|
Post by topbilled on Sept 17, 2023 20:43:24 GMT
If this were made now, one of the wives would be struggling with her sexual identity. Addie would be bisexual, and it would have been Linda Darnell's character that had run off with Addie, but changed her mind.
|
|
|
Post by Andrea Doria on Sept 17, 2023 20:44:37 GMT
The ending really got to me, romance comes in all sorts of funny ways.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 17, 2023 20:45:08 GMT
Great choice, Andrea...I always enjoy watching this film!
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 17, 2023 20:59:32 GMT
The ending really got to me, romance comes in all sorts of funny ways. I like the ending a lot, too. Especially, Douglas and Darnell as I knew (not-rich) couples like them growing up - bickered all the time and loved each other. It was a style of relationship that was more common in that generation. My parents were older parents (Dad 40 when I was born), so their friends were almost two generations behind mine. Douglas' character was a man from my Dad's generation.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 17, 2023 21:06:18 GMT
If this were made now, one of the wives would be struggling with her sexual identity. Addie would be bisexual, and it would have been Linda Darnell's character that had run off with Addie, but changed her mind. I think your version is good story and should be told. The problem with new movies/TV shows is their obsession with that story. I live in a very liberal city with a wide cross-section of friends, but surprise, most adults have figured out their sexuality by their twenties and thirties, for sure, except on TV or in the movies. When our equivalents, forty years from now, are watching 2020s "old" movies, they are going to wonder why we we were so obsessed with certain things. Even without a Motion Picture Production Code, must movies today follow very strict guidelines for what type of character/story/ideology is acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 17, 2023 21:12:10 GMT
If this were made now, one of the wives would be struggling with her sexual identity. Addie would be bisexual, and it would have been Linda Darnell's character that had run off with Addie, but changed her mind. I think your version is good story and should be told. The problem with new movies/TV shows is their obsession with that story. I live in a very liberal city with a wide cross-section of friends, but surprise, most adults have figured out their sexuality by their twenties and thirties, for sure, except on TV or in the movies. When our equivalents, forty years from now, are watching 2020s "old" movies, they are going to wonder why we we were so obsessed with certain things. Even without a Motion Picture Production Code, must movies today follow very strict guidelines for what type of character/story/ideology is acceptable. Well Darnell's character seemed younger than the others...she was probably early 20s marrying a man of 35. But there are still women in their 30s who struggle with their sexual identity. The actress Meredith Baxter was older wasn't she, previously married with children, when she decided/realized she was lesbian.
I think it would add to the mysteriousness of Addie if she was bisexual, because she could be anything to anyone...and a greater threat to all three marriages, not just the potential of stealing any of the husbands but the wives too.
So I would add in an LGBTQ+ angle to this story, not because it may be politically correct or a trend during the current age, but because as a writer, it would give me more "carrots to dangle" in front of the viewer...and it would increase the tension. I wouldn't reveal Addie's bisexual until halfway into the movie, to up the stakes...and at that time start suggesting Darnell's character is struggling...AND that she had married a wealthy man to provide for her family, instead of thinking about what she really wanted or desired for herself.
In the end, she could decide to come back after running off with Addie, to facilitate a happy ending...either because she comes to the conclusion she was temporarily confused and really does want to be with her husband...or because she doesn't have the guts to officially come out as a lesbian...so she rejects Addie on that basis and returns to what will keep her more accepted in society and prevent her conservative family from rejecting her.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 17, 2023 21:53:04 GMT
I think your version is good story and should be told. The problem with new movies/TV shows is their obsession with that story. I live in a very liberal city with a wide cross-section of friends, but surprise, most adults have figured out their sexuality by their twenties and thirties, for sure, except on TV or in the movies. When our equivalents, forty years from now, are watching 2020s "old" movies, they are going to wonder why we we were so obsessed with certain things. Even without a Motion Picture Production Code, must movies today follow very strict guidelines for what type of character/story/ideology is acceptable. Well Darnell's character seemed younger than the others...she was probably early 20s marrying a man of 35. But there are still women in their 30s who struggle with their sexual identity. The actress Meredith Baxter was older wasn't she, previously married with children, when she decided/realized she was lesbian.
I think it would add to the mysteriousness of Addie if she was bisexual, because she could be anything to anyone...and a greater threat to all three marriages, not just the potential of stealing any of the husbands but the wives too. So I would tell this story, not because it may be politically correct or a trend during the current age, but because as a writer, it would give me more "carrots to dangle" in front of the viewer...and increase the tension. But I wouldn't reveal Addie's bisexual until halfway into the movie, to up the stakes...and at that time start suggesting Darnell's character is struggling...AND that she had married a wealthy man to provide for her family, instead of think about what she really wanted or desired for herself. As noted, I think your story is a good one and should be told. And I understand the storytelling value of more conflict as you describe. The issue I have (and maybe it's just me) is that almost every writer today is telling the same sexual identity confusion story with the same outcomes or the same selection of "approved" outcomes. Not every group of four, five or six has two, three or four sexually confused people and not every one resolves it in the "approved" way.
Your example of Baxter is spot on, but she also was born in 1947, which makes her 76 today. The world has been much more open and accepting to different sexuality for decades now. I think people are settling in to what they are much earlier in life today than in Baxter's day simply because they can in a way that Baxter couldn't.
I thought Darnell was a very believable character (not saying you didn't) as she had several objectives like most people and did her best to balance them.
Also, just like with food, sometimes simple is better meaning there's nothing wrong with there being only one conflict - a single heterosexual woman potentially running off with three heterosexual women's heterosexual husbands. It made for a quite a compelling movie without any of today's themes.
I want to emphasize that I think its great that all these different stories about sexuality and identity can be told, that people can be who they want to be and that, in general, there is so much more freedom and openness to all of that. And I think it's great that movies and TV shows tell these stories.
But for someone who feels that way, I also see a new version of a "Code" taking hold where characters have to be approved types with certain behaviors rewarded and others punished just like under the old Motion Picture Production Code. Even storylines seem stamped off the identity press just like they were stamped off the Code press during the studio era. I laugh as, today, I can normally tell you the character and story outcome within five minutes as you know the arc they are going to take - that's not creative or "challenging."
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 17, 2023 22:00:26 GMT
Well Darnell's character seemed younger than the others...she was probably early 20s marrying a man of 35. But there are still women in their 30s who struggle with their sexual identity. The actress Meredith Baxter was older wasn't she, previously married with children, when she decided/realized she was lesbian.
I think it would add to the mysteriousness of Addie if she was bisexual, because she could be anything to anyone...and a greater threat to all three marriages, not just the potential of stealing any of the husbands but the wives too. So I would tell this story, not because it may be politically correct or a trend during the current age, but because as a writer, it would give me more "carrots to dangle" in front of the viewer...and increase the tension. But I wouldn't reveal Addie's bisexual until halfway into the movie, to up the stakes...and at that time start suggesting Darnell's character is struggling...AND that she had married a wealthy man to provide for her family, instead of think about what she really wanted or desired for herself. As noted, I think your story is a good one and should be told. And I understand the storytelling value of more conflict as you describe. The issue I have (and maybe it's just me) is that almost every writer today is telling the same sexual identity confusion story with the same outcomes or the same selection of "approved" outcomes. Not every group of four, five or six has two, three or four sexually confused people and not every one resolves it in the "approved" way.
Your example of Baxter is spot on, but she also was born in 1947, which makes her 76 today. The world has been much more open and accepting to different sexuality for decades now. I think people are settling in to what they are much earlier in life today than in Baxter's day simply because they can in a way that Baxter couldn't.
I thought Darnell was a very believable character (not saying you didn't) as she had several objectives like most people and did her best to balance them.
Also, just like with food, sometimes simple is better meaning there's nothing wrong with there being only one conflict - a single heterosexual woman potentially running off with three heterosexual women's heterosexual husbands. It made for a quite a compelling movie without any of today's themes.
I want to emphasize that I think its great that all these different stories about sexuality and identity can be told, that people can be who they want to be and that, in general, there is so much more freedom and openness to all of that. And I think it's great that movies and TV shows tell these stories.
But for someone who feels that way, I also see a new version of a "Code" taking hold where characters have to be approved types with certain behaviors rewarded and others punished just like under the old Motion Picture Production Code. Even storylines seem stamped off the identity press just like they were stamped off the Code press during the studio era. I laugh as, today, I can normally tell you the character and story outcome within five minutes as you know the arc they are going to take - that's not creative or "challenging." How do I write this reply without seeming antagonistic...I think you overlooked some of what I included in my previous post...I said Darnell's character could return to her male husband in the end because she wasn't ready to come out as a lesbian...that would surely be counter to how most liberal Hollywood writers would tell it today, because they wouldn't want to endorse a closeted outcome. I think it would be more realistic if she was still struggling and that is ironically why she came back.
We cannot be afraid to tell stories of sexually ambiguous characters just because it's "in vogue" now. We have to tell these stories, because these kinds of people were always there and will always continue to be there, regardless of what it is popular storytelling in a given era.
I also think it would give the story a richer dimension if the character played by Darnell was struggling with her sexuality...because then the characters played by Crain and Sothern could have some additional knowledge, insight and intuition about Addie that the men don't have. So not only is it, 'will she take my husband?' but also 'what if she's got her sights set on our girlfriend, who's struggling.'
The scenes where the women talk about Addie would have a bit more juice and complexity, and not be so predictably one-note. Not only do the women want to save their own marriages, they want to save their female friend from Addie the vulture.
Addie would be more of a villain...not a villain like the type we find in a superhero story...but a villain that can wreck any home at any time...a villain that might also take their friend away from them (and their straight world)...it would be a huge threat to these gals and their perfect lives.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 17, 2023 22:29:51 GMT
As noted, I think your story is a good one and should be told. And I understand the storytelling value of more conflict as you describe. The issue I have (and maybe it's just me) is that almost every writer today is telling the same sexual identity confusion story with the same outcomes or the same selection of "approved" outcomes. Not every group of four, five or six has two, three or four sexually confused people and not every one resolves it in the "approved" way.
Your example of Baxter is spot on, but she also was born in 1947, which makes her 76 today. The world has been much more open and accepting to different sexuality for decades now. I think people are settling in to what they are much earlier in life today than in Baxter's day simply because they can in a way that Baxter couldn't.
I thought Darnell was a very believable character (not saying you didn't) as she had several objectives like most people and did her best to balance them.
Also, just like with food, sometimes simple is better meaning there's nothing wrong with there being only one conflict - a single heterosexual woman potentially running off with three heterosexual women's heterosexual husbands. It made for a quite a compelling movie without any of today's themes.
I want to emphasize that I think its great that all these different stories about sexuality and identity can be told, that people can be who they want to be and that, in general, there is so much more freedom and openness to all of that. And I think it's great that movies and TV shows tell these stories.
But for someone who feels that way, I also see a new version of a "Code" taking hold where characters have to be approved types with certain behaviors rewarded and others punished just like under the old Motion Picture Production Code. Even storylines seem stamped off the identity press just like they were stamped off the Code press during the studio era. I laugh as, today, I can normally tell you the character and story outcome within five minutes as you know the arc they are going to take - that's not creative or "challenging." How do I write this reply without seeming antagonistic...I think you overlooked some of what I included in my previous post...I said Darnell's character could return to her male husband in the end because she wasn't ready to come out as a lesbian...that would surely be counter to how most liberal Hollywood writers would tell it today, because they wouldn't want to endorse a closeted outcome. I think it would be more realistic if she was still struggling and that is ironically why she came back.
We cannot be afraid to tell stories of sexually ambiguous characters just because it's "in vogue" now. We have to tell these stories, because these kinds of people were always there and will always continue to be there, regardless of what it is popular storytelling in a given era.
I also think it would give the story a richer dimension if the character played by Darnell was struggling with her sexuality...because then the characters played by Crain and Sothern could have some additional knowledge, insight and intuition about Addie that the men don't have. So not only is it, 'will she take my husband?' but also 'what if she's got her sights set on our girlfriend, who's struggling.'
The scenes where the women talk about Addie would a bit more juice and complexity, and not be so predictably one-note. Not only do the women want to save their own marriages, they want to save their female friend from Addie the vulture.
Addie would be more of a villain...not a villain like the type we find in a superhero story...but a villain that can wreck any home at any time...that would be a huge threat to these gals. I do not see your response as antagonistic at all, but appreciate you concern. I tried to think the same way when responding. I also tried to emphasize that I think these stories should be told. I don't want anyone shying away from them, I used to like them, but now I'm a bit worn out from them because they are now the dominant story told to the point that they are like the "happy marriage in the end" story of the Code era (which dominated, but there were exceptions even under the Code).
I also noted that you are correct that it would make for more conflict and complexity - a "juicer" story as you said - so I agree with that point, but also note that sometimes simple works too. That was my point about "A Letter to Three Wives;" it is "simple" by today's standards and wouldn't be told that way, but it still works.
I don't think we are really that far apart as everything you want to do - bring in elements of sexual identity differences and/or confusion to add dimension to the story today - makes sense to me. And yes, if you had her not ready to come out, you could argue that was a "counter the prevailing view" choice of Hollywood, but I wonder what tone/colors/vibe that choice would be presented with: triumphant ones? I doubt it. I'd bet the scene's mood would be a bit dark, the music somber and her look sad/confused. Even though the "outcome" is against the prevailing view, the message is perfectly aligned to it. Personally, I don't think it is triumphant if she closets herself and it would be a shame that she didn't come out, but I bet you the tone of the scene would send a "this is a sad/unfortunate" choice" message and, hence, would be on message to the prevailing (as you said) liberal Hollywood view (which I support in this case) that coming out is better. I see it all the time, where an outcome is against the prevailing view, but the tone says, this is a bad thing, so is it really against the prevailing view? Would you present it as a good choice?
The real challenging scene would be presenting that choice in a favorable supportive scene with the outward and subliminal message being that closeting herself was a good choice. That's not my view at all, but that is the real subversive / counter-liberal and counter-prevailing view today. That scene I haven't seen made in a long time.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 17, 2023 22:47:04 GMT
If Darnell's character was bisexual (or lesbian) you couldn't present her returning to her husband as the right choice per se...but you could still present it as HER choice...that she is going to stick to the commitment she made to that marriage. Mostly because despite her own internal struggles, it is a successful marriage and it has worked for her and her family. Also, she could reject Addie not because Addie is a woman, but because Addie is not a good person...Addie is sneaky and reprehensible. So in that regard, it would be the better choice to go back to the male husband.
It could also be said Darnell just found out she's pregnant, so she's making the sacrifice of going back to the marriage for the unborn child's sake...since abortion is against what she and her family believe in, and the child could benefit from two parents under the same roof.
I do think tone could be implied that Crain and Sothern, while lovely, have some internalized homophobia or micro aggressions related to LGBTQ culture. They are eager to embrace their friend coming back to the straight world and reinforce her decision as right, for their own narrow minded purposes. But Darnell is not letting herself be validated by that. She is only validating her choice by the fact that she does love her husband, even if he's not her only option in life. So in that regard, I don't think it would be an ending that is meant to uphold the views of conservatives OR liberals...but meant to uphold individual choice...and for right or wrong, Darnell is giving her marriage to Paul Douglas's character another chance.
My first thought was how do you reveal Darnell is attracted to women? Which scene in the original film would be used to add that in...and I think it would have to come during one of the scenes at the country club. There could be a hatcheck girl who pulls Darnell's glance away from her husband...and this is something either Crain or Sothern notice in the moment. In fact, I think Sothern is the more savvy character, not Crain...so it would probably be Sothern who detects the bisexual vibes in Darnell but doesn't say anything directly to Darnell. But in a later scene where it it is just Sothern and Crain, Sothern might imply to Crain that maybe someone else besides just their husbands could end up running off with Addie. And this is the first time Crain and the audience are fully clued in that Addie is bisexual, and Darnell may be leaning that way.
The original text of the letter would have to be changed slightly. It couldn't be Addie saying she's running off one of their husbands...but that she is going to run off with someone close...where it's a gender neutral statement.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 18, 2023 4:15:32 GMT
I am re-watching the film tonight. I was trying to decide which character in a modern remake would best be a non-white...and I think it has to be Crain's character. It's a bit lame that she's getting drunk because she's new and doesn't know the others and is insecure about a flower on her dress. It would make more sense if her insecurities were related to her otherness, being part of a different group...whether it's her being the only black in a group of whites...or her being the only white in a group of blacks. If the Bishops' union was a biracial one, it would give the character of Deborah more serious doubts about whether she can make her marriage work in this town/community where everyone else is so different from her.
Or if the race angle is cliched, then the writer could give her a disability...like she is in a wheelchair, and she feels insecure going to a country club where everyone will be dancing and she can't dance. There needs to be more depth and struggle to this character, a real reason for her to feel isolated and different from the rest, even though she has a loving husband. But I also think this character should be more religious than the others. If she's handicapped, maybe she wasn't always handicapped and had been crippled in an accident, and surviving that accident strengthened her faith in God...yet she still deals with insecurities and identity issues. Again, the character of Deborah Bishop needs more dimension than what Mankiewicz and Caspary have given her. She's too underdeveloped, and is easily the most boring wife character.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 18, 2023 4:27:01 GMT
The original book was called A Letter to Five Wives, which was published in 1946. Here's a contemporary review:
This is the closeup of five women at their local committee meeting as they wait for the sixth, sleek sexy Addie Ross, a divorcee who angled alternately for all their husbands, Addie whom they hate, whom they fear and resent. In place of Addie comes a letter, addressed to the five of them, saying she has run off with one of their husbands, deliberately unidentified, and leaving each to wonder if the unknown is hers. Mentally recapitulated, here are their marriages:- Martha, who made a martyred career of maternity and split with her husband over their son; Rita, whose second marriage was casual, comfortable, if unexciting, but something she wanted to cling to; Lora Nay, whose husband gave her social and material prestige though no children; Herry who wanted to sing, and sacrificed her husband to a career which would never materialize; Deborah, plain, homely, whose Bradley was the catch of the town. Behind a front of bravado, each entertains, until one by one the husbands arrive, with only Rita aware that hers had wanted to leave her and changed his mind. Net perhaps as genuine as Once Around the Block but clever, apt, and recognizable.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 18, 2023 13:35:57 GMT
A Letter to Three Wives from 1949 with Jeanne Crain, Linda Darnell, Ann Sothern, Paul Douglas, Kirk Douglas, Thelma Ritter and Jeffrey Lynn
A Letter to Three Wives is an impressively constructed story that is also contrived as heck, but you don't care as director and co-writer Joseph L. Mankiewicz created such engaging and lively characters, driven by a witty plot device, that you just enjoy the ride.
In a bedroom suburb of New York City, three wives are shaken to their core when together they receive a letter from the town's siren saying she has run off with one of the three women's husbands. Through flashback sequences, we learn that all three have reason to worry.
Linda Darnell plays the wife who grew up poor and "nabbed" her rich, older boss, played by Paul Douglas. Theirs is a combative relationship where he thinks she married him just for his money and she thinks he now feels trapped and bitter.
Jeanne Crain plays the pretty "hayseed" who married the town's handsome, rich "catch" during the war, when class distinction was palliated by foreign surroundings and uniforms. Now, she feels her husband regrets that he "married down" and is embarrassed by her.
Finally, Ann Sothern plays the successful writer of crassly commercial radio programs. Her large income emasculates her school teacher husband, played by Kirk Douglas. Their marriage is a chess match of passive aggression that periodically breaks out into open hostility.
Mankiewicz uses this elaborate setup to explore the themes of class, money and culture in mid-century America, but his movie is no boring docudrama, as humor, passion, insecurity and, often, love pour out from this well-penned script.
Darnell grew up poor in a shack next to the railroad tracks, where the family is so attuned to the loud trains that household conversation is routinely paused when a train noisily rattles by only to resume once it passes. It's a perfect detail that explains Darnell's drive.
Her marriage to the older Douglas is a bit cliched - wealthy middle-aged divorced man marries poor pretty girl - but these two talented actors imbue it with real passion. At first you think you understand them, only to learn later that you really didn't.
Equally engaging and even more complex and nuanced is Sothern and Douglas' marriage, as his insecurities about being a teacher, a job he clearly loves, are painfully laid bare by his wife's financial success at a job that panders to the public.
His wife is trying to get him to give up teaching for the lucrative field of radio, but he keeps getting on his high horse, while bemoaning the low pay and low esteem of teaching. That his passion for his job undermines his own argument never becomes apparent to him.
As their homefront cold war unfolds, their maid, played by the outstanding Thelma Ritter, serves as the "plain" talker who exposes so many of Sothern's fake claims to be doing this or that for her husband. Douglas is a blowhard, but Sothern's a bully - it's good stuff.
Crain's marriage to the rich "catch," played by Jeffrey Lynn, is the weakest of the three relationships as there is little complexity involved, with both characters being not much more than archetypes. Still, it allows Mankiewicz to shine a light on class snobbery.
For the modern viewer, the movie is also a nice trip to a small, successful mid-century American city with a still thriving downtown, comfortable homes, woody wagons, fancy "hi-fis" and people dressing up to go to dinner at their friends' homes.
The script itself, full of witty observations, sharp barbs and funny asides, echoes Mankiewicz' All About Eve script, except it has the suburbs filling in for the theater as a setting.
A Letter to Three Wives is a wonderful snapshot of America at a point in time, but its story about how class, money and status affect business, friendship and marriage is timeless. Plus, the dialogue and acting have held up very well over the ensuing seventy-plus years.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 18, 2023 15:19:30 GMT
I am going to take a slightly opposing view, without being too harsh! LOL
First, I am grateful Andrea chose A LETTER TO THREE WIVES, because it's enjoyable despite its many flaws...
Unfortunately, I don't think the film has held up very well...yes, it's an engaging snapshot with several above average performances but it feels too hollow in spots and I don't think it even accurately portrayed life in the suburbs as it was in 1948-49. As Fading Fast indicates, there are some glaring stereotypes, especially the Bishops. I think the Hollingsways/Finneys are also stereotypes, and in some ways Mankiewicz is just repeating himself, because all three couples are dealing with one spouse being wealthier than the other...the original book had five very different couples, with only Lora's story about class distinction.
Also, I think Mankiewicz is going out of his way to criticize (nearly damn) radio entertainment, which only suggests his own snobbery about what quality writing is, or is not. Why not have Rita write B movies, or pulp fiction novels, or sappy articles in women's magazines. I am sure there are several "inferior" types of writing that Mankiewicz hated. I just feel his snobbery coming through too much in the dialogue he gives Kirk Douglas' character, and I don't feel that sort of diatribe is necessary. A more logical conflict would be that Douglas was a struggling writer himself, maybe working on the next great American novel, fancying himself an undiscovered Fitzgerald or Faulkner, whose own ability was unfairly eclipsed by Rita who got all the breaks despite being a more average writer...and his unwillingness to use her connections with an agent to get a publisher to read his manuscript.
Or, the story could have had them as rival playwrights who married, and her career took off, giving her Tony awards and other accolades, while his more serious artistic-minded plays flopped and he had to live in the shadow of her success. Instead Mankiewicz makes this about an angry husband who cannot appreciate his wife's success because she is writing drivel for radio audiences, which seems to be an unpardonable sin. It's all a bit exaggerated without any real basis in reality.
The other serious problem with the story is that it defies logic in how it uses the main plot device related to the letter. Not only is it highly gimmicky, it's unrealistic that none of them go off to make calls on where their husbands are spending the day, or where Addie might be and with whom. I have a tough time accepting that all of them are just going to patiently wait out the day to see which husband ran off with Addie. Surely, two of them could have helped with the kids' trip down the river, while sending the third one back into town to do some quick investigating. Realistically, the whole thing would have been resolved in an hour or less.
As for the positives...because there are some...the fashions are interesting, and there is clever use of sound to mimic what the main characters may be thinking as we launch into their respective flashbacks. I also like how the film gets us to think about married life...which is not really coming from Mankiewicz, but from the writer of the original novel.
I would like to praise Mankiewicz's dialogue, which is at times quite witty and no doubt engaging, but I think he only knows how to write upper class characters, and I don't feel he knows how to write the Finneys, except as lower class stereotypes...they don't seem to have any heart and their dialogue is cliched.
|
|