← Return to Rewinder: AI Analysis of AI Analysis of Film

OVERLAY REPORT

1/12/2026 // SUBJECT: Design for Living (1933) film ending Processing: 1m 23.8s
Source: Gemini 3.0 Flash + Search
Analysis: gemini-3-pro-preview
Timeline: Skipped
EXPERIMENTAL USE ONLY
Errors Missing Unverified Supported
1 0 0 10
How were these counts calculated?

Counts based on original analysis categories (not yet classified).

Errors = Critical Errors + Imprecisions

Missing = Critical Omissions + Notable Gaps

#Q ORIGINAL QUESTION

Regarding the film Design for Living (1933), where does the main character go at the climax of the film and why?

#M ANNOTATED LLM RESPONSE

At the climax of the 1933 film Design for Living, the main character, Gilda Farrell (played by Miriam Hopkins), chooses to leave her husband, Max Plunkett, and departs in a taxi with her two lovers, Tom Chambers (Fredric March) and George Curtis (Gary Cooper). Their destination is Paris.

The Climax and Specific Details

The climax occurs in Max’s Manhattan penthouse during a formal party he is hosting for his advertising clients. Gilda, who married the "safe" and boring Max to escape the emotional chaos of her relationships with Tom and George, has found her conventional married life stifling. Tom and George crash the party, hide in Gilda's bedroom, and eventually provoke a scene.

Note on Versions: While the original Noël Coward play has the trio remaining together in an apartment laughing at their critics, the 1933 film (adapted by Ben Hecht and directed by Ernst Lubitsch) added the specific taxi getaway and the decision to return to the Paris setting where their relationship first began.

#F CORRECTION FEED (CLICK TO SEARCH)

[1] The film is correctly identified as *Design for Living* (1933).
[2] Gilda Farrell is the main character, played by Miriam Hopkins.
[3] The final scene takes place in a taxi.
[4] Tom Chambers (Fredric March) and George Curtis (Gary Cooper) are the two lovers.
[5] Gilda explicitly states they are going back to Paris.
[6] Most sources refer to Max's home as a 'mansion' or 'townhouse', though 'penthouse' is a plausible description for a wealthy NYC apartment in this era. Some sources mention a penthouse in Paris, which might have caused a minor conflation.
[7] The 'animal, vegetable, or mineral' game is a specific plot point illustrating Max's boring nature.
[8] The film ends with the three characters in a taxi.
[9] They decide to return to Paris.
[10] This quote is accurate to the film and character.
[11] The film's ending (taxi to Paris) differs from the play's ending (laughing in the apartment).

#O MISSED POINTS & OVERSIGHTS

No oversights detected.

#C RELATED QUERIES

#01 What is the difference between the ending of the play and the film Design for Living?
#02 Did the Hays Code affect the ending of Design for Living (1933)?
#03 What is the 'gentleman's agreement' in Design for Living?

#S SOURCES

wikipedia.org wordpress.com home.blog blogspot.com wordpress.com

#R ORIGINAL AI RESPONSE

#A DIRECT ANSWER (VERIFIED ANALYSIS)