Those describing this as an early screwball comedy are telling only half the story--it's also a romantic drama, and, more surprisingly, an existential meditation. The theme is, as noted, quite reminiscent of "Holiday" and the later "The Philadelphia Story"--love among the privileged, with interlopers from the less privileged, and the ability or lack thereof to have a sense of humor in high society. But it's quite sad, too -- Glenn Anders' character meets a sorry end, and that ruins Diane Ellis's life. What's really moving is watching Nancy Carroll, never more radiant, having to choose between security and her true self, and her interaction with Fredric March, unusually loose and spontaneous; their scene in the cab actually moved me to tears, both for its content and their playing of it. This is how it's done, folks. For a screwball prototype it has unusual depth of feeling. Add to that sumptuous Deco trimmings, technical prowess that belie its Astoria Studios origins, and some exciting location New York filming. Hard to catch a copy of this one, but it's worth the search.

Harry D'Abbadie D'Arrast always complained that this movie, which he considered his best, was undeservedly forgotten, for it created many concepts which would reappear in comedies of later years.This time he was right. It is surprising to find in such an early film the conflict between economical safeness and spiritual freedom that would later be typical of such wonderful films as Frank Capra's You Can't Take It with You, and very especially, George Cukor's Holiday (not a surprising coincidence, since it was written by the same screenwriter as Laughter).It is an answer to the existentialism dilemma, where the only choices to make are living for the future (marrying a millionaire) or for the present (enjoying the moment you're currently living). Laughter goes even further than the later films, for it incorporates a third answer: suicide, which takes the story for the path of melodrama with a surprising respect of its unity.In fact, what is most curious about Laughter is that it is much more mature that one would suspect. The structure of the story, the performances and even the humor feels fresher than those of other comedies of the period. A good example is the surprising scene in which Fredric March and Nancy Carroll do some role playing just for the sake of it: they pretend to be a marriage in which he is the woman and she is the man. They both imitate the conventions of each sex's supposedly proper behavior, making fun of predetermined attitudes and social obligations, clearly defending sponaneity and freedom as opposed to that which they parody/criticize (social roles conditioned by sexes).Also the way the structure of the story is inventive enough, with a past time we never see but which is reflected in the present, and a triggering opening which serves as the conclusion of the movie as well. In fact, many other the elements of the movie (starting by the title itself) are developed in more than one level, like this one.The biggest fault of the film is not in its final quarter (which, contrary to what I had read, seems to me fluid and coherent with the rest of the film): it is a number of technical limitations, which harm its rhythm for today's audience. These were common in the beginning of sound film (Lubitsch somehow avoided most of them in The Love Parade, made one year before this and quite a miracle).The shortcoming I found most annoying was the impossibility for the camera to show the characters in a more frontal angle than the profiles during dialogs, which gives some important scenes a very old fashioned stagy feel.(It had to do with the sound equipment: for what I know, they couldn't edit the sound they recorded, so they had to film each scene with several cameras so that they could use full takes of sound. So there could only be one light setup, and therefore, the characters had to be filmed from the only side where the light was better).However, compared with most movies of that period, Laughter is a clear winner, and it is no wonder that March considered it one of his best films. His performance is relaxed, joyful and attractive still today, and so is Nancy Carroll's.It is a pity that D'Arrast is not better known today, nor this movie properly restored/distributed. It is a interesting work on many levels, by a highly original and innovative filmmaker.

I was expecting this movie to be much more than it was. I read that it was one of Fredric March's personal favorites, his others being A Star is Born, Death Takes a Holiday, and Best Years of Our Lives, and so since he liked it I thought it was going to be really good. I must say I was really bored with it. The story seemed boring and not really well written. I think it could have been a much better story if the script was better. As is, there were too many loose ends. Sure, there were some funny moments (it was enjoyable to see Fred draped in a white bearskin rug!), and Fred gave a few kisses, and you got to see him in his undershirt. But I have seen him in MUCH better roles, more romantic, more funny...everyone's opinion is different. This is mine...It is one of the few Fred movies I didn't really like.

"Laughter" is a glorious romantic comedy with a terrific cast including that great man of the screen, Fredric March. It concerns a young woman who has married for stability and wealth, but can't forget the love of her life, played by the delicious Mr March. It was made at Paramount's Long Island studios, and some scenes were shot on location in New York, giving the movie a different "look" to many others of the period. Some people think of this movie as the first "Screwball" comedy. "Laughter" was Frank Morgan's first talkie and the last movie for Diane Ellis who plays his daughter. She died on her honeymoon in December 1930.