Possible Spoilers
Although `Caught' is filmed in the dark film noir style popular in the forties it is not, unlike most films noirs, a crime drama, but rather a romantic melodrama of the type that would have been known at the time as a `woman's picture'. The theme is rags to riches with a twist, the twist being that riches do not necessarily equal happiness.
The heroine, Leonora Eames, is a young model who meets and marries a millionaire, Smith Ohlrig. Soon, however, she realises that Ohlrig is a selfish, domineering bully, and flees from his mansion to New York where she finds employment as a secretary and receptionist in a medical practice. Ohlrig tracks her down, and a brief reconciliation follows, but he has not changed his ways, and Leonora leaves him again to return to her job, where she is starting to fall in love with the idealistic young doctor Larry Quinada. She discovers, however, that she is pregnant with Ohlrig's child, and feels that she must once again return to him, a decision that precipitates the movie's dramatic final confrontation.
This is a film which explores the dark side of the American dream. Ohlrig represents both old and new money; he has inherited wealth, but his own business activities have multiplied his inherited fortune many times over. The visible trappings of wealth- fur coats, jewellery, yachts- are much on view during the film. He has everything money can buy yet is deeply unhappy and brings unhappiness to others. There are indications that his wealth and success are themselves the cause of his unhappiness; used to success in all he does, he cannot bear to be checked in the slightest particular, and any frustration of his ambitions brings on not only depression but also physical symptoms. Even his disastrous marriage to Leonora is the result of his inability to brook the slightest failure; advised by his psychiatrist not to marry her, Ohlrig resolves to do precisely that in order to show that he is not a man to take advice he does not want to hear. There are hints that Ohlrig is an alcoholic (he is frequently shown with a whisky glass in his hand) and even, in his curious relationship with his effeminate manservant Franzi, that he might be a homosexual. (This, of course, could only be hinted at obliquely; any explicit reference to homosexuality would have been taboo in the forties).
Ohlrig's selfish pursuit of wealth is contrasted with Quinada's selfless work among the poor. Although he is from a middle-class background, he has chosen to work in a working-class district because he believes that the poor have the greatest need of his help. Scenes of poverty in New York contrast with the opulence and grandeur of Ohlrig's mansion (which, by the use of low-level lighting, is also made to look grim and forbidding, more a luxurious prison than a home, especially for Leonora). This emphasis on class differences is unusual for a Hollywood film of this era, and its criticism of the mores of the rich can be seen as semi-socialist. (I say `semi-` because the main criticism is of Ohlrig's lack of capacity for personal relationships rather than of his business practices or of the capitalist system in general).
Despite its interesting themes, the film also has its weaknesses. The plot is melodramatic, and the contrast between the `evil' Ohlrig and the `good' Quinada is over-simplified and over-schematic. Of the actors who play the three main characters only Robert Ryan is wholly satisfactory. He gives a good performance as Ohlrig, bringing out not only his ruthlessness and latent violence but also his hidden misery. Ryan's Ohlrig is in some ways a pitiable character, a victim of his own wealth. Given what we now know about the bizarre final years of Howard Hughes (whom the director Max Ophuls knew and disliked), it is interesting that the character is said to be based on him.
James Mason, however, is never wholly credible as Quinada. Although he is supposed to be a native-born New Yorker, he never attempts to hide his British accent. (If Mason had difficulty with an American accent, I am surprised that the script was not altered to make Quinada an English immigrant). More importantly, Mason's screen persona was often one of world-weariness and disillusionment; although this served him well in many of his films, traces of it come through here, making it difficult for him to suggest Quinada's idealism.
Leonora is the key character in the film; unlike Ohlrig and Quinada she is treated as a character in her own right rather than as a symbol. She also provides the link between the New York scenes and those set in the mansion. I felt, however, that the part called for a stronger actress than Barbara Bel Geddes, whose performance here seemed weak and out of keeping with the melodramatic nature of the plot. The acknowledged queens of the `woman's picture' were Bette Davis and Joan Crawford; both those actresses would have been too old for Leonora, but the role required a younger actress with a similar larger-than-life personality who could have thrown herself into it with their accustomed zest.
An interesting film, but not a great one. 6/10.
Although `Caught' is filmed in the dark film noir style popular in the forties it is not, unlike most films noirs, a crime drama, but rather a romantic melodrama of the type that would have been known at the time as a `woman's picture'. The theme is rags to riches with a twist, the twist being that riches do not necessarily equal happiness.
The heroine, Leonora Eames, is a young model who meets and marries a millionaire, Smith Ohlrig. Soon, however, she realises that Ohlrig is a selfish, domineering bully, and flees from his mansion to New York where she finds employment as a secretary and receptionist in a medical practice. Ohlrig tracks her down, and a brief reconciliation follows, but he has not changed his ways, and Leonora leaves him again to return to her job, where she is starting to fall in love with the idealistic young doctor Larry Quinada. She discovers, however, that she is pregnant with Ohlrig's child, and feels that she must once again return to him, a decision that precipitates the movie's dramatic final confrontation.
This is a film which explores the dark side of the American dream. Ohlrig represents both old and new money; he has inherited wealth, but his own business activities have multiplied his inherited fortune many times over. The visible trappings of wealth- fur coats, jewellery, yachts- are much on view during the film. He has everything money can buy yet is deeply unhappy and brings unhappiness to others. There are indications that his wealth and success are themselves the cause of his unhappiness; used to success in all he does, he cannot bear to be checked in the slightest particular, and any frustration of his ambitions brings on not only depression but also physical symptoms. Even his disastrous marriage to Leonora is the result of his inability to brook the slightest failure; advised by his psychiatrist not to marry her, Ohlrig resolves to do precisely that in order to show that he is not a man to take advice he does not want to hear. There are hints that Ohlrig is an alcoholic (he is frequently shown with a whisky glass in his hand) and even, in his curious relationship with his effeminate manservant Franzi, that he might be a homosexual. (This, of course, could only be hinted at obliquely; any explicit reference to homosexuality would have been taboo in the forties).
Ohlrig's selfish pursuit of wealth is contrasted with Quinada's selfless work among the poor. Although he is from a middle-class background, he has chosen to work in a working-class district because he believes that the poor have the greatest need of his help. Scenes of poverty in New York contrast with the opulence and grandeur of Ohlrig's mansion (which, by the use of low-level lighting, is also made to look grim and forbidding, more a luxurious prison than a home, especially for Leonora). This emphasis on class differences is unusual for a Hollywood film of this era, and its criticism of the mores of the rich can be seen as semi-socialist. (I say `semi-` because the main criticism is of Ohlrig's lack of capacity for personal relationships rather than of his business practices or of the capitalist system in general).
Despite its interesting themes, the film also has its weaknesses. The plot is melodramatic, and the contrast between the `evil' Ohlrig and the `good' Quinada is over-simplified and over-schematic. Of the actors who play the three main characters only Robert Ryan is wholly satisfactory. He gives a good performance as Ohlrig, bringing out not only his ruthlessness and latent violence but also his hidden misery. Ryan's Ohlrig is in some ways a pitiable character, a victim of his own wealth. Given what we now know about the bizarre final years of Howard Hughes (whom the director Max Ophuls knew and disliked), it is interesting that the character is said to be based on him.
James Mason, however, is never wholly credible as Quinada. Although he is supposed to be a native-born New Yorker, he never attempts to hide his British accent. (If Mason had difficulty with an American accent, I am surprised that the script was not altered to make Quinada an English immigrant). More importantly, Mason's screen persona was often one of world-weariness and disillusionment; although this served him well in many of his films, traces of it come through here, making it difficult for him to suggest Quinada's idealism.
Leonora is the key character in the film; unlike Ohlrig and Quinada she is treated as a character in her own right rather than as a symbol. She also provides the link between the New York scenes and those set in the mansion. I felt, however, that the part called for a stronger actress than Barbara Bel Geddes, whose performance here seemed weak and out of keeping with the melodramatic nature of the plot. The acknowledged queens of the `woman's picture' were Bette Davis and Joan Crawford; both those actresses would have been too old for Leonora, but the role required a younger actress with a similar larger-than-life personality who could have thrown herself into it with their accustomed zest.
An interesting film, but not a great one. 6/10.