Revisting The White Cliffs of Dover (don’t forget the tissues).

The White Cliffs of Dover is a 1944 film starring Irene Dunne and Alan Marshal. This film shares the story of the life of an American woman living in England during both World War I and World War II.

Filming this flick must have been quite a challenge for the beautiful and talented Dunne, who was also starring in A Guy Named Joe simultaneously (production on Joe had been delayed due to that film’s star, Van Johnson, being seriously injured in a car accident–funnily enough, he recovered in time to play a supporting role opposite Dunne in this film, too!). Nonetheless, Dunne’s performance is flawless. One can’t help loving with her and grieving with her as she undergoes life’s trials. The movie is the very definition of star-studded, featuring a healthy mix of stars young (Elizabeth Taylor, Peter Lawford, Roddy McDowell, June Lockhart) and not-so-young (Dame May Whitty, Frank Morgan, C. Aubrey Smith, Gladys Cooper). Although sneered at by some critics for its rather forced political theme, this film was well-received in both the United States and England. I watched this movie years ago, but found it was even more charming and moving upon this second viewing.

The film starts with Susan (Dunne), a WWII nurse, anxiously staring out into the night from a hospital window. A fellow nurse comes in to bring her a welcomed cup of tea.

Margaret: “Why don’t you take your cap off and lie down for awhile?”

Susan: “We were told to stand by. There must be some very good reason. It helps to be doing something.”

Margaret: “You’re worried?”

Susan: “Who isn’t, nowadays?”

Margaret: “I thought your son was to stay the week with you?”

Susan: “He called to say his leave had been cancelled. I haven’t heard anything since. It’s been five days now. I’m terribly worried.”

Margaret: “So when we were told to stand by for emergency, you made up your mind he’d be in the thick of it?”

Susan: “Yes, Margaret, I’m afraid I did.”

Margaret: “Well, you can be wrong, you know. I hope you are. Do try and rest.”

The hospital receives a message from the surgeon general that an expected 5,000 casualties will be arriving within 24 hours. Susan is terrified that her son will be among them. As she thinks about how this came to be, we are taken to a flashback of when Susan first came to England. As a young woman, she arrived on a boat from America with her ornery father, a newspaper man. Susan is obviously excited. She has never traveled before, and she is enthralled by the history that England offers. Hiram Dunn (Frank Morgan), Susan’s father, is a rather spirited (grumpy) man. He constantly complains about the rain and chill: “It’ll be like this the whole time we’re in England!” Unfortunately for him, he becomes ill for the entire two weeks that they are to stay in England. Susan is unable to see much of the country, but she is thrilled when she is invited to a ball on the last night of their stay. A friendly elderly man invites her to join him, and he even goes so far as to hunt for a young man for her to dance with. He makes a smashing choice in the dashing young Sir John Ashwood (Marshal). Sir John is immediately taken by Susan the moment he sees her. They spend the evening dancing and talking in the moonlight.

John begs her to stay in England for longer, but she tells him that she must return with her father. While Susan and her father are packing to leave, Sir John arrives at their boarding house to ask her father’s permission for Susan to stay behind. At first, her father is very protective and against the idea; however, John is extremely persuasive and persistent. Susan spends a week with Sir John and his aristocratic family. They take long walks in the gardens and spend time getting to know each other. One night, while Sir John is showing Susan the family portraits, he points out an open space for the portrait of his future wife.

Susan: “You must have often wondered what she’d be like.”

John: “Yes, I have, until a few days ago. Then, I began to hope she’d be tall and fair, with a mind of her own, and that when my great-grandson showed visitors her portrait, he’d say, ‘This is my great-grandmother. Lovely, isn’t she? She was an American.’”

Susan: “John …”

John: “You must’ve known. I’ve been out of my mind since I first saw you in the Adam Room. I meant to wait, give you more time, but it’s out now … Don’t say no, Sue. If you can’t give me the right answer, pretend I haven’t spoken.”

Susan: “May I do that John, for these few days? I don’t want to make decisions; I just want to live and be happy.”

John: “You are happy, Sue, happy here?”

Susan: “When we are together, yes, when we are alone.”

John: “What does that mean?”

Susan: “Please don’t ask me. It’s just that, it’s all so strange, this place, your family.”

Susan is correct in her perception of tension within the family. While Susan and John are quite busy falling in love, his family is not pleased with their courtship. Even though they are clearly aware that Susan and John are interested in each other, they speak openly in front of her of their wish for John and family friend Helen to marry. Susan feels this tension and lashes out against them. Her outburst seems to make them feel guilty and treat her kindly: “It’s a compliment not to be like an American? How insulting! … I came here loving England and all it meant to me. I was happy to come here, I was so sure I would like you all because of John. I hoped you would like me. But I was an outsider, I didn’t belong. You made that perfectly clear!”

Ahh, young love.

Although the family apologizes, Susan is utterly embarrassed at her outburst. She leaves a goodbye message for Sir John and leaves on the morning train. When she gets off the train to find her boat, she is surprised to find John waiting for her. She tries to argue with him that she should return to America, but once again, he is quite persistent. He talks her into marrying him, and they seem quite happy.

Unfortunately, the happiness is short-lived. On their honeymoon, they learn that England has gone to war. Because it is tradition in the Ashwood family that the males join the military, John learns that he must go to war, almost immediately. The couple is separated for three years while John fights in WWI with his regiment. Susan lives in a constant state of fear while John is away. She worries from day to day that he may never return. When she visits him in France, they stay at a hotel with a beautiful, quaint bandstand visible from their balcony overlooking the sea.

It is on this visit that she becomes pregnant with their son, whom they name John, even though it goes against the Ashwood family tradition of naming the first male Percy. Unfortunately, when baby John is only an infant, his father is killed in action. Susan is devastated, and ignores her mother-in-law who tries to convince her to go on with her life.

“Enough happiness to last us the rest of our lives …”

When young John grows a little older, Susan attempts to move with him back to America so that he will not go into England’s military as his father had done. She tells her mother-in-law that she will teach her son to run when he hears cannons so that he will not die as his father had. Young Sir John is much like his father, however, and persuades his mother to stay and allow him to continue the Ashwood family traditions. This scene is especially heartbreaking, as we know from the beginning of the film that he does end up in harm’s way as a soldier in WWII.

This film is heartbreaking. We watch as Susan grows from a carefree young woman in love to a grieving widow, scared of also losing her only son. This film is about family. It is about the most important parts of our lives, and it is about the tragedy of war and dying young. It brings out our greatest fears of losing those that we love the most.

 

The White Cliffs of Dover is definitely a five on the “Maudlin Meter” tear scale!

An Invitation to Despair

For this week’s entry in the Maudlin Mondays series, I chose to watch the 1952 film Invitation, mainly because of its star, Dorothy McGuire, who plays the role of Ellen Pierce. A few days ago, I watched The Enchanted Cottage, also starring McGuire.

In The Enchanted Cottage, she plays a kind, plain-looking young woman who falls in love; in Invitation, she also plays a kind, plain-looking young woman who falls in love. Attention, Hollywood filmmakers: if you would like an actress to be “plain-looking,” don’t hire a woman who looks like this:

I don’t mean to say that McGuire should not have received the role. She was perfect as an innocent and kind young woman, nearly driven to madness after learning that her father (Louis Calhern) paid a man to marry her.

At the beginning of the film, we learn that Ellen’s father is a very rich and generous man; a fur coat is delivered to Ellen, which she hangs it in the closet, alongside many other fur coats. Ellen is worried that her husband Dan (Van Johnson, a.k.a. “The Voiceless Sinatra”) will become irritated with her father’s generosity:

Ellen: “Oh, Dan, you really hate it, don’t you?”

Dan: ”It’s been so much: the house, the car, the china…”

Ellen: “I’ll talk to him about it.”

Dan: “No, don’t. After all, your father’s got a right to be as generous as he wants.”

Ellen: “You see, Dan, he doesn’t realize that he doesn’t have to make up to me for anything anymore.”

Dan: “What do you mean?”

Ellen: “Oh, you know, he doesn’t realize that there’s nothing more he can give me because now I … I have everything.”

Ellen is a devoted wife. She sends her husband off to work with a kiss after his morning coffee. She promises to have a cocktail ready for him when he returns from work. In fact, her whole life seems to revolve around her husband:

Ellen: “Do you know what the excitement of my days is now? Every morning there’s the excitement of having my breakfast with Dan and getting him off on the 853, and then, nothing, until midday, which overflows with the excitement of planning dinner with Agnes, and then nothing. Until early evening, when there’s the excitement of Dan’s coming home. Oh, it is exciting, it’s terribly exciting; but it’s not the kind that’s bad for me. It’s the excitement of knowing, from a lifetime of having been sort of pitied and left out of things. This morning I poured a second cup of coffee for a husband of my own.”

Her father discusses his concern for his daughter’s health with Dr. Pritchard (Ray Collins). Ellen attempts to soothe his worry over her health by telling him, “You want everything there is for me … Please try to get it through your head that despite everything, I’m really very happy. The fact that you didn’t give me the thing that makes me so happy shouldn’t make any difference, should it?”

Her father gives Dr. Pritchard a knowing glance as he says, “No, I guess it shouldn’t.”

In the next scene, Ellen visits her old best friend, Maud (Ruth Roman). We sense the tension immediately as Maud retreats inside her house without saying hello as Ellen pulls up. Nevertheless, Ellen repeatedly tries to smooth things over with her angry friend.

Maud: “Please say what you have to say to me and go … Nobody knew better than you that I was in love with Dan, and suddenly, without any warning, he marries you … Well, let me tell you something, in some respects, the daughter of a professor of bacteriology may look a lot better than the daughter of Mr. Simon Bowker, but when it’s a struggling young architect that’s doing the looking, believe me, there’s nothing prettier than a capital dollar sign.”

Ellen is struck by Maud’s cruel words, but Maud seems relentless. She looks so calm as she smokes a cigarette while lounging on the couch, speaking these harsh words to her once-close friend with confidence. Her beauty and nonchalant hatred reminds me of the way that Maxim de Winter describes his infamous first wife in the boathouse scene in 1940′s Rebecca. Maud is indeed the evil vixen in this film; she is bound and determined to have Dan for herself, by any means necessary.

Maud: “Business seems alright for him lately, doesn’t it?”

Ellen: “You saw Dan?”

Maud: “Oh, don’t worry, I just happened to be in the building, and dropped into his office. Oh, he’s still yours, at least for the time being. I told you, remember, the day of your wedding, ‘I don’t give up so easily.’ Remember? I said, ‘The first round goes to you, or your father’s money … You can have Dan,’ I said, ‘for about a year on loan.’ And that’s why you’re really here, isn’t it?  Because the year’s dwindling out fast. Only a couple of months left, and you’re scared to death. Well, Ellen, do you think I have given up?”

Rebecca de Winter, meet Maud.

When Ellen returns home and confronts her husband, he explains that he was never in love with Maud; however, he also says that he probably would have married her, had he not married Ellen. This seems to quell Ellen’s fears for some time.

Through a series of flashbacks, Ellen begins to put the pieces of the puzzle together. It is an invitation sent by Maud that is the catalyst for Ellen’s discovery. All in one afternoon, Ellen discovers that she has a potentially fatal medical condition, and that her father likely paid Dan to marry her. Obviously, this is a devastating discovery for our sweet and innocent leading lady. McGuire’s performance brought me to tears several times; my heart broke for her as she discovered that her husband had not married her for love, but for her father’s money. In the scene pictured below, Ellen telephones her father to confirm her suspicions about his influence over her husband. She learns all at once that she has little time left to live, and that her father made a deal with her attractive husband to allow her happiness in her supposedly short life. This is an especially painful realization for Ellen, as she has been ill almost her entire life. She had never had the attention of young men, and she wasn’t allowed much physical activity such as sports and games with her friends. She believed that her husband loved her, and she seemed so very happy as a doting wife. When she confronts her father over the phone, she repeatedly screams that she wishes for death. It is a moving and tragic scene.

Ellen: ”Explain?! Get well?! Who wants to get well?! I want to die, Father. Don’t you understand?! I want to die!”

Truly, it is the superb acting in this film which made it so memorable. Dorothy McGuire made my heart break alongside Ellen’s. Ruth Roman was entirely successful in making me fear husband-hunting vixens like the beautiful and cruel Maud. By the end of the film, Louis Calhern actually made me learn to love her misguided father, for although he makes some terrible decisions, ultimately, he loves his daughter dearly, and only wants her to have some happiness in her short life. Last, but certainly not least, Van Johnson stole my heart with his sincere devotion to his wife’s health and well-being: “I love you, Ellen … I love you so much more than I ever dreamed it was possible for me to love anyone.” With his freckled face and friendly attitude, who could resist his charm? If you’re a fan of Dorothy McGuire, Van Johnson, or Ruth Roman, this is a must-see film.

As a result of the excellent acting, Invitation is awarded three teardrops on our Maudlin Meter.

Buying Barbara Stanwyck.

Joan Gordon (Barbara Stanwyck), a nightclub singer in New York City, intends to marry Don (Hardie Albright), the scion of a wealthy family. But Don’s father discovers that Joan had been the mistress of a bootlegging gangster, Eddie Fields (Lyle Talbot), and forbids the union. Resentful of the fact that her association with Eddie ruined her chances for a good marriage, Joan flees to Montreal. When Eddie’s men eventually find her, she takes drastic measures to get out of town, becoming the mail-order bride for a young wheat farmer, Jim Gilson (George Brent), in rural North Dakota. Though their quickie marriage gets off on the wrong foot when a nervous Joan rejects Jim’s wedding-night advances, the two of them stick it out, somewhat awkwardly, through a harsh winter. But when Eddie tracks her to the farm, Joan and Jim’s blossoming feelings for one another are threatened as Jim discovers the truth about his wife’s past.

And there you have the twisted set-up for 1932′s The Purchase Price, a pre-Code drama that strains credulity. There’s enough material here for several films, and it’s all crammed into a little over an hour of sometimes abruptly-cut scenarios. That wouldn’t be such a bad thing, however, if the narrative as a whole made a lick of sense. Instead, the movie seems as though it were thrown together with a half-cocked script designed solely to showcase naughty behavior and not-so-sly sexual innuendo. When I realized that the movie was directed by William Wellman, I was initially surprised, as it seems very unlike his typical milieu … and then I remembered that this is the man who went on a B-movie lark with Stanwyck in 1943′s Lady of Burlesque, and it didn’t seem so odd. At the very least, Wellman got something out of working on this film with Stanwyck–reportedly, when he began writing the script for 1937′s A Star is Born, he based the marriage of Norman Maine and Esther Blodgett on the union of Stanwyck and Frank Fay, which began disintegrating while she was filming The Purchase Price.

Joan is not a “nice” girl, in the strictest sense; she’s an unmarried lounge singer sleeping with a married man, who puts her up in an apartment and showers her with shiny baubles. Yet she displays the most moderate behavior of any of the women in the film. There are no shrinking violets here; the women are worldly (to say the least) and unafraid of sexual banter, but Joan seems reluctant to participate. Take the scene in which Joan travels on the train to meet Jim. She sits with three other mail-order brides, all of them comparing photographs of their intended husbands. One of the women munches on a banana. “You know what they say about men with bushy eyebrows and a long nose?” she asks suggestively before sliding the banana halfway into her mouth and taking a bite. All the while, Joan sits by the window, visibly trying to suppress a grimace of distaste. If this were a 1930s version of Sex and the City (I kind of hate myself for making this reference right now), Joan would be the Charlotte York of the group.

As indicated by its title, one of the central themes of the film is the link between commerce and sex. The “purchase price” can be any number of things: the $100 that Joan paid to her maid, Emily, so she could take her place as Jim’s bride (Emily having sent Joan’s picture as her own made the lie conveniently easier); Emily’s intent to use the money to find a husband in town so she can “try the goods before I bought it”; the very notion of “buying” a prospective spouse; the money Joan borrows from Eddie to save Jim’s farm, which he only offers because, as he says, he’s still “nuts” about her; even the money Bull McDowell (David Landau), Eddie’s sleazy neighbor, offers to pay to cover Jim’s debts … IF Joan will come act as his “housekeeper” in return. Everything in the movie–especially the people–has a price, if someone is willing to pay it. It’s a bleak commentary on a world driven by dollars, and despite the far-fetched nature of the film’s plot, it’s a chillingly accurate one.

Stanwyck, per usual, does the best with what she is given here, but the character of Joan is so poorly drawn and contradictory that there is ultimately little that even she can do. Early in the film, Joan tells Eddie, “I’ve been up and down Broadway since I was fifteen years old” (interestingly, much like Stanwyck herself, who had become a Ziegfeld girl in her teens), and she later indicates to Emily that she has no experience being a housewife or working on a farm. But once she arrives in North Dakota, Joan is baking bread, cooking meals, and milking cows with the best of them, and without a word of complaint–all of which is more than a little implausible.

The other inexplicable factor regarding Joan is the source of her attraction to Jim. The man is little more than a rube, albeit one who is prone to violence; when Joan rejects his kiss on their wedding night and slaps him across the face, he has to restrain himself from punching her. His jealousy over Eddie leads him to whale on the man with no more provocation than Eddie’s placing his hand on top of Joan’s in a friendly manner, and in the midst of that fight, he throws Joan to the ground twice as she tries to intervene. Not only is he violent, but he’s extremely judgmental, essentially labeling Joan a slut because of her past relationship with Eddie. Top that off with his ignoring her throughout most of the film, and Joan’s sudden love for her in-name-only husband strikes me as extremely odd. Is there anything redeeming to the man? Other than the fact that he looks like George Brent, that is?

It’s a weird little film, but as a curiosity, The Purchase Price is worth a viewing, especially for true Stanwyck fans: she’s as beautiful as ever, and as an added bonus, her performance of “Take Me Away” at the beginning of the movie is her first singing performance (not dubbed) ever on film. True, there are better pre-Codes, but perhaps none so filled with delicious “what-the-fuckery” as this one …

Stella Dallas, or: All Your Tears Are Belong to Us

Stella Martin (Barbara Stanwyck), the ambitious daughter of a factory worker, falls for Stephen Dallas (John Boles), an executive at the factory whose former fiance, Helen (Barbara O’Neil) has recently married another man. Stella finagles a meeting with Stephen and the two of them begin dating. Before long, they are married with a young daughter, Laurel (Anne Shirley). Stella and Stephen clash when Stella longs to be a part of the social scene, much to Stephen’s displeasure, and she forms a friendship with Ed Munn (Alan Hale), a drunken layabout. Eventually, the Dallases separate when he takes a job in New York, and she remains behind in Boston with Laurel, upon whom she dotes. Stella aspires to provide Laurel with all of the opportunities she never had, but her lower-class vulgarity shocks Laurel’s upper-crust school acquaintances and their parents. Meanwhile, Stephen reconnects with the now-widowed Helen, and tries to convince Stella to give him a divorce so they can marry. Not wanting to stand in her daughter’s way, Stella makes the ultimate sacrifice and plans to send Laurel to live in New York with Stephen and Helen, thus giving up her role in her daughter’s life.

Stella Dallas (1937) is adapted from the same-titled novel by Olive Higgins Prouty, who also wrote the similarly-themed maudlin masterpiece Now, Voyager, which was made into a memorable Bette Davis vehicle in 1942. These two films are quintessential “women’s films,” domestically-centered melodramas targeting a predominately female audience that were immensely popular throughout the 1930s and 40s. The genre is relatively ill-defined (in fact, some critics would argue that there should be no subset of “women’s film” at all), but the main characteristic of these types of films seems to be the emotional manipulation of the audience. It’s almost as if it’s a point of pride for these films to wring their viewers dry by the time the end credits roll.

If that is indeed one of the main criteria in classifying a film as a “woman’s picture,” then Stella Dallas more than qualifies. The final third of the film seems determined to wrench tears from its audience through sheer emotional manipulation. And damned if it doesn’t work. A series of well-crafted melodramatic moments–the monologue in which Stella reveals to Helen the motivation behind her giving up Laurel; the goodbye at the train station, as you realize that Stella never expects to see her daughter again; and the gut-punching finale, as Stella watches her Laurel’s wedding through the window–all combine in a concentrated effort to reduce you to a puddle of goopy tears by the end of the movie.

But there is more to Stella Dallas than weeping and wailing. The strength of the film is found in Stanwyck’s role as the sacrificing mother to end all sacrificing mothers, a character who is far more complicated than the prototypical maudlin heroine of these types of “women’s films.” More than anything, Stella functions as an observer, always hovering on the edges, never fully “belonging” to any situation in which she finds herself throughout the movie. She doesn’t belong in the small house with her family; she has more ambition that that. She doesn’t belong with Stephen; in the end, her vulgarity–or, perhaps more precisely, her lack of worldliness–challenges her ability to “fit in” with the “right” people. And in her capacity as an observer, she serves, at least in part, as a stand-in for the audience. The movie was produced at the tail end of the Great Depression, in a time when filmgoers still sought out the movies as an escape for their own troubles. To witness Stella’s attempts to find a place within a strange, new world of privilege–for both herself and her daughter–is a reflection of what audiences had been trying to do for years: to see themselves, perhaps, as guests at the Grand Hotel or attendees at one of Nick and Nora’s lavish cocktail parties, knowing all the while that it was a world to which they could likely never belong.

This brings up one of the central tropes of the film, the issues of class difference that ultimately end Stella and Stephen’s marriage. Stella is brash and ambitious; she talks loudly, drinks copiously, flirts freely. At first glance, she is something shiny and new to Stephen: he’s just learned that Helen married another man, and he’s vulnerable–a fact that doesn’t escape Stella’s notice. She pounces and manages to hook him by taking on a demure, ladylike persona (one that she finds it difficult to maintain, as witnessed by her snappish response to a gossiping acquaintance outside the movie theater) that is similar to Helen’s bearing and attitude. Stephen is not completely oblivious to Stella’s true nature–he tells her to “be herself” instead of trying to be like the “educated,” nice-speaking people he’s always known. “Stay as you are,” he chides her. “Don’t pretend, Stella. Anyway, it isn’t well-bred to act the way you aren’t.”

And yet Stephen ultimately cannot accept Stella the way she truly is. He finds it difficult to handle her temper and even more difficult to handle her unladylike ministrations in public. He treats her like a child (and, truth be told, she acts it several times during the film), and does his best to stifle her when her behavior becomes embarrassing. Stephen is held up in the film as some kind of paragon of “proper” behavior, a height to which Stella–emotional, ruled by desire as opposed to cold, hard logic–can never aspire. Upper-crust women, the film tells us, don’t indulge in emotional displays. They maintain a calm, cool, judgmental facade. Stella’s lower-class forthrightness and nouveau riche approach is therefore not only out of place, but offensive to them.

This is not to say that the entirety of the blame rests on Stephen’s milquetoast-y shoulders. Stella is petulant and petty at times, selfishly wanting to have fun at the expense of her relationship with her husband. She is also not as self-aware as she should be–although she realizes early on that their different social statuses might create an issue later on, she is later unable (or, perhaps, unwilling?) to see that her behavior causes problems not only for Stephen but for Laurel as well … which makes her growth as a character and her sacrifice in the end all the more remarkable. Stella not only gives up the chance to live with her daughter and continue to raise her through her teenage years, but also sacrifices her daughter’s high opinion of her. She has finally grown up–albeit too late to find personal happiness, it seems.

The end of the film mirrors the scene of Stella and Stephen’s movie date near the start of the film, and underscores Stella’s role as observer. While watching the film, Stella–eyes widened, smiling–is enraptured by the figures on the screen, to the point that she absentmindedly brings a piece of popcorn to her mouth, too enthralled by the story to actually eat it. In the final scene, Stella watches her daughter marry her wealthy young suitor, her eyes shining with the same delighted fervor seen in the movie theater, as she grasps a piece of her handkerchief between her front teeth. Stella seems destined to witness other people’s happy endings without ever fully experiencing one of her own. Still, in the case of Laurel’s wedding, Stella is fulfilled in seeing her plan come to fruition–her daughter has found happiness, and as she walks away, smiling through her tears, her contentment with her sacrifice registers all over her joyful face.

The movie belongs to Stanwyck. There’s no other way to put it–she so thoroughly outshines every other cast member on screen. Stella is a tour de force performance for Stanwyck–which should come as no surprise for fans of the actress, who know full well how supremely talented she was. I would venture to say that Stanwyck delivers the strongest performance of her career in this film–yes, even more so than her villainous turn in Double Indemnity, or her deliciously conniving Jean in The Lady Eve, or her many pitch-perfect comedic roles. There is just something about her in this film that represents the pinnacle of her acting ability to me. She elevates the film beyond the melodramatic muck; by sheer force of will, almost, Stanwyck makes the movie better than it should be.

This is due in large part to her ability to so thoroughly embody the character. From head to toe, from vocal delivery to the most nuanced of expressions, when you watch Barbara Stanwyck as Stella Dallas, you aren’t witnessing a mere performance–you are watching the very art of acting, brought to vibrant, colorful life. She is not playing Stella; she is Stella. To me, she rivals the aforementioned Bette Davis for the ability to get under a character’s skin and will her to live. She even resembles Davis in fleeting glimpses throughout the movie–for example, in the scene in which Stella receives Helen’s telegram warning her of Laurel’s impending return, she’s almost a doppelganger of Davis’s Mildred in 1934′s Of Human Bondage (though the similarity is only in appearance, thank God, as Mildred is a nightmare of a character).

Stanwyck’s physicality in Stella Dallas is astounding. When I watch this film, I’m particularly struck by the way in which she moves across the screen. Stanwyck’s movements are an effective demonstration of her character’s constant attempts to aspire higher than her station. Stella’s walk isn’t gliding or graceful; she swings her hips stiffly, performing what she sees as a “proper” way of walking instead of moving naturally. By the time she makes the decision to give up Laurel, she’s stoop-shouldered with self-defeat. Her lack of makeup in these scenes draws attention to the world-weariness in her face. It is only at the end of the film, after watching her daughter’s happiness fulfilled, that Stella finally moves easily, freely, walking away with her shoulders back and her head held high, striding purposefully toward the camera with a joyful expression. It’s the perfect shot on which to end the film, and an intensely powerful moment for Stanwyck.

It’s little wonder this film provided her with her first of four Academy Award nominations for Best Actress. Stanwyck reportedly claimed that losing the Oscar for this film (which was ultimately won by Luise Rainer, for the second year in a row, for her role in The Good Earth) was more difficult than any other loss during her six decades-long career, because she truly felt it was her best work on-screen. Don’t doubt the woman’s word: while Stella Dallas may have its flaws (the rather wooden characterization of both Stephen and Helen comes to mind), Stanwyck herself is sheer, unadulterated perfection.

Being Mrs. Skeffington.

Throughout her long and varied career, Bette Davis excelled at playing complicated women. From the slatternly waitress in Of Human Bondage (1934) to the spoiled Southern belle in 1938′s Jezebel to the grand dame of the theater, Margo Channing, in 1950′s All About Eve, Davis’ filmography is stacked with a series of unparalleled performances. Part of the brilliance of Davis’ talent comes from her ability to wrestle the most unsympathetic, broadly-drawn women in the history of film into submission, transcending stereotype to make them shine. Even the most unequivocally shallow female characters are given new depth when Davis tackles the role.

Nowhere is this more evident than in 1944′s Mr. Skeffington. In this gem of a melodrama, Davis takes a wholly unpleasant woman (seriously … the character’s a pain in the ass) and forces the audience to not only sympathize with her, but to actually come to like her, on some level, despite her numerous perceived flaws.

Davis plays Fanny Trellis, a popular, beautiful, and unceasingly vain young woman who lives with her equally irresponsible brother, Trippy (Richard Waring), in New York in the years leading up to World War I. The siblings have lived well beyond their means for too long, and in order to make ends meet, Trippy takes a job working for Job Skeffington (Claude Rains), a Jewish businessman. When Trippy is caught embezzling from Skeffington’s business, Fanny sets out to win and marry the older man in order to protect her brother. Skeffington, who loves Fanny in spite of his better judgment, marries her even though he realizes her motives. But Trippy is far from happy at the news and angrily enlists in the military, going overseas to fight in the growing conflict in Europe. After Trippy dies in the war, Fanny blames Job, leading to their separation and divorce. Job becomes sole custodian of their daughter, and Fanny gets involved with a younger man. But a bout with diphtheria devastates Fanny’s good looks, and when her many admirers have dispersed, she is left with the harsh realization that her lifelong vanity has isolated her from everyone who ever truly cared about her–including the man she wronged above all others.

Throughout the movie, Fanny is lauded for looking 20 years younger than her age (which is 50 by the end of the film). The men who flock around her, even after she has married Job and has ostensibly settled into a domesticated life, value Fanny not for her thoughts or her personality (which is simpering at best), but for her girlish figure and smooth, lovely skin. Then again, the movie does not give us much indication that there actually is anything more of value to Fanny, as a person, than her attractiveness, so it’s difficult to label her admirers as any more shallow than she is.

However, after her illness, Fanny’s former paramours want nothing to do with her when she finally looks as old as they do. Her illusions about herself are shattered–for Fanny judges herself by others’ expectations, and thereby deems herself unworthy due to their reactions. In the scene where she is confronted by a swath of mirrors, forced to stare at her harshly-aged face, she is really confronting herself–and her own selfishness–for the first time.

In truth, Job is the only one who seems capable of seeing through the veneer of Fanny’s childlike behavior to the woman beneath. How and why this is, the movie doesn’t see fit to tell us; Job’s character is so sparsely developed that his motivations are murky, at best, and his reasons for marrying Fanny in the first place are unclear–is it mere infatuation, or does he see himself as a sort of rescuer?  The character is a glorified punching bag, taking his licks and retreating regularly after putting up with Fanny’s repeated aggravations and misbehaviors. Rains does his best with the material he’s given, but it can be difficult to watch Job’s strained, pain-filled expressions. And, like New York Times critic Bosley Crowther, who panned the movie as “an exercise in female frippery,” you, too, might wonder why Job “never gives his wife a light clip on the jaw” (because it’s not spousal abuse if she’s really, really annoying, eh, Mr. Crowther?).

Still, Job is the only romantic interest in the film who honestly shows a modicum of respect for Fanny. This doesn’t stop him from passing judgment on her, however; his homespun wisdom that “a woman is only beautiful when she is loved” (good to know) serves as both chastisement and the purported moral of the story–as well as a cinematic warning to every woman to find a loving husband, quickly, lest she wither away to nothing!

The movie functions as a kind of reverse “ugly duckling” tale, in which the beautiful swan only learns the importance of inner beauty by losing the outer attractiveness she values so highly. In that sense, Mr. Skeffington also seems to borrow from the fairy tale “Beauty and the Beast,” in which Fanny becomes the unsightly “bestial” figure and Job the saintly “beauty.” By equating Fanny with a “beast,” she becomes somehow less than human, and her humanity is only restored when she has been brought to her lowest point and “reborn” through the love of a good man.

Women are not generally depicted very kindly in the film (with the possible exception of Fanny’s daughter, whose only moment of true assertion comes in her final scene in the movie). For the most part, the female characters are all painted with the same clichéd brush: they are by turns flighty, false, fiercely vain, and, in the end, vindictive. Seething with jealousy at first because of Fanny’s beauty and grace–and its appeal to their husbands–the society wives take great glee in Fanny’s misfortune after her illness, laughing about her “pathetic” behavior at dinner as Fanny tries in vain to recapture the allure of her youth. The stereotypical “catty” female has rarely been on better display.

Fanny’s shallowness is not limited to her vanity–she’s a hypocrite to the umpteenth degree. She fully engages in a double standard when it comes to her extramarital affairs. While Fanny engages in flirtations with multiple men, often right underneath her husband’s overly tolerant nose, she judges her “minor” indiscretions as less of a betrayal than Job’s succession of “secretaries” with whom he consoles himself. It does not occur to Fanny that her own rejection of Job is what drives him to find pleasure in the company of other women; she cannot allow herself to believe that her womanly charms cannot keep her husband happily waiting for her in their lonely home night after night.

Not only is Fanny a classic example of a disinterested wifely figure, but she’s also a paragon of the “unmotherly mother.” She acts more maternally toward her brother, Trippy, than she does her own daughter. Fanny actually makes a “sacrifice” (at least, in her mind) on behalf of her brother–she marries Job to protect Trippy, and then blames Job when Trippy dies because her brother had initially joined the war effort out of disdain for Fanny’s marriage to ”the Jew Skeffington.”

But with her own daughter, Fanny refuses to sacrifice her own pursuit of entertainment and happiness for the benefit of young Fanny (and while we’re on the subject–how egotistical is it to name your daughter–or your son, for that matter–after yourself? Maybe it’s just me). It would be easy to assume that Fanny rejects her maternal role simply due to her own selfishness. But there’s more to it than that–she demonstrates a real fear that motherhood ages her, and Fanny finds that intolerable. Self-realization of what this fear has cost her, however, comes a little too late. When her daughter usurps her position in the relationship with her much-younger paramour, Johnny Mitchell, the ensuing conversation with young Fanny actually helps her mother grow a bit and recognize that she may just want to forge a relationship with her only child after all. But Fanny Junior has the power now, and tells her mother that since she is moving to Seattle with new husband Johnny, trying to build a familial bond is no longer possible–thus cementing the shift of power from mother to daughter.

The ending of the film doesn’t necessarily mark a permanent change in Fanny’s character–it feels too abrupt for that. But it leaves the viewer with the hope that Fanny’s selfish nature will melt away for good in the face of her husband’s suffering. More likely, the ending indicates that Fanny relishes the idea of receiving her husband’s renewed worship since he cannot see the ravages diphtheria has left on her face and body. The thought of receiving that adulation again makes Fanny’s face light up with joy and, perhaps, more than a hint of love and respect for the man who will give it to her (okay, so maybe that’s a bit of wishful thinking).

Overall, Davis walks a tightrope throughout the film and somehow makes a wholly unsympathetic character somewhat appealing. The film’s success hinges on her ability to make us want to root for Fanny despite the character’s (many) flaws and general lack of growth, and in my opinion, the actress does a beautiful job. Fanny is a spoiled brat, but she’s also an obviously lost soul, and Davis’ portrayal of her indicates a depth of character that keeps us engaged in Fanny’s story even after she has thoroughly alienated those who actually love her. You may find yourself wanting to reach through the screen and shake some sense into Fanny at times, but at least you’ll be entertained along the way by Davis’ effective performance.

The “joys” of female friendship.

It’s been a while since my last Feminist Fridays post, so I thought today I’d take a crack at one of my favorite minor Bette Davis dramas—1943’s Old Acquaintance, costarring Miriam Hopkins, Gig Young, John Loder, and Dolores Moran.

Davis plays Kit Marlowe, a celebrated author who returns to her hometown to give a lecture. Waiting at the station is her best friend from childhood, Millie Drake (Hopkins), eager to show off her new husband and fancy house to her oldest friend. Millie also eagerly shares a secret—inspired by Kit’s success (and jealous of her friend’s acclaim), Millie has written a book of her own—a racy romance tailor-made for the “regular reader.” Meanwhile, Millie’s husband, Pres (Loder), immediately feels a sense of camaraderie with the down-to-earth Kit, which over the years turns into love—a love that Kit returns but does not act upon out of deference to her friendship with Millie. The two women reach differing levels of success: whereas Kit goes on to write more literary novels and a well-received Broadway play, Millie’s pulpy fiction amasses a fortune, straining both her friendship with Kit and her marriage. When Pres finally leaves the temperamental Millie after an argument, it sets off a chain of events that ultimately leaves the two childhood pals questioning the merits of their longtime friendship.

From the start, the film asks us to choose between these two women. Who should the audience support—spiteful, hysterical Millie, or down-to-earth Kit, who takes all of Millie’s petty peccadilloes in stride? As a whole, Old Acquaintance does not paint a particularly flattering portrait of female friendship—in this scenario, one friend is a veritable doormat, the other a jealous and posturing fool, and their only connection is through the mutual experiences of a shared childhood—a tenuous thread called into question, both explicitly and implicitly, by the other characters in the film.

In many ways, the film is a perversion of the classic Madonna/whore complex, in which we are presented two sides of the prototypical female coin: the good wife and the good-time girl. But the good wife is not so good, regularly mistreating her husband, child, and purported best friend; and the good-time girl has, for all her perceived transgressions, a staunch moral code that dwarfs that of her counterpart. Those “transgressions” are only hinted at in the script (thanks to the Hays Code), but the implications are there. When Kit falls in love with a younger man, Rudd (Young)—who is ten years younger than she—Millie derisively refers to Kit’s “cradle-snatching.”  When Pres returns after ten years of self-exile to forge a relationship with his and Millie’s daughter, Deirdre (Moran), and subsequently confesses his now-extinct love for Kit, Millie scathingly calls her oldest friend a home-wrecking “Jezebel” (never mind that it was Millie’s own behavior that drove Pres away, and that Kit refused to ever act upon her feelings for him). And when she tells Deirdre that Kit intends to marry Rudd (with whom Deirdre has recently fallen in love herself, unbeknownst to either Millie or Kit), Millie’s jealous cattiness knows no bounds. “Apparently Rudd is still infatuated and anxious for marriage,” she sniffs, “in spite of the ‘closeness’ of their relationship.” Hint, hint, wink, wink.

In the hands of another actress, Millie’s jealousy could come off as something sinister or potentially dangerous—if Davis herself had embodied the role, for example, Millie’s hysterics would no doubt have been coldly controlled, with a steely glint more frightening than any mere hot-blooded temper tantrum. Just look at Davis in films such as 1940’s The Letter or her bravura performance in 1934’s Of Human Bondage, and dream about the possibilities.

In Hopkins’ hands, however, the role of Millie becomes an almost off-kilter piece of camp. Arms waving, eyes widened to the extremes, voice raised in high-pitched squeals of frustration, Hopkins’ Millie is nothing more than a child. The performance is insanely over-the-top at times, especially in the scenes in which Davis is absent—when there’s no steadying force to draw attention away from Hopkins’ histrionics, we see just how amateurish Hopkins’ acting truly is within the context of the film.

That being said, Hopkins’ take on the character does, to some degree, clarify a sticky point in the plot—the question as to why Kit puts up with Millie’s ridiculous behavior for so many years. Kit explains herself to a disbelieving Pres by citing her shared history with Millie, but that is ultimately insufficient to justify years of continued verbal abuse at the hands of her friend. It is only when Kit offers an astute analysis of Millie’s personality that we begin to understand; as she explains, “If you’d just look at Millie’s activities as confession of weakness, an admission that there’s something essentially lacking in her nature, you’d find it a little touching and love her.” Hopkins’ performance underscores this point to a tee. Whether intentional on the actress’s part or not (I think sheer serendipity plays a key part in this), her depiction of Millie as little more than an overgrown, spoiled child does help explain why Kit remains a loyal friend—as indulgence begets acceptance and an abundance of lenience.

Davis’ role as the film’s “good girl” heroine is a rare one for her, indeed. Kit Marlowe is, at heart, another in a long line of self-sacrificing screen mothers—for make no mistake, Kit is more of a mother to Deirdre than Millie can even comprehend—who give up their own chances at happiness to ensure that of their children. But she is not without her faults, and she is self-aware enough to recognize this. In fact, Kit is the only character who sees herself clearly in the film. She’s wise without being cloying, witty without being unkind, and yet she’s far from a saint, rejecting any assignation as such from Pres or Rudd or Deirdre. Bringing a weepy, grateful Deirdre to meet with Rudd, having relinquished whatever hold she may have had on the younger man for the sake of Deirdre’s love for him, Kit says with a weary smile, “It’s late, and I’m very, very tired of youth and love and self-sacrifice.”

If Old Acquaintance, a prime example of the stereotypical “woman’s picture,” does one thing right, it is in portraying Kit Marlowe as a relatively progressive, independent woman.  The film, of course, cannot allow such freedom to go unchecked by the establishment—which is so ably represented by Millie—but Kit ignores Millie’s judgment, deriving only amusement and mild exasperation from her friend’s criticism … until that criticism affects Kit’s relationship with Deirdre. By and large, Kit forges her own path, eschewing melodrama, marriage (at least initially), and even pants (Millie is horrified to learn that Kit does not wear pajama bottoms in bed) in favor of a satisfying career. That she does so without compromising her own standards is remarkable (and something Millie cannot claim, for all her wailing about her “glorious career”). And that she manages to avoid snapping and going ape-shit on Millie until the end of the film is more remarkable still.

When Kit finally snaps, it is a prime moment in the film and, frankly, a joy to behold. Calmly walking across the room, she suddenly grabs Millie by the shoulders and shakes her within an inch of her life, finally shoving Millie down on the nearest sofa with a generous heave. With a smirk in her eyes and an insincere, biting “Sorry,” Kit walks out the door, leaving Millie to scream and carry on in the background, throwing a girlish temper tantrum complete with pounding fists and childish sobs. One can only imagine the sheer pleasure Davis felt in being able to manhandle longtime rival Hopkins on the screen—in fact, Davis would later confirm as much while reflecting on the movie.

Much of Millie’s jealousy toward Kit comes from the sense that Kit’s work is more critically respected than Millie’s own—though Millie denies this, claiming that she writes for the “regular people” as opposed to the critics. But Millie, who has made a fortune from her pulpy romances over the years, takes every opportunity to undermine Kit’s work, flaunting her wealth while making snide comments about Kit’s low-selling, high-minded literary efforts.

The differences between their respective works are summed up in a scene during the middle stretch of the film, as Belle Carter, a reporter who comes to interview Millie, inadvertently manages to insult her.

Belle [to Kit]: Tell me, how is your new book coming along?
Kit: Well, I write and I write, and I still don’t like it.
Belle: But at least when you do turn one out, it’s a gem! None of this grinding them out like sausage … [She and Kit glance over at Millie and Belle pauses with embarrassment.]  I suppose I could cut my throat.
Millie [haughtily]: There’s a knife on the table!

Ah, the classic fight between literary and commercial fiction, a debate that continues to rage to this day, as “prolific” writers such as James Patterson (nine novels this year alone, most of them co-written) and Danielle Steele (three novels in 2010) churn out multiple books every year and continue to make bestsellers’ lists (and millions of dollars) despite the lagging quality of their more recent efforts. Millie, who happily produces one “sausage” per year throughout the course of the movie, revels in her fame and fortune, but cannot fully enjoy it in the face of Kit’s greater critical success. Still, what infuriates Millie the most is not that her work is less revered than Kit’s, but that Kit herself does not care that Millie has made much more money. Millie is indisputably capitalistic—money is the ultimate sign of success in her mind, whereas Kit derives pleasure from the act of writing more so than its sometimes dubious rewards.

Though the male characters in Old Acquaintance are little more than plot chess pieces, seemingly shifted about at the whim of the script only to move the story along, they show themselves to be … well, not so very enlightened. Pres leaving his wife is understandable given her preference for writing over spending time with him, but leaving his daughter for ten years—reasoning that seeing Deirdre in the ensuing years would have prevented him from fully breaking free of Millie’s machinations—is far from excusable. That Deirdre is so willing to invite her father back into her life indicates a generous and forgiving spirit that I, personally, would be unlikely to match under similar circumstances.

And poor Deirdre—having been left by her father and almost seduced by philandering playboy Lucien Grant (Philip Reed), she finally falls in love with Kit’s young lover, Rudd, who goes from begging Kit to marry him one day to becoming infatuated with Kit’s surrogate daughter the next.  He’s a real winner, too. Confessing his newfound love for Deirdre, Rudd tells Kit, “It was sort of a protective sense, I guess. She’s such a kid, I want to slap her if she does wrong, and yet I’d kill anyone who’d touch her. You know what I mean?” Yes, we all know what you mean, Rudd. And don’t worry: Kit will survive your leaving her for Deirdre. After all, heartbreak seems a small price to pay to dodge a massive, fist-shaped bullet, doesn’t it?

The film ends on a false note of peace—Millie has miraculously come to her senses, apologizing for her behavior, and Kit graciously offers forgiveness. As the strains of “Auld Lang Syne” fill the air, the hurts of the past ostensibly behind them, the two women toast both the renewal and continuation of their friendship.

Resolution? Not by half. People may be able to change, but not in the course of an evening. But is it a happy ending for these characters, as the film seems to indicate in this final scene? That depends solely on perspective. In Millie’s pessimistic mind, the resolution of the conflict is an unhappy one due to their mutual spinsterhood, and in the book she plans to write based on their friendship, she vows to give the characters a happier conclusion. But for Kit, at least, being alone in middle age is not an unhappy prospect. She has already begun to set aside the heavy cloak of her love for Rudd, and there is a renewed optimism in her face as the movie comes to a close.

Their roles have not changed altogether much from the beginning of the film—the mature Kit will move, onward and upward, throughout the rest of her days in a relative sense of contentment, while the more childish Millie will always strive to outdo and undermine her friend in the pursuit of an ultimately unattainable happiness. Regardless of the unwanted encroachment of “realistic expectation,” the movie would at least like us to believe that their friendship will continue, unabated and unscathed, for the rest of their lives … but that, dear viewers, would truly be little more than a fairy tale.