User Reviews

This is a curiously interesting movie for three reasons: first, it has a chilling performance from Robert Ryan as Smith Ohlrig (what an odd name) whose persona in this narrative is apparently based on the very eccentric – and fabulously wealthy – recluse, Howard Hughes; second, it has James Mason – with still a very British accent – as poor doctor Larry Quinada, on the East Side of New York, tending to the poor of that area; and third, there is the radiant Barbara Bel Geddes as Leonora Eames, caught between the two men, trying to decide who to choose...

So, it's a rags to riches to rags story about Leonora who, after a brief -- rocket-like, you might say – courtship with Smith, decides to accept his marriage offer for a life of luxury – but after the honeymoon, she finds that, well, the honeymoon is over: she may as well be a wall-flower for all the interest that Smith shows towards her. Why is that? You see, Smith, being the mighty merchandising mogul he is, is a very acquisitive person and whatever he sees that he wants, he gets. Once he's got it, however, he tends to lose interest... Leonora thinks she loves him, but what she really loves is money and wealth.

Tiring of her eventually, Smith allows her to leave when her boredom reaches volcanic proportions: she's just too much trouble to be troubled with. So, searching for something useful to do, she takes a job as a receptionist in Doctor Quinada's office – and, of course, she and he eventually fall in love. All the while, of course, Smith has his agents watch Leonora 24/7, without her knowledge.

Eventually, the pot boils, the three confront each other at Smith's incredibly, disgustingly rich mansion where Smith succumbs to his own psychopathology (that's as much as I'll tell you --- when you see it, you'll know what I mean), leaving Leonora – sadder but wiser – free to take up the socially good life with the good doctor. As the world turns, all is well with the world, sort of...

The messages about the state of that world are strong, indeed almost totally lacking in any subtlety, with lines such as "He was a human being...", "nobody's poor by choice...", "money alone isn't security" and others, all of which starkly inform the viewer that the price of excessive wealth and social nihilism combined is so close to madness it's not worth chasing; far better, instead, to reject such excesses and concentrate on being a valuable member of society.

Mason and Bel Geddes are good support for Ryan who really carries this movie as the menacing, quasi-sociopath. But, I also enjoyed the very smooth performance of Curt Bois as Franzi, the sycophantic sidekick to Smith: Franzi's always too ready to please and calls everybody 'darling', even when he's treated like dirt by almost everybody – a slimy metaphor for the depths to which some go in order to survive in the world of untrammeled excess. But even Franzi has his limits, as you will find out.

Some great camera work and all in lovely black and white makes this movie a worthwhile addition to the film-noir genre. Watch particularly for the dark scenes in Smith's mansion and, later, the swiveling camera work when Doctors Quinada and Hoffman discuss Leonora's absence from their office. You just don't get shooting like that anymore...

Highly recommended for all you film-noir fans.

This film is a nice little melodrama about a marriage that should not have occurred. Barbara Bel Geddes is a "hostess" who was going to be on a yacht during a party. She is delayed, and when wondering how to get to the party she runs into a young man, Robert Ryan. He offers her a ride, and the two actually have a relaxed good evening together. In fact it turns out to be more promising than Bel Geddes can hope for. She wants to marry well, and she discovers that Ryan is a multi-millionaire named Smith Ohlrig. When he proposes she accepts. Lucky girl? Not quite.

Ryan is one of those fascinating actors who was good enough to handle the juiciest villains and the most compelling of sympathetic types. The same year as CAUGHT he made THE SET-UP, as a boxer in decline, who unwittingly double-crosses a mobster by winning a fight he should have thrown. In future films he would threaten Spencer Tracy in BAD DAY AT BLACKROCK, would by Ty-Ty the deluded farmer and gold seeker in GOD'S LITTLE ACRE, and would be Claggart, BILLY BUDD's evil victim. It was quite a remarkable career. Most people remember his brooding villains more than his good guys. Curiously enough, in real life he was not the clone of his anti-Semitic murderer in CROSSFIRE but a lifelong fighter for civil liberties. He also was a man with a sense of humor. When warned about black listing for his liberalism he laughed and dismissed it, suggesting that J.Edgar Hoover would not go after him - Ryan pointed out he was a good Roman Catholic and a war hero.

Ohlrig has a psychosis that makes him go after anything that initially he can't get. If he doesn't get it he has panic attacks where he collapses and can barely breath. Initially Bel Geddes rejects him, but he perseveres and she makes the mistake of saying yes. Once he has her he treats her like an adjunct to his various properties and corporations. She does break away for awhile, aided by her new romance (James Mason), but she weakens because she finds herself pregnant. Ohlrig now has her and her child in his sights as his property.

If the film was one sided (as my synopsis suggests) it would not quite as good as it is. Ryan does show other points about Ohlrig. He is showing a film of a business project to some of his executives at his mansion, and Bel Geddes is bored. She makes no effort to take an interest in the film - and Ryan pointedly lectures her that if she would just be quiet and watch she might learn something. Although such moments are rarely revealed in the script, it does suggest that a bit more work by Bel Geddes might have made the relationship somewhat more tolerable.

The film conclusion has been somewhat dismissed as too pat. Trapped by her husband's wealth and power, Bel Geddes is left as a weak, pathetic type, pregnant but non-comprehending what is around her. But Ryan has an argument with his factotum, played by Curt Bois. Bois has been a sleazy underling - quite slick and greasy in his rapid patter speech (with "darling" frequently thrown out towards Bel Geddes to get her to do what Ohlrig wants to do). But Ryan basically insults the man for no good reason. Bois suddenly turns on him in a quiet and effective manner. He says that he thinks he'd prefer returning to his old job as a maitre-d at a restaurant than continue working for Ryan. He also says that no matter what Ryan can do, he'll never win Bel Geddes' affections. It is this blow to Ryan's psyche that leads to his final collapse at the close of the film, and to Bel Geddes' release from the marriage she should have avoided.

Two men vie for the love or, at a minimum, the obedience of a poor girl who has just managed to graduate from charm school. One man is rich,bitter, domineering, and has eyeballs of steel. His name is Smith Ohlrig. The other man is a handsome, hard-working but poor doctor dedicated to serving the disenfranchised. His name is Larry Quinada. Guess which one wins her.

It's not as stupid as it may sound, for a couple of reasons. One is the performances, both as the roles are written and as the parts executed. Robert Ryan is Smith Ohlrig and there was no one better than Ryan at projecting a pungent hatred of humanity than Ryan. He was superb, for instance, in "On Dangerous Ground" and "Crossfire." Barbara Bel Geddes as Leonora, the blond in contention, is fine as the winsome young charm school graduate who is sufficiently attracted to the immensely wealthy Ryan to marry him, not knowing that he proposed on a dare from his psychiatrist. She's pretty too, though she sounds like she came from the kind of background that Ryan enjoys in this movie. Speaking of that, though, at the beginning the impoverished Bel Geddes is rooming with another girl who refers to their apartment as "this dump." That particular "dump" looks more spacious and well appointed than the dump my brother and I knew as children. Right, Bucky? If you're not careful, you could get the impression that production designers and set dressers in Hollywood don't have any real conception of poverty.

James Mason is not the stereotype he might have been -- you know, quiet, patient, understanding, "caring" -- and thank God for that. It might have been sickening. Bel Geddes has left Ryan and taken a job as Mason's receptionist. And when we first meet him, and more or less throughout the movie, he's impatient, scolding, and only rarely concerned about Bel Geddes welfare. He shows no appreciation when she works overtime or even stays all night at the office. At one point, he drives her to quit.

That's rather a nice touch, having the obvious winner of her love being a little nasty to her. Not TOO nasty. In that case, you might as well have called this movie "All Men Are Brutes." But just edgy enough so that he avoids the soap opera formula. He's strong enough to allow Bel Geddes the final decision, but he's not a sap either.

I'm afraid the script could have used a little more polish. Mason's character may not be a stereotype (neither is Ryan's flunky, Franzi), but Ryan's certainly is and, to an extent, Bel Geddes' is as well.

Some crises and some of the dialog are plain terrible. Bel Geddes is pregnant with Ryan's fetus, he apparently having reserved usufruct rights over her reproductive system, and he has her imprisoned in her room, torturing her by keeping her awake with constant calls and demands, while she lies sweating and helpless on the satin sheets. Here are some of her lines. "Don't take my BABY, Smith! Oh, Larry, please help me. I want you." I'm not making that up.

The direction is by Max Ophuls and it's above average, overcoming the benthic depths in the script. Nice shots of Ryan and the exhausted Bel Geddes speaking through a bedroom door ajar. And there's another scene that is quietly impressive. Mason is pacing around in his office. His partner, Frank Ferguson, is using an electric razor on his chin across the room. They are quietly discussing Bel Geddes, whom Mason has just fired. Mason is turning the affair over in his mind. The perceptive Ferguson makes an occasional remark. Meanwhile, as the two speak, the camera drifts slowly from one man to the other, each time crossing Bel Geddes' vacant desk which sits between them. As the scene ends, the camera slows to a halt, with the deafeningly empty desk in the center of the frame.

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.

I really loved the first 90% of this movie. The direction and writing were superb and had my full attention. In particular, I loved the juicy part played by Robert Ryan as the sadistic and sociopathic multimillionaire--he was in many ways a veiled portrait of Howard Hughes. This man had absolutely no ability to connect to others intimately but saw everyone as self-serving and to be feared. His money, it seemed, allowed him to make others bend to his iron will and "make them dance". The only trouble way, Barbara Bel Geddes soon tired of the dance and left him. Her part was excellent but at times a little inconsistent--strong and full of fire and at other times a bit of a wimp.

The problem for me is the pat ending. Robert Ryan's hold on her is gone at the untimely death of her baby--at which point James Mason's character announces that this is some sort of happy ending (?). It's just too quick and pat to seem believable and it was as if it was just pasted on because they had no idea how to end the film. It would have been 100% better if the film had ended AFTER Ryan collapsed on the floor and Barbara refused to get him the medication! Now THIS would have been much more powerful and satisfying.

This summer (2021) "Caught" (1949, Max Ophuls) was part of a summer programme on Film Noir of the Dutch film museum. I was interested also because I had seen films from Ophuls German period (1931 - 1933) and second French period (1950 - 1958, the first French period was from 1936 - 1940) but never from his American period (1946 - 1949).

The film starts as a mixture of "School for scoundrels" (1930, Robert Hamer) and "How to marry a millionaire" (1953, Jean Negulesco). Leonora (Barbara Bel Geddes), a poor girl, saves all her hard earned money to go to the "charm school". The main objective of this modelling and etiquette school is to give her students access to a good marriage , preferably with a millionaire.

Of course Leonora succeeds and she marries the millionaire Smith Ohlrig (Robert Ryan), only to find out (as male students do in the school for scoundrels which teaches seducing techniques) that successes earned with chep tricks are shallow. She may have a mink coat, but she is just is a piece of furniture in the house of Ohlrig and a hostess for his businesspartners.

Leonora finds a job as a receptionist for general practitioner Larry Quinada (James Mason in his American debut). She realises that doing a simple job and helping the community gives much more satisfaction then being owned by a millionaire. The film takes on some characteristics of "It's a wonderful life" (1946, Frank Capra) and i began to wonder why this movie was part of film noir program.

The answer to this question comes in the last part of the movie. I will not tell anything about the final showdown, apart from the fact that Ohlrig all of sudden turns from a rather nasty person (selfish, dominant and manipulative) to a full blown psychopath. Not very convincing and even rather silly.

Not so long ago I saw Robert Ryan for the first time as a disillusioned middle aged man in "Odds against tomorrow" (1959, Robert Wise). That performance was much better than his Smith Ohlrig in "Caught". And regarding Max Ophuls? I think I stick to his French period.

Leonora Eames is a small town girl in Los Angeles looking for love who bags millionaire Smith Ohlrig as a husband. However, she is unhappy, Ohlrig is a cold-hearted possessive creep and when she meets the philanthropic Dr Quinada her thoughts start to stray ...

Caught is a movie for film buffs. Whilst the plot is serviceable, it's not really believable in any sense - millionaire marries girl he hardly knows purely to annoy his analyst - and Leonora is similarly far-fetched. She's constantly trying to prove herself worthy and not a gold-digger, but if so why does she marry Smith ? And while Bel Geddes does the best she can, she's caught (sorry) between these two sides of her character, and so suffers in comparison with the femme fatales and Woman's Film stars of the time. Where the movie really scores however is in its look, which is a masterclass in evocative and intriguing photography. Ophuls was a master with the camera, as was director of photography Lee Garmes (Scarface, Duel In The Sun), and so much of the film is an exercise in cool style - the camera follows the actors through offices and bars where anyone else would cut, past daring fake walls, drifting sideways to focus on a particular element of the set, even at one point using a crane at ground level to pull back over Ryan's body when he collapses. If you're interested, the origins of Kubrick, Polanski and Spielberg's visual styles are all in this picture. There's also a great teeth-grinding psycho performance from Ryan as the slimeball (allegedly a hatchet job on Howard Hughes), and note Bois as the lackey who finally has his moment. Bois played in German films for years then fled the Nazis (like Ophuls), made forty movies in Hollywood (he plays the pickpocket in Casablanca) and returned to Germany for a very successful TV career. Based on the book Wild Calendar by Libbie Block.

.......I might overrate this film because of her. However, there are at least eight reviewers here who are more impartial in this matter and you can read how highly they thought of this film.

Perhaps that is because:

1 - There are three classy actors in lead roles: Bel Geddes, James Mason and the always-evil (it seems) Robert Ryan; 2 - some really nice film-noir cinematography with a lot of dark atmospheric scenes but faces lit up so can see them clearly; 3 - a feeling of impending violence and tension in the scenes involving Ryan which keep you on the edge of your seat wondering what may happen; 4 - Mason's contrasting and soft personality, and 5 - Bel Geddes' soft voice and winsome character which makes the viewer (not just me) care about her.

The aforementioned tension is probably why this movie is labeled a film noir but it really falls into more of the melodrama category. Normally, that doesn't do much for me but not in this film. The only part that turned me off was the ending in which the principal "good guys" seemed really happy and delighted that the baby had died! Wow, does that sound like the selfish attitudes of the modern-day world? A pathetic way to end a good film.

Despicable ending or not, I'd sure like to see this on DVD with a good transfer. What's the holdup?

This interesting and finely executed melodrama/noir piece from Max Ophuls is an underrated film worthy of greater attention. It boasts fine performances from it's three leads, Ophuls' expert direction and a screenplay that touches on many intriguing themes.

CAUGHT can be viewed as Ophuls' critique of the capitalist system and the bourgeois values dominating Western society. The film revolves around the plight of young Leonora (a lovely Barbara Bel Geddes), who is influenced by the social mores and conventions of her time into attending "charm school" and "marrying rich". Leonora's symbolic desire for "mink" (wealth) leads her into a union with the rich Smith Ohlrig (Robert Ryan in a terrific performance). Her loveless marriage quickly degrades into a nightmare world where she is "caught" between her own desire for material possessions and her wish to be loved.

Leonora chooses to run away from Ohlrig. Asserting herself and regaining her independence by taking a job in a doctor's office, Leonora begins to fall in love with the good doctor himself, Larry Quinada (James Mason, wonderful as ever). He tentatively courts her, yet Leonora is still "caught" by her disastrous marriage...and the discovery that, after a one-night reunion tryst with Ohlrig, she is pregnant with domineering husband's child...

Ophuls, who proved himself a master at melodrama in the brilliant LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN a year earlier, effectively blends standard chocolate-box melodrama with noir to produce an intense, dark, thought-provoking film. Ophuls' trademark sweeping camera movements, fine sense of detail and beautiful black-and-white cinematography greatly enhance the production.

Yet it is the performances and the characters that really propel the film into greatness. Robert Ryan turns in possibly his second-best performance on film (after THE SET-UP) as Ohlrig, who is said to be modeled on Howard Hughes. Ryan creates a fascinating portrait, cold and contemptuous as Leonora's villain husband, yet also oddly compelling and not wholly unlikeable as he chides Leonora for not even bothering to try and pay attention to his business interests. CAUGHT is painted in shades of grey, with not one character (least of all Ryan's)fitting into the standard stereotypical mould.

Barbara Bel Geddes suggests innocence yet a fundamental weakness in her inability to resist not only Ohlrig's physical advances but his financial status. James Mason is just wonderful as pediatrician Quinada. Mason, too, is capable of suggesting all sorts of emotions in his performances, and his idealistic doctor is not without a certain touch of weariness. Yet, he is honest, understanding and touching in his role- the film really reaches another level when he first appears on screen.

Mason wanted the romantic lead in his first American film to avoid being typecast as the villain (He had gained fame and notoriety in Britain for thrashing Margaret Lockwood with a horse whip in THE MAN IN GREY and lashing his lovely ward Ann Todd's fingers with a cane in THE SEVENTH VEIL). Mason suggest humanity in his role; a socially progressive doctor who spurns the backward conventions of a society that compel Leonora, the woman he loves and truly cares for, to first marry Ohlrig for his money and then stay with him when she discovers she is pregnant. Mason, with his trademark mellifluous voice and British charm, works well with Bel Geddes and is attractive in their romantic scenes together.

The film's most memorable scene comes with Leonora's dramatic miscarriage- a finely acted moment from Bel Geddes ("I wanted him dead...I wanted him to die"). Leonora is finally able to escape from her torturous marriage and experience happiness with Larry, in an ending that was probably influenced by the Hayes Code. Most consider the ending rushed, abrupt and tacky, yet it has a certain logic and poignancy to it. Leonora will go on, marry Quinada and have children- and they will be happy. Leonora cannot possibly hope to be fulfilled with Ohlrig, and adding a baby to the shambles would be horrific. It is cruel for a woman to miscarry, yet it is even crueler for a child to be born into such an emotionally unstable environment. Therefore, Mason's extraordinary pronouncement that it is tragic yet "better" for the child to die can be sufficiently, and logically, explained.

Spoiled by a really crappy ending and a miscasting of Barbara Bel Geddes.

I love noirs and made a point of acquiring this one. 1949. A woman marrying for money to a rich psychopath based on Howard Hughes, they say.

Barbara is too goody-two-shoes, too girl-next-door for a woman who finds her strength when she gets a job of worth with a pair of doctors. I don't see what James Mason, playing Larry, saw in her.

Robert Ryan is brilliant as her wealthy husband. And the slimy Franzi, his sycophantic side-kick is brilliant.

And the ending was hugely disappointing, if I got into it I'd give the plot away, but it came across as a complete copout. Rushed, hurried and leaving too many plot holes unfilled.

6 out of 10.

This film includes some very good acting by Barbara Bel Geddes, James Mason, and Robert Ryan. Ryan in particular is superb as the rich abusive husband. Supposedly his character was based on Howard Hughes but he could be any rich and greedy asshole, including Donald Trump. What I found most interesting about this film is how it handles the concerns of working women in the late 1940's. In fact, this movie is a great time capsule on the fears and anxieties of women of the period. How do be financially independent. How do get ahead in the world. How to deal with the unreasonable demands of men and maintain one's dignity and independence. This movie contains many of the themes that would dominate movies 2 decades later. But unfortunately, in the end, all the female characters submit to male dominated viewpoints and never really escape their plights. But there is one issue that comes through that is most curious. The main female character, played by Bel Geddes, becomes pregnant by the evil rich Ryan character. She has mixed feelings about the pregnancy since she is no longer in love with her husband (Robert Ryan) but is in love with her new employer (James Mason). It turns out she has a miscarriage right after her abusive husband has a massive heart attack which clears the way for her to marry Mason. Strangely enough, everybody seems so happy by the death of this "baby" that it almost seems like an abortion has occurred. In fact, I would argue that this movie advocates abortion even though it is never mentioned throughout the movie. It is clear that removing an unwanted pregnancy that stands in the way of happiness is acceptable. I think it shows that for much of the movie going public in the late 1940's abortion was accepted even though it could not be discussed in public. I don't think this movie could be made today.

The woman is still lying in the hospital bed while the doctor tells her that she gave birth to a dead baby. And she's smiling from ear to ear because that makes her free from her husband's grip. How can anyone like that woman?