|
|
Post by topbilled on Nov 2, 2023 2:01:14 GMT
This month Jlewis and I will be looking at four Warner Brothers dramas starring Bette Davis and her favorite leading man Claude Rains.
Join us for a fun discussion about :
11/4..JUAREZ (1939)
11/11..NOW VOYAGER (1942)
11/18..MR. SKEFFINGTON (1944)
11/25..DECEPTION (1946)
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Nov 5, 2023 0:31:55 GMT
Essential: JUAREZ (1939)
TopBilled:
 Dead, captured or driven out of the country
It starts with Claude Rains and recent Oscar recipient Gale Sondergaard complaining about the cost of overtaking Mexican lands. These lands were reclaimed by Benito Juarez (Paul Muni). Some of Rains’ acting is an exercise in overacting and his British sounding diction is at odds with portraying a Frenchman— Napoleon III. But Miss Sondergaard is deliciously good as his scheming partner.We also see John Garfield as a Mexican general, Porfirio Diaz, who wants to ensure that Mexico remain its own sovereign nation. Not fall under French control. Mr. Garfield, a Jewish actor, is not exactly convincing as a hispanic. At the eleven-minute mark Bette Davis has stepped out of her dressing room to appear as a Belgian empress arriving in Mexico. Carlota (or Charlotte as she is known in Europe) is the wife of Maximilian (Brian Aherne), a member of the royal Hapsburg family. He’s been sent by Rains to govern the Mexican territory and ensure its riches benefit France.As the couple arrive in an ornate horse drawn carriage, we note how refined they are in this somewhat uncivilized country. Their mannerisms are decidedly regal, and upon reaching their new home, they are told that the roads are empty because of a health crisis. Yes, their arrival is marred by an outbreak of the black plague, which is keeping most everyone out of sight and in quarantine. Even if there was no epidemic, what sort of reception would the royal couple receive by locals under the influence of Juarez, who opposes their presence? Muni’s makeup as the title character is convincing, and he does fairly well in an ethnic role. It’s interesting to see the actor solidify his status as one of classic Hollywood’s most skilled interpreters of historical figures. I guess you can say Muni is the king of the motion picture biopic. Muni does so well as the humble leader of an oppressed population that we look forward to his character’s inevitable showdown with the aristocrats.I don’t exactly buy Miss Davis as a sweet religious woman. I don’t find her to be an actress I associate with pious humility or prayerful goodness. Despite seeming incredibly miscast, though, we can always count on her to put on a show and put her complete focus into the role. Some of the background music by Erich Korngold is a bit too Erich Korngold. Meaning a bit too overplayed and intrusive. These sounds over punctuate the dramatic aspects of the story to the point where you wonder why he didn’t compose a motif to comment on the characters’ breathing, since he threw almost everything else into the soundtrack. Unfortunately, less-is-more is not a school of thought in the WB music department. The most over the top orchestrations occur during the outdoor battle scenes.This is not a great film. For one thing, it’s much too long with every single detail loudly emphasized. Perhaps they thought this material played best to drunks in the balcony in need of hearing aids. At times JUAREZ feels like a dressed up western set south of the U.S. border. Muni’s work is the main reason to watch it. And Mr. Aherne, who was Oscar nominated, gives probably the best performance of his career. But these two fine actors cannot escape the “to victory or death” hokum that plagues the production. Watching the film, I began to wish that I had been quarantined from such overblown cinematic nonsense.***Jlewis:
 Bette Davis and Claude Rains are two of my favorite old time Hollywood stars despite their frequent “ham” performances eating up the scenery. JUAREZ, as directed by William Dieterle, may not be the best introduction to their multiple pair-ups since the two only appear together in the same scene a full hour and a half before the final climax, but it is still an enjoyable-if-hokey example of the Warner Brothers studio’s obsession with historic biopics during the second half of the thirties.This rather distinctive genre specialty reached its apex with the Oscar Best Picture winner THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA and the 15 or so Technicolor two reel “patriotics” that included GIVE ME LIBERTY and SONS OF LIBERTY, the latter also featuring Claude Rains. As usual, the Mexican figures in our scenario don’t look or behave “Mexican” any more realistically than the cast of MGM’s THE GOOD EARTH do “Chinese” but why should it even matter to most of us movie buffs well accustomed to ol’ Hollywood anyway? On the plus side, the costumes and settings are all first rate, being about as authentic as ol’ Hollywood could muster in the era before internet fact-checking. In short, they don’t make history lessons as lively today as they did back in the Golden Age. Paul Muni, who appeared in EMILE ZOLA and the earlier WB biopic THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR, was quite the chameleon actor who was unafraid to play any ethnicity or nationality, doing his bit as our title profile Benito Juárez, the liberal lawyer and statesman who served as the nation’s president for fourteen years until his death in 1872. Not that it would be easy for him or Mexico as a nation since, as our introduction tells us, “Under the heroic president, Benito Juárez, the republic of Mexico had for two years (as of 1863) defended its existence against the overwhelming war machine of Napoleon III, Emperor and Dictator of France.” Juárez is the good guy (carrying a picture of Abraham Lincoln with him often and mourning his death later) and Napoleon III is the baddie in our story.Well…not entirely. Claude Rains starts out playing that character a bit like Little John in THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD when he gets all ruffled at a letter informing him of the Confederates losing Gettysburg up north in that neighboring nation since he had hoped that those running that country will “bug out” of his affairs due to the “bugging” side being on the losing side. During the civil wars waged on his own turf, he manipulates the electoral process to install a puppet leader Emperor Maximilian (Brian Aherne) to replace Juárez. Later on, Napoleon gradually loses interest in all things Mexico while Maximilian is stuck deciding what to do with his curious role. Among our supporting cast on the French side are Gale Sondergaard as Napoleon’s Empress Eugénie (who doesn’t get to do much in her role), Donald Crisp as a most egotistical General Marechal Achille Bazaine and Harry Davenport as soft and well-mannered Dr. Samuel Basch. On the Mexican Republic side, there is quite the assortment but John Garfield certainly stands out in his brief scenes (adding to roughly 15 minutes worth) as Porfirio Diaz (“Comprararias, to victory or death!”) who even gets on Maximilian’s soft side as a prisoner at one point. With war on and off in the backdrop, we also get key generals of importance like Miguel Lopez (Gilbert Roland), Miguel Miramon (Henry O’Neill) and Tomas Mejia (William Wilkerson as General), but they don’t get enough establishment of character personality like Garfield’s Diaz.Then there is Bette Davis playing Carlota of Belgium, Empress of Mexico and wife of Maximilian. She gets second billing after Muni but certainly makes up for it in every scene she appears in. My favorite involves her rage after Napoleon withdraws support for her husband as he views Mexico a lost cause as far as French foreign interests are concerned. Needless to say, Muni is so straight faced by comparison to her, Rains and Aherne in their performances that it is hard to determine if the Warner screenwriters (Aeneas MacKenzie, Wolfgang Reinhardt and future star director John Huston) viewed him as an icon or a merely polarizing figure who was necessary for Mexico’s full success as a nation but maybe not all that likable in historical reality.
We viewers get especially split in our opinions of Maximilian as both a sympathetic puppet who is sloppy in how he handles power and a tyrant who is willing to brutally execute Mexican republicans who don’t abide decrees abandoning arms without mercy. One key scene has a mother force her little son to watch a firing squad with a line of “look and remember.” And, yet, we are presented just before Maximilian’s own downfall and execution with a similar scene of a woman singing sympathetically as if she is singing to him. Then, after the firing squad, a white dove symbolizing peace flies off into the desert. Juárez even seeks forgiveness in a church for his ultimate decision. Mixed messages to be sure…Then again, it is important to note that individuals here are either heroes or villains. Full fledged nations are not. The United States needed to maintain positive relations with both Mexico and France in those nervous years of 1938 and 1939, with Maximilian frequently reminded on screen that he is an Austrian and not French (a.k.a. Austria being part of the Nazi Germany by this time). Joseph Calleia plays the shady role of Alejandro Uradi, who initially serves as vice president under Juárez and then betrays him for Maximilian until both men meet their doom as traitors to Juárez’ republic. For his part, Napoleon acts all wishy washy in the later scenes as he withdraws support of everybody on the other side of the Atlantic. This is highlighted by his new-found interest in posing for royal portraits on a toy horse rather than riding a real one into battle, a particularly enjoyable scene that is all Claude Rains in his pompous glory.There are a few battle scenes here and there, but curiously the all important siege of Querétaro is pretty much overlooked in order to get to the end result. Much more impressive are the brutal shootings of Mexicans in the name of imperial authority that are documented in dramatic high contrasts of dark versus light settings, all of the cinematography by Tony Gaudio and his associates being absolutely beautiful to behold. While it may not be all that accurate in historic details and sometimes gets confusing in its narrative, this over two hour long epic manages to keep you captivated from start to finish.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Nov 11, 2023 16:46:09 GMT
Essential: NOW VOYAGER (1942)
TopBilled:
 Bon voyage
It’s hard to dislike such a meticulously crafted melodrama. Though to be honest, not all of NOW VOYAGER holds up the way a revered classic should. For one thing, some of Bette Davis’ acting is a little too punctuated, and as such, she does fail to provide a wholly organic characterization. At times in the beginning of this movie, she acts like she is playing an old woman, instead of a young woman with emotional hang-ups. Despite the unusual formalistic approach, there are still a few memorable scenes. Especially an early moment where a visiting psychiatrist (Claude Rains) witnesses her total breakdown in front of a domineering mother (Gladys Cooper).But the most absurd aspect of this tale about an ugly duckling is that a few months and the removal of her glasses in a sanitarium will make her a bonafide glamour girl. The transformation is laughable, is initially external and entirely implausible. No way would years of abuse from her mother be cured in such a short time. However, Miss Davis tries to show us Charlotte Vale’s struggle to maintain her new identity on a cruise ship to Rio, as well as when she returns home to Boston.On the ship she meets a perfect gentleman (Paul Henreid)– is there any other kind in these types of movies?– and he treats her like an object to be desired. I found Henreid’s diction perfect but his acting a bit too cloying. As if he was thinking, “I have befriended Bette Davis, I can continue to charm her during the making of this movie and get a contract with the studio for more pictures.” Henreid’s character is married and has a daughter named Tina (Janis Wilson) that will be seen later. The cruise scenes and the sightseeing bit in Rio is nicely filmed. But there is a painfully unfunny segment involving a cabbie speaking broken English which leads into a mountainside accident. This mixture of malapropisms, stereotypes and rescue drama is odd to say the least. After Davis has returned to Boston, she considers marriage to a well-to-do gent (John Loder), while she asserts her newfound independence inside her mother’s home. None of the brothers, she has several, are fleshed out which is a shame. The mother is the main antagonist to Charlotte Vale’s progress. During a heated argument the mother dies, which is highly predictable but still well-played by Miss Cooper. After the mother’s death, our heroine returns to the sanitarium and Dr. Raines’ care. This is the most artificial part of the movie. Through a series of contrivances, Davis meets and befriends Henreid’s troubled daughter. No way would Davis, herself a patient, be allowed to play substitute psychiatrist with the young girl. These scenes are forced and drag on too long. The camping trip is particularly tedious with Miss Davis in perfect hair and make-up throughout (nobody I know has ever looked like that on a camping trip, with clothes by Orry Kelly). Obviously we’re supposed to see that one ugly duckling can show another ugly duckling how to be self-confident, feel valued and loved. It’s a very transparent script with zero subtlety in the writing, that reinforces what we all already know– children need to feel wanted and appreciated. It’s still a nice message, though; and Davis and her costars do a nice job making everything nice and properly punctuated by the time it all ends.***Jlewis:
This is the quintessential Bette Davis melodrama of her Warner Brothers Golden Age and, perhaps, showcases that particular studio’s style at its most distinctive. Two key co-stars, Claude Rains and Paul Henreid respectively, hopped onto the Michael Curtiz directed CASABLANCA right after finishing their work here, under director Irving Rapper, as the Burbank factory was cranking ’em out back to back like an assembly line. Some other all-time greats provide support here too such as Gladys Cooper as Bette’s Mommie Dearest (and, despite how hostile they seem on screen, the actresses got along great off camera with mutual respect for each other’s talents) and care-giver nurse and confident Dora played by versatile Mary Wickes.Still others provide “camp” entertainment such as tear-inducing Janis Wilson as the usual fussy teenager with angst, Tina Durrance (dreading a ping-pong match, she sobs “But I’ll be the worst one! I’ll die! I’ll just die!”). In addition, there is Sol Polito’s gorgeous cinematography (clearly Old School style with focus on wiltering flowers as symbolism) and Max Steiner’s most scrumptious score that was parodied in subsequent Bugs Bunny cartoons. Is it any wonder this became THE go-to Late Night Movie-of-the-week in the television era? Yes, there are some plot-holes here and there, but it is all easily forgiven in the name of hankie-wipe entertainment. Bette is at her most Audrey Hepburn-ish a.k.a. MY FAIR LADY as an ugly duckling transforming into a swan, even if her initial state perpetrated so many stereotypes about ladies with glasses who lack sex appeal from AUNTIE MAME through THE PRINCESS DIARIES.Although the Surgeon General warnings made it unfashionable later, the image of Bette’s Charlotte Vale and Paul Henreid’s Jerry Durrance sharing a cigarette as an alternative to kissing was quite the trend setter for the time, given how challenging the Production Code made it to depict single and married characters doing the…you know…and not getting into trouble for it. The fact that Charlotte decides to remain a spinster in order to not break up his marriage because she is THAT devoted to loving him whole-heartedly is yet another curious plot-point we have to excuse…but, BUT…those were the times when women had to maintain their social dignity for the sake of true happiness. Charlotte Vale, as beautifully played by Davis, is the youngest of four and the solo daughter in the aristocratic Vale family of Boston. She is struggling to “leave the nest” past her prime due to a domineering, widowed (and lacking a sex life of her own) mommy (Cooper as merely billed as “Mrs. Henry Vale” here). This is where I kinda struggle with Casey Robinson’s adaptation of Olive Higgins Prouty’s source material. Apparently, Charlotte did rebel rather successfully from her mommy aboard an Africa bound cruise-ship in a flashback scene she relates to visiting psychiatrist Dr. Jaquith (Rains) by dating the cadet supervisor on board and he actually standing up for her against her mother.Yet, without any good explanations of “why,” Charlotte has morphed back into the awkward teenager past her prime with glasses, extra weight gain and in desperate need of professional help. The only reason mommy puts up with Charlotte visiting Cascade sanitarium is so that her “mental breakdown” does not add shame to the Vale family and its public standing. Helpful alongside Dr. Jaquith is Charlotte’s sister-in-law Lisa Vale (Ilka Chase, but we never actually meet her husband a.k.a. Charlotte’s brother apart from a quickie glance shot), despite sometimes being accompanied by her mocking, sarcastic daughter June (Bonita Granville). She helps out by extending Charlotte’s time away from abusive mommy with a cruise trip to Rio in Brazil. While visiting Sugarloaf and its touristy spots, the reformed and re-identified Charlotte gets a full make-over in clothes and hairstyle.Then she romances, for the second time, with a married man named Jerry Durrance (Henreid). It is not clear whether or not they “did it” when “bundling” New England style in a shared cabin after the Portuguese only speaking driver has an accident and strands them, but their relationship becomes strictly Platonic by the time they part company at the end of the cruise and he returns to his wife and two daughters. What Jerry gives Charlotte is hope and desire in herself that she is a strong and beautiful woman despite how mean and nasty mommy back in Boston is. Mommy does ease up…just a little…on her post-30 daughter when Charlotte temporarily engages herself to another wealthy uppity sort named Elliot Livingston (John Loder). Yet a surprise visit by Jerry to Boston as an architect upsets the engagement, in addition to Charlotte and Elliot realizing that they are better off as friends than lovers. Once again, Mommy Dearest is back to her mean and nasty self and she and daughter have a few more spats but getting plenty of emotional support from nurse Dora. (Little side-note about Dora actress Mary Wickes: a familiar face to many due to her frequent TV work spanning five decades, she could handle anything from modeling Cruella DeVille for the first animated 101 DALMATIANS, although she didn’t voice that character like she did others in such Disney features as THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, to the SISTER ACT comedies with Whoopi Goldberg.)Then mommie suffers a stroke and dies, making Charlotte feel responsible in a psychological way, especially given how nice mommy was in the end by leaving a vast fortune to her daughter for putting up with a childhood of hell. It is back to Cascade for more therapy and soul searching, but then a surprise happens. Lo and behold…Charlotte meets Jerry’s teenage daughter Tina also attending Cascade for therapy. Sadly, she could not have Jerry because he was a married man but she now can play the PERFECT Mommy countering her own mean mommy. Of course, Jerry can not understand initially why Charlotte goes through with all of this and Dr. Jasquith is not too happy about Charlotte and Jerry having a past together. A reunion between the lovebirds becomes, as Charlotte puts it, a “test” to decide whether or not she can continue her Tina relationship.As she explains to Jerry in our grand finale, she is overjoyed just to have that “little strip of territory” that the two of them can call their own and to not just wish on the moon, but also the stars above. Plus Tina gets to turn into a swan without glasses just like Charlotte. The story is, I admit, far fetching at times but it all works quite well in the end. It is, in fact, my all-time favorite Bette Davis film.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Nov 18, 2023 18:49:40 GMT
Essential: MR. SKEFFINGTON (1944)
TopBilled:
 Mr. and Mrs. Skeffington
Bette Davis is the type of actress you either really love or struggle to tolerate. There’s probably no middle ground in the way one feels about her while watching her films. Though she does give a mostly brilliant performance here, doing better with the lighter comedic lines than the dramatic moments, she is still a bit tough to watch when she overdoes the precocity of the vain character she’s playing. At times one can’t decide if she’s in on the joke, or feeling sympathetic about this self-absorbed woman she’s been cast to portray.We know that because Miss Davis was at that time the reigning queen of the Warner Brothers lot, about to be dethroned by Mildred Pierce, I mean Joan Crawford, this is going to be her picture. It doesn’t matter whether Claude Rains is assigned the title character, he’s strictly a supporting player and in the second half he is largely off-screen so we can see Fanny Skeffington’s spectacular decline. Her harsh comeuppance is based on dated notions about beauty and the stereotypes of what happen to people when they age. When they first meet, Fanny and Job are polar opposites. They enter into an unusual marriage, which is more of a convenience than an act of love, mostly done so Fanny can save her brother (Richard Waring) from prison. Of course, we quickly realize that in order for Job to put up with his bride, he either has a sense of humor, the patience of saint, or both. At various points Fanny murmurs to Job: “You’re laughing at me again.” To which he replies gently: “No, Fanny, no.” That becomes a running gag.There are other running gags. One involves Fanny continually standing up her friend Janie Clarkson whom we never see on screen. And another gag focuses on several persistent suitors. Quite frankly, the scenes with the suitors feel like filler and add to the sense the film is too long. However, it is a bit amusing when we see the suitors at the end, having lost their looks, most of them married with children and supposedly happy. The best of the suitors is Fanny’s long-time pal Edward, played by the exceptional character actor Jerome Cowan. Mr. Cowan does more than most to take a caricature and elevate him into a fleshed out human being. As a result, Edward is ultimately just as vulnerable as Fanny.Several Hollywood films made during this time focus on vanity, such as A WOMAN’S FACE and THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY. I suppose it was easy for studios to entice shallow housewives to watch these films while husbands and sons were off fighting Nazis in the war. Speaking of the Nazis, there is an interesting subplot in which Raines’ character becomes a victim of the Third Reich after he moves abroad. This brings me to the film’s best scene which has Skeffington explain to his then ten-year-old half-Jewish daughter (Sylvia Arslan) the significance of their heritage. Probably Davis’s best scenes involve the character in her later years, struggling to have a healthy relationship with the grown daughter (Marjorie Riordan) she barely knows. In real life, Bette Davis had a difficult relationship with her own daughter B.D. Hyman, born shortly after this picture was made. They were estranged at the time of the actress’s death. You can say that in some way, life would mirror what happens in this film.***Jlewis:
 Fanny Trellis (Bette Davis) is a (once but only now seemingly) wealthy Scarlet O’Hara knock-off who attracts men from all quarters to her fancy estate (and I love these indoor sets that pop up in multiple Warner Brothers features and contemporary Joe McDoakes shorts, including that all important drawing room with a huge window that is so prominent in Hitchcock’s ROPE and our forthcoming reviewed DECEPTION, along with the grand staircase previously seen in NOW VOYAGER).It is that all important year of 1914 with the news constantly keeping even the high society folk of New York on edge, but Fanny lives in her own little galaxy of self interests…and hides a few secrets: namely a brother Trippy (Richard Waring) who is squandering any income on his ill-fated ventures. Various men fight over the prospect of marrying her but she ultimately chooses an aging Jewish banker named Job (name coming from the Old Testament Job who suffers great misfortune) Skeffington (Claude Rains) whom she is not even attracted to. This is all for the sake of financial security and to help shield Trippy from accusations of embezzlement. Job, however, will always love her even if she struggles to reciprocate the affections.Their parents are no longer living and their inheritance has mostly been wiped out, but Fanny and Trippy have a sympathetic cousin named George Trellis (Walter Abel). Like Mr. Skeffington, he is their “eyes” to the outside world that is changing with war and the advances of the 20th century. While Fanny’s marriage is financially beneficial to them both. Trippy gets jealous (stating he read about it first in the newspaper business section under “transactions”) and, in retaliation, joins the war effort despite the United States not being involved yet.We follow the Skeffington marriage through the usual trials and fleeting moments of happiness (a portrait of Fanny hangs on the wall to preserve her at her most beautiful age). She fusses about her pregnancy since she fears getting old as a mother, being quite obsessed with her looks. Key quote from Job to Fanny: “A woman is beautiful when she’s loved, and only then.” The response: “Nonsense. A woman is beautiful when she has eight hours’ sleep and goes to the beauty parlor every day…and bone structure has a lot to do with it too.” (Useless trivial note: the birth certificate of their daughter is April 6, 1916, the day after actress Bette’s 8th birthday.)Like Trippy, Job gets involved in the war as a corporal by 1917. Yet he and George are stationed close to home while Trippy dies overseas, a huge devastation to Fanny. She says some things in front of Job that she later regrets in her grief, suggesting that Trippy was the only man she truly loved. However, in a fascinating earlier scene, they all watch a wartime newsreel that shows Trippy enjoying himself among his fellow serviceman, apparently very happy in his life far away from The Bubble that his sister continues to live in. One might say Trippy died a most happy man in the Great Adventure of life. The war ends and we enter the roaring twenties with Fanny playing the usual flirt with all men but her husband, who plays the dedicated father to their daughter instead. Fanny usually sends each fellow away before they get too far with her, so Job doesn’t have much to be jealous about. However she does go further with a bootlegger MacMahon (Robert Shayne) than some of the others and he decides to play marital housebreaker by getting Job caught in front of Fanny with one of his…“secretaries.” This leads to a mutual departing of ways and a semi-divorce. Fanny Junior decides on her own to live with Daddy in Europe despite the growing anti-Jewish sentiment over there (Fanny the mother being a Christian in the interfaith marriage). Mommy is OK with this since she can still pretend to play the young flirt with all of the men, although there doesn’t seem to be anymore there with MacMahon after this point and no new man in her life post-Job. Finances remain secure with Fanny but Job struggles later with the Depression and changes in Europe as the 1930s progress.The daughter returns to visit mommy by 1936 as a twenty year old (played now by Marjorie Riordan); apparently Job got concerned for Fanny Junior as he started struggling as a Jewish businessman abroad and, before becoming the next victim of the Third Reich, sent her back to mother for her safety. Alas…this is just in time to spoil mother’s wooing of a much younger John (Johnny Mitchell) who soon becomes more interested in the daughter, later marrying her instead. A trip aboard his boat in a stormy Atlantic prompts Fanny “senior” to collapse with a severe case of diphtheria. She survives with her health recovered but her looks really start to go downhill at this point.In a last-dash attempt to regain her youth, she invites a spectacular dinner party with many old beaus invited, including the one colorful trio of Ed (Jerome Cowan), Jim (John Alexander) and Bill (Bill Kennedy). She is quite surprised at their aging white and silver hair, but they refrain from revealing to her just how old she herself has become, as various guests gossip behind her back. Ed however does attempt to woo her into marriage but only for financial reasons which Fanny figures out rather quickly and pretends to be really down on her luck this time around, prompting his hasty decision to ditch her. This brings about Fanny’s realization that she is no longer the beauty queen of yesteryear, made all the worse by her daughter leaving with John the husband to start a new life away from her. She has hallucinations of Job appearing before her and seeks a shrink, Dr. Byles (George Coulouris) to figure it all out…not that he is of any help. One plus is her faithful housekeeper and nurse Manby (Dorothy Peterson) and frequently visiting George who prevent her from totally spiraling into depression.George is finally able to contact Job who had suffered great misfortune in Germany and even experienced time in a concentration camp. It is not certain the time period here but we are assuming roughly 1939, given that the original novel was published pre-Pearl Harbor. The reunion between the two shows Fanny finally acknowledging what Job told her years before about being beautiful as long as she is loved. I won’t spoil a critical detail revealed in the end about Job’s physical condition that also aids Fanny to her final emotional destination; this scene does have me blubber a bit since both Davis and Rains are such emotionally captivating performers here.Adapted from Countess Russell’s novel by Julius and Philip Epstein and well directed by Vincent Sherman, this is a fascinating character study that takes its sweet time over a lengthy 146 minutes but without any moment of boredom, the kind of soap-sud melodrama they just don’t make anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Nov 25, 2023 19:59:14 GMT
Essential: DECEPTION (1946)
TopBilled:
 Three-character study
Based on a stage play from the 1920s and previously filmed as a talkie in 1929 with Jeanne Eagels, the story for DECEPTION is basically a three-character study. The original play was a two-hander focusing on the married couple’s plight (here, played by Bette Davis & Paul Henreid), with the ex-lover (Claude Rains) off-screen.Because the drama focuses on this intense triangle, we have long stretches of dialogue between the woman and her ex-lover, then long stretches between the woman and her husband. When the husband begins to suspect something’s going on, and he makes a point to stop off and see his wife’s ex-lover, we get a long stretch of dialogue between them. It is all rather overblown and tedious at times. This isn’t to say there aren’t strong performances contained with the film. For surely, there are. Miss Davis is prone to overacting in some of her bigger moments, but at its heart, she sees this as a story about an anguished woman trying to do what is right to hold on to a shaky marriage. So on that level, she infuses a bit of sympathy and melancholy in the role.Perhaps Paul Henreid, Davis’s costar from NOW VOYAGER, comes across best. He has a more tortured backstory to flesh out— his character having been victimized by the Nazis and presumed dead in the war. When he snaps or demonstrates some spousal rage, we can feel a bit more sorry for him. In the end, his character is the one who doesn’t die or get walked off to prison. As for Claude Rains, who also appeared in NOW VOYAGER, it’s clear he is having a field day, over embellishing the part of the ex-lover and maestro composer. He lives in a grand mansion, has established musicians and understudies coming to visit him at all hours; and he has pets— a cat and a bird among them— to talk to when the writers see fit to give him a flamboyant monologue. There’s an elongated dinner scene in a restaurant where Rains’ character is playing an excruciating war of nerves with the other two. As Davis frets and Henreid tries to cope without going ballistic, Rains remains perfectly in control. To the actor’s credit, he plays it satirically, and as a result, we cannot hate him as much as Davis does. In fact, she becomes so steamed up about Rains’ shameless behavior, she ends up shooting him dead! Ultimately DECEPTION is a misfire by the dramatists. Most everyone involved with this production has failed to realize we need at least two likable characters with a chance at a happy ending. Otherwise, we cannot feel a sense of satisfaction watching it all play out on screen. Instead, we get a triangle with three rather unlikable types, none of whom we can fully identify with, and it is not surprising that this picture lost money for the studio and began Miss Davis’ decline at Warner Brothers.***Jlewis:
Three stars from NOW VOYAGER, along with director Irving Rapper, return in DECEPTION but with radically different roles despite Bette Davis and Paul Henreid again teamed together romantically. Both are great as usual but Claude Rains really goes full throttle in his performance, one of his all-time best as the third angle of a romantic triangle. Davis’ biggest post-war effort of 1946, it was also among the last of the really great ones she did before moving to Fox to do ALL ABOUT EVE, as her career started to flounder as the reigning queen at Warner Bros. studio and her subsequent roles got…well, a bit more oddball and unintentionally humorous. Modern viewers may still view it as high camp, more so than her previous vehicles (exception being the wonderfully delirious IN THIS OUR LIFE) due to the peculiar classical music setting, slightly unrealistic set-up and, of course, everybody barking away like feisty terriers. Davis plays Christine Radcliffe, a struggling pianist who wooed cellist Karel Novak (Paul Henreid) before the war but lost contact of him during the ensuing few years for reasons not fully explained but she claimed to send letters through all of Europe trying to reach him through various contacts. He is back in New York and a bit down on his luck after much wartime struggle over there, but succeeding to impress young musical pupils and fans at a concert Christine miraculously attends. The lovebirds are overjoyed to be back together but Karel has many questions regarding how Christine is able to afford such a plush top-story pad with beautiful art adorning it on a meager music teacher salary.This is where Alexander Hollenius (Claude Rains) comes in. He has been pampering her as his star “pupil” but is likely employing her for more than just that. Of course, she tries her best to sway Karel from finding out the full truth of her affair but Alexander pops into their wedding party…yes, they tie the knot quickly…and creates quite the ruckus with a champagne glass. Karel later confronts Alexander at his place for some additional answers and is struck by their shared interests in music (the latter saving old 78s of the former’s recordings) and, in particular, one composition Alexander composed that Karel is especially creative at performing himself. The trio then decide to form a friendship bond that tries to benefit everybody to some degree, although it is obvious Alexander is not a hundred percent happy that his mistress decided to marry somebody else behind his back.Karel decides to give a special performance of Alexander’s place following a luxury dinner that becomes a never-ending battle over menu items like partridge and wine, then Karel receives plenty of “helpful” criticism that sends him back to Christine (who didn’t attend this performance) to complain and fuss about their egocentric benefactor. Christine wants to leave New York and start anew with her husband away from Alexander’s influence but Karel thinks they may still benefit from him. Thus, she is often meeting up with Alexander behind the other’s back in a series of sparkling verbal matches that we all wish Davis and Rains did more of in their previous films together. I especially enjoy the one scene in which she gets past his servant (Benson Fong) and confronts him in his pajamas in bed reading his Dick Tracy comics with spectacles making him look all studious in his academic analysis of them.Alexander bears a striking resemblance to Anton Walbrook’s Boris in THE RED SHOES, filmed one year later and released in 1948 to enormous critical acclaim in the UK by the colorful Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger team, becoming jealous that she is willing to settle down as a married woman with somebody other than him rather than be the greatest pianist…or ballerina in the latter film. However, Walbrook plays his character with deadpan seriousness while Claude Rains is downright hilarious, if still menacing at times, and dives into his role with the same relish he does the caviar he stocks Christine’s refrigerator with. This is THE ideal role for this actor who always excelled with such over the top characters who can’t control themselves, yet can in a Clifton Webb sort of way (echoes of LAURA and the comic SITTING PRETTY) maintain great sophistication and clever wit regardless. “They call me a great man. That’s the loneliest animal in the world.”Not that he is spared in the final climax since this film ends very differently than THE RED SHOES with Christine (literally) calling the shots. A big orchestra performance is planned with Alexander conducting and Karel as lead cellist, but Christine initially is confused about the former’s sincerity and corners fellow cellist Bertram Gribble (John Abbott) with a bribe to refuse performing. She thinks he may be Karel’s replacement…even though he is not. Alexander does keep his word on that matter.However, he does not promise Christine that he will keep his word to maintain the deception of their relationship from Karel, who has been thinking they had been operating…shall we say?…in Platonic fashion. This is where the movie starts to come apart, in my opinion, because things were likely not spelled out clearly enough due to the Production Code. Also would Karel not forgive her if she did become…well, like those women he knew in Europe who resorted to desperate means to make a living? The shooting sequence ends the film a bit abruptly, followed by Karel’s wonderful performance on stage. On the plus side, we don’t have to see any crimes being paid, showing some gradual release in Code ethics on screen post-war. Instead, we just get suggestions of what could happen in the future as the two discuss what she did. In the final scene, Christine isn’t sure exactly how to react to a lady patron telling her that she must be a happy woman being married to a star success.
|
|
