Change Your Image
HowToCarrieOn
Reviews
Jezebel (1938)
Truly inappropriate GWTW fellow
Oh, there have been so many legends on this movie. The play on which it's based was a failure, and it starred Bette Davis' long-life rival Miriam Hopkins. David O. Selznick was discussing cooperation with Warners and when it did not go OK, Jack Warner prepared his own response to GWTW... before GWTW was filmed. Quite strange, but tell me, when Hollywood was led by common sense, huh? The story is about a selfish young lady being in love with a handsome man. Her selfishness leads her to lose him and becoming a spinster and in the end she gains a chance to be close to him in a fatal moment a place despite the fact Bette lost Henry Fonda to charming Margaret Lindsay.
To me "Jezebel" definitely lacks the strength and power of GWTW. Selznick's movie was commercial, but it succeeded in showing the depth of the character of the leading character. "Jezebel" does not succeed in this matter. Bette Davis was a great actress. I'm her true admirer and I will not even try to deny it. But mostly in this part, she is not Julie, but... herself. This strong look and powerful voice, from time to time connected with a heartbreaking breath. But... haven't we seen it? I have, in "Dark victory" or "Dangerous"... Bette deserved Oscar much more for "Of Human Bondage". She coveted the role of Scarlett and she lost. And I definitely doubt if the reason was 'lack of beauty'. Vivien Leigh as Scarlett was stunning, spectacular. She was simply better.
And also Henry Fonda - I like him very much, but here, as Preston, he looks like a beautiful doll, quite amusing and without any dignity. If we compare him to Gable in GWTW he looks like a cute little boy and Gable like a man.
Well, Jezebel is a good film. But in my opinion - overrated. Davis much more deserved Oscars for "All About Eve" or "Whatever happened to Baby Jane?".
Dark Victory (1939)
A winning fighter despite being lost
Edmund Goulding directs Bette Davis again (remember their very good cooperation in "That Certain Woman"), a melodrama again, though this time without a happy ending.
Bette plays Judith Traherne. Young woman, just in her early twenties. Judith uses her life and does not think about death. She is wealthy, easy-going, outspoken, and attractive. After an accident she is diagnosed as being mortally ill. Her life changes drastically.
Well, let's be honest-this story is not a very original one. And without the delicate and smart direction of Goulding or moving performances would be quite ridiculous and hardly remembered.
The reason why I like this movie is not because I love ALL romances without any exception. I don't like naive and unbelievable stories told without any charm. And this one has a melancholy and a charm included.
Bette Davis gives one of her very good performances. She plays the rebel Judith. Judith is a rebel during the whole story of hers we know. But her being rebel changes. In the very beginning she rebels against the rules. It's just a fun, being individualistic. What other can she do? She has money and men, she thinks she doesn't not need anything more. And then, after realizing she's mortally ill, Judith changes. Her being rebel is dramatic, moving, devastating. She fights hard and does not give up, though just after reading the papers of Dr. Steele she decides to live without any rules, just wait for death miserable. The scene when she meets Ann and the doctor, who's her fiancé then, knowing everything, and being so nervous, is terrific. Bette showed her real talent. Also the final scene, when she discovers that she's leaving the world right now, is a real mastery by Davis.
I would also mention the supporting powerful appearance of Geraldine Fitzgerald. The same year she played her Oscar-nominated part of Isabella in "Wuthering Heights", again moving and smart.
That Hamilton Woman (1941)
Vivien Leigh-th best, as always
There is no any doubt why this film was made. This was the first film of Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier after they achieved international stardom. She was already an Oscar-winner, he was an Oscar-nominee. They were already married and so in love. They decided to take part in this movie because they needed money for the stage flop, directed by Olivier, "Romeo and Juliet" (the poor reviews showed only the appreciation of Leigh's performance). And Korda was in need of a propaganda movie. The whole romance was just a cover for the historic foreground. Anyway, everybody was happy, because it was the first film of Vivien after "Waterloo Bridge" and she was to appear in the next one not earlier that in 1944, "Caesar and Cleopatra", released in 1946.
I think that the fact that the cinematography is black and white makes this film more beautiful. It's very warm and touching. I think that the whole story told there is not so faithful to the real story, but it doesn't matter. The film is full of beautiful art direction and costumes. Korda is good as the director, though it is not his best work. The point that made this movie unforgettable is Vivien Leigh. She not only looks like a goddess (as always), but she plays her part marvelously. It is another mature role of Vivien, so different from flirtatious and strong Scarlett O'Hara, or more unhappy Myra Lester. She shines and she again overshines and overshadows her husband, who was never as good as she was when playing her leading man, at least on the screen (I did not have possibility to see them acting on stage). His performance is so bland and poor that if there were Razzies then, he should have won at least one. There is no a great chemistry between them, and the fault is evidently on Olivier's part. With Vivien expressing so various emotions, he's just as static as a Greek sculpture made before Christ.
Anyway, if you a fan of Vivien Leigh, you should see it. She's just brilliant here, as she always was, even when she played less good written parts.
Waterloo Bridge (1940)
More than a tear-jerker
"Waterloo Bridge" was to be a typical vehicle for Vivien Leigh's fresh fame, gained after her magnificent performance as Katie Scarlett O'Hara. The play by Robert Sherwood, on which the film was based, was quite different from the story revealed in the movie from 1940. Maybe because of censors. Most likely. But, although the story seems to be not any original one, there is something about this film that can't be forgotten.
Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor knew each other, because they made their first screen appearance together 2 years earlier. Vivien played a very different role of seductive Elsa Craddock. Now she is Myra Lester, a poor young woman who is destiny is pain.
The story is typical for a tear-jerker. Myra Lester (Vivien) is a young ballet dancer who, during the World War I, meets a soldier, Roy Cronin (Robert Taylor). They fall in love immediately, but the war and bad luck separates them.
What is the quality of this movie? Of course, the direction. Mervyn Le Roy was a really good director, who proved he knew his job many, many times. But there is also a great cast. Lucille Watson is so warm as Mrs. Cronin. And C. Aubrey Smith also gives a nice, memorable performance. Maria Ouspenskaya is perfectly cast as the demanding Madame. The supporting performance I love most is this of Virginia Field. I really regret that I have never seen any other role of her. She never gained any stardom and few remember her now. I can't understand why. Her Kitty is a very powerful and unforgettable piece of acting job.
Well, let's say something about the two leading actors. Robert Taylor is Robert Taylor-extremely handsome and charming. He plays Roy very good and is really good-looking. But playing opposite an actress with such a quality as Vivien Leigh had, demands more. Both Taylor and Leigh had beauty and persona on the screen. But Vivien was also an outstanding actress as well. And her portrayal of Myra shows it. I think that everybody who thinks that she was able to play only roles of women with great temper should see her Myra. Leigh's Myra is from the very begging "signed" with ache and pain. From the very beginning we do not know why, but we feel she won't be happy. She never is. She never believes in happy ending. Even when she smiles, it looks like she was aching. Her smile is full of pain. She manages to show something very different in the same time-coldness and warmth, happiness, but with pain. It is a performance worth of every possible award. I think that the best performances of 1940 were of Joan Fonataine's in "Rebecca" and of Vivien Leigh in "Waterloo Bridge", though Joan received the nomination for Oscar, and Vivien, surprisingly, not. And she should have won the award, without any doubt.
Even if you are not fond of tear-jerker, you must see it. It's full of great acting job.
Gone with the Wind (1939)
GREAT BALLS OF FIRE, it's terrific!
There has never been any movie in the cinema history that was more a legend than "Gone with the wind". It is undeniable that this movie contains lots of goofs, but, despite all this, it is a blockbuster and a real masterpiece. Completely NOT overrated.
I love this movie. I can't explain why exactly. There are sooo many reasons. I first saw it when I was a little kid and still can't forget it.
It's so special if you can return to movie even when you had seen it more than 100 times... And GWTW is this kind of a movie.
In my opinion a movie can not be a good when the acting is not good. And there acting is great! Every character is portrayed so magnificently!
I will start with the supporting players. Barbara O'Neil, though only 28 while filming, played mother of quite adult daughters. She was the Ellen Robillard Mitchell descirbed in her book: so stative, so smart, so lady. Thomas Mitchell should have received Oscar for his Gerald O'Hara portroyal, and I think he did not just because he won for "Stagecoach" that year. Scarlett's sisters are really well cast. But the best supporting performance of the film is this one of Hattie McDaniel's. She is simply magnificent, moving and unforgettable as Mummy. Just amazing.
Many people claim that Leslie Howard did not fit the role of Ashley. They may be right in some sense, but let's think it over twice. Ashley was more handsome as Mitchell described him, but he was a dreamer who could not find himself in a new, cruel world. And Howard showed this quality as best as possible.
Of course, Olivia de Havilland's performance of Melanie was as worth of Oscar as Hattie McDaniel's, but later on she was given what she deserved (Oscars for "To each his own" and "The Heiress"). She plays Melanie with such a sensibility, but she manages to show her hidden strength, but not in a dominate way. Clark Gable was so unsure of his talent till the end of his life. I think that he was a great actor. He's so real as Rhett, and he has to play several dramatic scenes. And he does it perfectly-remember that playing those scenes, like those after Scarlett's miscarriage, needed acting talent. He's perfect. But, I won't hide my opinion that Vivien Leigh's Scarlett is the best and most powerful point of the whole movie. Vivien won the role when she was completely unknown. She managed to master the Southern accent as well. She did not play Scarlett. She WAS Scarlett. But only in this movie. She never acted any other character the same way. She is terrific and has all those features that original Mitchell's Scarlett possesses. I heard that she wanted to play the part exactly as Mitchell created it, and Fleming wanted her to play it just as a bitch, so they fought about it badly, but, finally, Vivien did a great work and her Oscar was something very obvious.
If you love good cinema, if you want to see something moving and something that is not getting old, though almost 70!, do not miss it.