Desire Me

Certainly this has to be ranked as one of the most forgettable films GREER GARSON and ROBERT MITCHUM ever participated in, a film that went from bad to worse once it was handed over from one director to another at least three times.

In the end, nobody wanted to take credit for it and it's easy to see why there is no "Directed by" credit on the screen. It's a mess. Not only did the directors quit, but ROBERT MONTGOMERY began filming in the Richard Hart role until he dropped out and was replaced.

The only redeeming feature of the film is the handsome seaside setting and house that Garson lives in, until a stranger comes along (RICHARD HART) to inform her that her husband (MITCHUM) is dead and that he was Mitch's best friend during World War II. Garson is soon offering Hart shelter and their relationship seems to be heading toward a romantic involvement when the very much alive Mitchum returns to town, seeking to resume his former life.

Actually, these are the ingredients for a potentially strong enough story--so one has to wonder why the film turned out so disastrously. Mitchum was reportedly annoyed with Garson when she required, according to him, "125 takes to say 'No'." (Knowing Mitchum, this could have been a slight exaggeration!!) Nevertheless, he often spoke disparagingly of the whole project.

Can't recommend this one unless you are a staunch Greer Garson fan and won't mind the punishment.

This is a film to be cherished for its lush cinematography, exquisite and picturesque settings, character development, and fine performances. While the story is on the surface a love triangle, there are complexities among the characters, and in their relationships with each other, that make the film compelling in spite of being typical Hollywood romance. The film shines with Cukor's touches throughout, although he was uncredited as director. The production values are first class, and appropriately polished.

While DESIRE ME is generally perceived to be one of classic Hollywood's biggest turkeys, public perception is often misleading. For those of us who are fans of the genre, of Hollywood myth, melodrama, and romance, this is a lovely, lovely film. But it seems even less likely that such a film would be appreciated in these times than in 1947.

In post-war France, Marise Aubert (Greer Garson) discusses her struggles with her doctor. She recounts how she found Jean Renaud (Richard Hart) playing her husband Paul Aubert (Robert Mitchum)'s song in her home. He seems to know a lot about Paul. He claims to be a friend from the POW camp and witnessed Paul's death while they were escaping.

This movie depends a lot on whether one buys the romance. I don't like Jean's stereotypical French look with his skinny moustache. The movie uses a lot of montage and yada-yada to advance the romance. I'm willing to accept it, but I'm not feeling it. She believes him too easily. If I was her, I would never accept it so willingly. The fact that she did is disappointing. Most of Robert Mitchum's screen time is concentrated on the last half hour and that is also disappointing. It's a complicated feeling. I would like a specific ending although the movie delivers something else. I do like the foggy climax. It's complicated.

Its structure is intense. The way it's edited kept me always on the tip of my toes. I was biting my nails through half of it, and feeling a nervous guilt in the pit of my stomach through the other half. This movie has it all, from one of the best escape scenes ever, to a whole spectrum of emotional truths. I found myself switching my opinions many times about the characters and what actions they should take. All the way through the ending, I was proud for the people who lent their efforts to make this movie. The acting and cinematography are unbeatable. I repeat, unbeatable! It might not be air-tight in plot details, but it gets a certain sense of cinematic perfection across that can also be found in other 1947 movies like "Out of the Past" and "Black Narcissus". I love those movies just as much as this one, if not more, so it's a little baffling how hard people are ragging on it.

It seems like the making of the movie was beset by hardship, and left a bad taste in the mouth of a lot of the cast and crew, but I see no reason that it should leave a bad taste in our mouths. It's just too gorgeous a movie to forget about. And any hardship and injury that came of it only makes the cinematic achievement that much more astounding. But ultimately, this movie's greatest achievement is that it surprisingly exudes a maturity that is more common in movies made closer to the present, for example, Mike Leigh's morality-play movies "Vera Drake" (2004) and "Another Year" (2010). It's time "Desire Me" had a re-evaluation, if you ask me.

I just finished viewing "Desire Me" (bad title, I admit), which I began with a bit of trepidation--so off-putting was its reputation as an MGM stinker--but I found myself drawn into its unique realm mainly by the compelling performances of G. Garson and R. Hart. Sadly, R. Mitchum, one of my favorite actors of all time, had little on screen time in which to create a character of depth. Perhaps the filmmakers didn't realize that they had (unintentionally?) created a fine piece of magic realism--the almost mythic setting in a remote and traditionally mystical part of France (the realm of Breton-Arthurian legend and the arcane spiritual 4th dimension of the Celts), land of fog and mists. There are the "singing pool" that Garson shows to Hart, the doppelganger figures of Hart and Mitchum, a deeply troubled Garson's brave navigation of the rough emotional waters between these two men, the superbly photographed climax in deep fog in which one could scarcely distinguish between Mitchum and Hart. The only jarring note was the badly read voice-over introducing a saccharine tone into the concluding moments of the film. I think this is a must-see for anyone claiming to be a knowledgeable fan of 1940s films.