So while we’re talking about directors that I’m not familiar enough with, let’s talk about Ernst Lubitsch, whose movies I’ve never seen until watching Trouble in Paradise just now.

Because the thing about Lubitsch is, when you read things from twencen directors, they’re all about Lubitsch. Billy Wilder thought of him as a mentor, the famously irascible Godard praises him lavishly in Histoire(s) du cinéma, and just anytime anyone from the mid-twencen is talking about comedic movies, his name comes up as this all-time great…

… who seemingly isn’t talked about much in modernity, and whose movies are under-represented on more recent “canon” lists. Nothing of his on the AFI list. None of his films make the top 100 on the Sight & Sound list (though To Be or Not to Be is at #114, and this is at #136).

And so, the thing is, comedy really ages quickly (as I’ve talked about in other contexts), and “this guy’s movies were great when they came out, but they’ve aged really poorly” is entirely plausible. This movie is from 1932. Chaplin’s City Lights is from 1931, and while it’s good, it also feels like it’s from the dawn of time — something more realistic and character-driven might not age as well. (And Duck Soup is from 1933, and feels like it’s from the dawn of time in a bad way, a Vaudeville relic.) So maybe that’s the deal, and this is going to be a slog of antique humor to sit through.

But what the hell, gotta try stuff out, or else what’s the point, right? So let’s watch this movie about two thieves who fall in love in Venice while they’re trying to rob each other, and then team up for a long con on a rich Parisian heiress, and the romantic complications that ensue.

And so here’s the good news: Somehow this has barely aged at all. Oh, to be sure, it’s set in a society that no longer exists, of glamorous aristocrats and their balls and suave international jewel thieves; but honestly, that society probably never really existed outside of movies. And the people in this movie are still recognizable as people, whose motivations and characters are fully legible to moderns, with surprising psychological depth.

Really, this has everything you want in a romantic comedy. The dialogue sparkles; the farce is appropriately farcical, with people running up and down stairs and moving from room to room and narrowly avoiding confrontations; it’s got some innovative shots (a whole wonderful scene takes place with the camera just looking at clock faces, for instance); the plotting is tight; the core relationships that drive the story really work, and you can completely buy all the attractions in whatever complex polygonal shape they make — the characters are sexy and flirty and have real chemistry.

(That sexiness apparently was a problem for it. This is one of the pre-Hays Code movies, and when that started being enforced in 1935, this was banned from being shown — all the way up to 1968, incredibly. By modern standards it’s tame in many ways — everything is talked around, or filmed around — but the characters’ attitudes toward sex are, I guess, sophisticated.)

This is just a flat-out excellent movie. When I think about things to compare it to, Rules of the Game comes to mind quickly, and it’s in that league; it compares favorably to the great Cary Grant screwball comedies. Long story short, I’m not sure why people aren’t out there talking more about Lubitsch, but they should be. (The AFI in particular has absolutely no excuse here. Replace one of the three Marx Brothers movies with this, there, you’ve made the list more comprehensive and much better.)

(As a minor housekeeping note, I know I’m watching this out of order for going through the extended S&S list; I didn’t actually realize it was on there, and was just watching it as a random comedy, but oops.)