Hölle, wo ist dein Sieg?

Based upon the popular 1937 novel written by Henriette Duluzy Desporte's grandneice, one Rachel Field, this movie was a prime vehicle for Bette Davis. This was considered Warners big "prestige" picture for 194O, and it shows: no expense in the production costs were spared, it's an exceptionally finely crafted motion picture. Based upon factual incidents, the story tells of how the notorious 1847 murder of the Dutchess (played with venomous relish by the tall & stately Barbara O'Neil) made Henriette the most notoriously suspicious and despised woman in Europe for a time. Originally, O'Neil's interpretation of the horrendously neurotic Dutchess was played looking a disheveled, unkempt mess physically. The producers thought her appearance would be a bit too uncooth for viewers to endure, but that decision robbed O'Neil of a far more effective characterization. As Henriette, Davis is much more subdued than normal, and her performance is genuinely affecting: another victorious portrait added to her quickly growing gallery of unforgettable heroines and vixens. Charles Boyer is fine as the Duc; he and Davis have a most interesting, classy chemistry between them. The children include Richard Nichols (as the adorable Raynald), Virginia Weidler and June Lockhart. Anatole Litvak's direction keeps this 14O minute saga flowing: the result is a handsome period piece which is done in old Hollywood's best style.

This excellent period drama is based on a popular novel of 1939 by Rachel Field. It told a version of the story of the murder, in Paris in 1847, of Fanny Sebastiani Choiseul-Praslin, Duchesse and wife of Theobald, Duc de Choiseul-Praslin. Fanny was the daughter of Marachal Horace Sebastiani, one of the leading political and social figures in the July Monarchy or Orleans Monarchy of France, under King Louis Phillippe (1830 - 1848). This was a middle-class supported monarchy, and was far more liberal than it's predecessor monarchy under King Louis's cousins the Bourbons. But by 1847 it had grown corrupt, and it was suffering a series a serious scandals. The murder of Duchesse Fanny by her husband was the last real blow. Supposedly the marriage had collapsed due to the growing relationship between Theobald and the children's governess, Mlle. Helene Deluzy-Desportes. The actual relationship between the governess and the Duc remains questioned, although most believe she was his lover. Rachel Field, a descendant of Fanny and her later husband, Rev. Martyn Field, presented the governess as the victim of circumstances (working in a household that was falling apart). Finally, whatever the cause, Theobald beat Fanny to death, and tried to make it look like a burglar did it. Instead the Surete was not fooled, and Theobald was arrested. But while under arrest he took poison, and he died denying his guilt and denying the involvement of the governess. Fanny came to America, where she taught school and married into the Field family (her brother-in-law Cyrus was a financier who laid the Atlantic Cable, and her brother-in-law Stephen was an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court). As for the French, they blamed the government for allowing the Duc to escape justice, and within a year the July Monarchy was overthrown. Marachel Sebastiani (Montague Love in the film) died prematurely in 1851 - the last victim of the crime.

The film, except for the pro-Deluzy-Desportes slant, is excellent with a fine, restrained performance by Davis, an intense one by Boyer (who finally explodes in one scene where he shows his thorough hatred for his wife), and a marvelous performance by Barbara O'Neill as Fanny. I would thoroughly recommend this one for movie fans - a fine example of the best of Warner's historical films.

I saw this movie a long time ago - perhaps 50 years to be exact and that time I was not able to comment on it, except of course "I liked it" or not. But now I have just seen it I can say it's a dark picture but plenty of love. There are no kisses not even passionate words, but we feel love emerging from the scenes, not only between a man and a woman, but love for children and most of all love for life. And here, the contrast between hate and love, seems to be an allegory of evil(The Duchesse, a poisoned psycho woman) and good (The Duc and Henriette). Barbara O'Neil, as the Duchesse is wonderful and she deserved an Oscar nomination. Boyer is good in his role and so is Bette Davis. And the children? Well, children are children - always sublime. The movie runs in a very good pace and the only negative point is the anachronism fault, I mean the ball scene where we listen to "The Merry Widow". The year is 1846, but Franz Lehár, his composer was born in 1870, and the operetta premiere was in 1905.

Anatole Litvak certainly loved France.He made films in that country during the previous decade ,some of which were remarkable .He ended his career in Victor Hugo's land but his latter efforts were not really exciting.Even when he was in Hollywood ,he never forgot it as this "all this and Heaven too" ,"Act of love" and parts of "decision at dawn" bear witness.

France is currently rediscovering Litvak who was brought down ,like so many great American directors (Zinnemann ,Wyler,Stevens),by the notorious critics of the Nouvelle Vague and their fusty Cahiers du Cinéma.But now their diktats are over and thanks to many contemporary historians of the French cinema (Bertrand Tavernier,Patrick Brion),he is given in the country which was another homeland to him the place he had always deserved.

"All this and Heaven too" might be my favorite Litvak movie,although his American career is as rich as that of any director .In spite of a historical gaffe ("that woman overthrew Louis Philippe "is as laughable as Marie Antoinette's sentence (which she never said) "let them eat cake".

La Restoration and Louis -Philippe: After the 1789 French Revolution ,the nobles emigrated and Napoleon ,who was eager for a Court,made a new nobility.His officers ,who were of common birth,were conferred a title :"Baron d'Empire" for instance;that was Henriette's grandfather's case.

Henriette is of that kind an old noble such as la Duchesse de Praslin can only treat like dirt;those nobles were impostors!With Henriette,it was hate at first sight,even before she became dear to the duke and the children.

That old nobleness,epitomized by the duchess ,was all bigotry,religion ,but they were socialites first.In the XIX th century ,those chic ladies did not care about their children they left to their governess .The Duchess was not alone: Balzac,Maupassant,Flaubert (Madame Bovary did not really like her daughter) and even a writer for children such la Comtesse de Segur painted a picture of the "bad" mother .The story happens in 1846-1847,and Louis -Philippe's days as a king are numbered.The writers are asking for Republic:Lamartine who is mentioned in the film,and Victor Hugo -who wrote the article about Henriette in la Conciergerie- were not the least ;the latter was forced to exile himself after the fall of the short-lived Second Republic (1948-1952).

Had he lived half a century before,the duke would have been part of the daring nobles such as La Fayette who fought for the Revolution.Even if we are not told so,his union was probably a marriage of convenience.The Duchess is egoistic,neurotic,hateful ,incapable of love and affection her children long for.A "pious " woman ,but a woman who uses a priest to keep a close watch on her husband.Note the presence of the priest in the bedroom of a dying child.

Litvak's directing is mind-boggling.He perfectly recreates the atmosphere of the desirable Hotel Particulier where the duke lives.His style is refined : the ball which we see on reflection on the mirrors is a scene Max Ophuls would have died for;the brief moment of happiness on Hallows Eve ;the snow ,symbol of purity:the duke is as virtuous and as loyal as Henriette.The performance in the THeatre Royal which the king attends and which finally backfires on the two heroes:Racine's "Phedre" -Rachel who is mentioned was the thespian of the era,her portrayal of the Greek heroine (whose situation is not unlike the chaste lovers') was praised to the skies then-.

The prologue and the epilogue are excellent: the long flashback is introduced in a very original way.Davis ,in front of the blackboard full of trigonometric formulas ,begins to tell her tale. One of her lines in the epilogue is the most moving in the whole film :"Now,you write the ending of my story" she tells her students .

An absorbing screenplay,where even a fairytale (do you want to be happy when you are young or later when you get older?/I'd rather be happy later:if I've got everything now,what can I expect from life afterward?) plays a prominent part.

French Charles Boyer and Bette Davis give superlative performances and the supporting cast(Barbara O'Neil almost steals the show from Davis sometimes) including the four children (special mention for little Reynald) is up to scratch.This is the Creme de la Creme of the melodrama genre.

"All This and Heaven, Too," is a soap opera, but of the best kind. It tells an adult story in a genuinely moving way. The involved viewer will have cried several times before the final fade-out; the movie earns its tears, and then some.

Its best features include:

Bette Davis' performance. Before this I knew she was a spectacular entertainer; now I know she can act. She is subtle and yet tremendously powerful. Her eyes, her dignified intelligence, and her self-restraint speak volumes. No camp here, just the telegraphing of quiet power.

Charles Boyer. Boyer was a man of substance; he served his country in World Wars I and II, studied philosophy at the Sorbonne, and stayed married to the same woman for over forty years. Again, as with Davis, he is restrained, as the narrative demands, but his substance telegraphs out of his body, his forced, tragic smiles, his stiff mien suddenly breaking into fitful efforts at frivolity, the quiet endurance with which he, at first, suffers his hated wife.

Barbara O'Neil is unforgettable as the Duchess de Praslin. O'Neil was the model of noble womanhood as Scarlett O'hara's mother; here she casts her decorum aside, after, first, shredding it to bits. I think I'll never be able to watch her in GWTW again without cracking up. Every Gothic Romance, including this one, requires a Hoyden - Rochester's mad wife, "Rebecca's" Mrs. Danvers. O'Neil chews them all to bits and spits them out. Even her false eyelashes appear as weapons, able to eviscerate her husband and her hated governess.

The supporting cast is no less superb. June Lockhart is a believably loving daughter; Harry Davenport, utterly un-French, is a wonderful, prophetic Pierre who warns Bette Davis and the viewer that when they enter the house of the Duke and Duchess, they enter Hell, and all hope should be abandoned.

Even the nasty girl who taunts Bette Davis at the opening of the film could not have been better cast.

Though black and white, the film reveals its high production values; it is rich and varied and offers the eye a sumptuous feast of fabrics, surfaces, and shadows. You won't miss color here at all.

I am torn about the plot, trying to decide if the movie wanted to make me, the viewer, experience the Duke as a weak man who allowed Mlle D, Bette Davis, to be exposed to so much social and emotional danger. I'd welcome others' thoughts on this question. In his apparent weakness, the Duke reminded me of the Paul Henreid, "Jerry" character in "Now Voyager," another married man who loved, and failed, a Bette Davis character.