best, but at this stage of his career, he not only lacks the forceful personality called for in the script, but tends to deliver his lines too slowly. March, however, is perfect. And so is Miriam Hopkins, who is often quite stunningly costumed. In fact, as might be expected, production values are first class: Beautiful photography, a great music score, clever sound effects.

Lubitsch is always entertaining, and "Design For Living" is no exception. The casting is perfect, with Cooper establishing a comedic capability. The sets are threadbare but consistent with the zeitgeist of this variation on "La Boheme".Horton, as usual, is an ideal foil for the free spirits around him.I view this film as a "gay" adventure, using Miriam Hopkins as a woman in drag.Seen in this light, the sex in question takes on a different inference. Here, traditional marriage, children, etc., become irrelevant. The same could be said about "Breakfast at Tiffany's" or any of Joe Orton's plays.The script, Ben Hecht's rewrite of Noel Coward, occasionally slows to a wordy crawl, but a piece of comic action or verbal duelling saves the day.Near the end of the film, in a climactic argument between Hopkins and Horton, Gilda blurts what sounded to my timeworn ears like a classic expostulation. lacking a DVD to stop and replay, I'll leave it to the IMDb authorities to verify or refute. It was an entertaining enough film to get me to switch from the Yankee/Rangers game.

Delightful even if more Ben Hecht than Noel Coward. The "menage a trois" has real brains, wit and magic. All due to the sensational chemistry between Gary Cooper, Fredric March, Miriam Hopkins and, of course, the unmistakable Lubitch touch. I was going to say that the film seems written today but the sad truth is there is nobody today that could write with this extraordinary elegance. Frediric March is masculine and volcanic, Gary Cooper feminine and irresistible and Miriam Hopkins, a sensational modern comedienne. As if this wasn't enough, Edward Everett Horton as Mr Wrong. The scene in which Hopkins compares Cooper and March to hats is one of my all time favorites.

Wow, look at the folks in this film--Frederic March and Gary Cooper in an Ernst Lubitsch film! You certainly would expect a lot from such a film. Well, although some might strongly disagree, but despite these actors and Lubitsch teaming together, this is not one of the director's better films. The problem is that the love triangle in the story prevents this from being a legitimate love story--something seem in most Lubitsch films.The film beings in Paris with March and Cooper living together in a cheap apartment. They are struggling artists, with March trying to become a successful playwright and Cooper trying to become a great painter. Into their struggle comes Miriam Hopkins, who has fallen in love with both they guys--and vice-versa. However, to preserve the friendship, they promise a "sex-free" friendship. The presence of Hopkins is a two-edged sword. On one hand, she encourages both men to be better at their craft and is responsible for working behind the scenes to be them recognized. On the other, there is strong sexual tension and ultimately this pulls the friendship apart. Can they work through this or will they each end up miserable...and frustrated? This film never could have been made a year later once the Production Code was revised and strengthened, as the notion of a three-some (even a non-sexual one) became strictly taboo...as was the liberal use of the word 'sex'. However, despite all this, the film really is mostly tease without a whole lot of action--though there is some implied sex (such as when March spent the night and was having breakfast with Hopkins halfway through the film).Sadly, however, despite some interesting sexual dynamics and good acting, the scrip just never paid off that much. Now it wasn't a bad film, but more like a film by a great director that is only very good. The so-called "Lubitsch touch" just wasn't that obvious. Yes, there was comedy but the romantic spark just never arrives. A nice but not especially wonderful film. Frankly, everyone in the film has done better work.