Bad for Each Other

Charlton Heston stars as doctor and retired Army colonel Tom Owen. He has returned to his home turf, the small mining town of Coalville. The miners hate him because of something his now-dead brother did years earlier, but the upper crust of Coalville society are excited by the new hunky doctor's arrival. With the help of rich man-eater Helen (Lizabeth Scott), Tom is soon in private practice, catering to the lonely and wealthy women of Coalville. His nurse Joan (Dianne Foster) wants to practice the "right kind of medicine", but is Tom only interested in a fast buck and a good time?

This was just terrible, badly written and even more poorly acted. Heston wins the prize for "Worst in Show", delivering his lines in the most grating, hammy way imaginable, while also exhibiting some of the most overwrought physical business I've ever seen on the screen. The script never fails to tell you how wonderful Heston's Tom Mason is supposed to be, even if we are given scant evidence of it. Every woman falls at his feet, while every man is either in awe or angry with jealousy. Some may enjoy how the movie moves from just bad to amusingly camp, while others will just hit the "stop" button and find something better to do with their remaining time.

Army surgeon Charlton Heston is happy with his work, but a visit home to the coal-mining town he was born in,as well as society vamp Lizabeth Scott, make him think there's more to life than patching up wounded soldiers. At first he's interested in serving the poor people he grew up with. However Miss Scott gets him a job with society doctor Lester Matthews and becomes engaged to him. He finds his practice consists largely of giving nostrums to wealthy women at $250 a visit. Finally his nurse, Dianne Foster, leaves him to assist Dr. Arthur Franz, who's taking care of the miners and their families. His crisis of faith, however, is yet to come.

Heston has already developed his deep-throated growl in this movie, although he has not perfected it. It has a quality to it that I think is supposed to denote dissatisfaction, but sounds whiny to me. In a world where everyone else struggles for status and wealth, it's up to the woman at the top of both trees to point out the necessity of honesty and honor; well, she's the only one who can.

Maybe if John Garfield had been cast instead of Charlton Heston (who looks and moves like Frankinstein's monster here); and if the producers (writers? director?) had not backed away from the mine safety, health, and company criminal negligence theme that packs a punch in the first ten minutes of the movie.

This film is an 83 minute sermon on selflessness vs selfishness, with particular emphasis on the medical profession. The dialogue is full of grandiose turns of phrase that often mean nothing and do not advance the plot. No one's acting stands out because almost everyone is playing a one-dimensional type.

Charlton Heston stars as the only character with any choices to make or an arc to follow. At the start of the story, he plays a skilled military surgeon on leave after the death of his brother. He is initially content to remain in the army where he has been doing good. However, immediately upon arriving in his old hometown, he is offered two positions in private practice. One serving the poor for little pay, one coddling the wealthy for big bucks. He doesn't even have to think about it. Lizabeth Scott plays his new girlfriend, although there is no chemistry between them at all. They both profess their love for the other, but his interest in her seems to be her rich friends, her interest in him is his status as the current fashion.

In case Heston's "bad choices" are not obvious enough, another young doctor and a nurse who both care more about people than money are provided for contrast. Both came to town because they were so impressed by Heston when he was a "real" doctor while in the army. Could that mean he might yet choose the right path?

Finally, to underline the film's version of right vs wrong choices even further is Mildred Dunnock as Heston's mother. She proudly lives in poverty and is distressed that her two sons both preferred a wealthy lifestyle and the corrupting influence of rich women. Neither of her sons appear to have done anything to help out their mother, not for any reason explained in the script, but just because for the sake of the film, everyone must be identified as poor or rich.

Subtle this script is not. Once everything is set up for us, with all the "correct" choices clearly flagged, the rest of the film is just following a predictable path (with some nonsensical speeches) until Heston reaches all the right conclusions.

Charlton Heston ("Col. Owen") returns from almost ten years as an army surgeon to his Pennsylvania home to find that his dead brother has been accused of sloppy practices that caused fatalities at a coal mine. His mother (Mildred Dunnock) and local doctor "Scobee" (Rhys Williams) hope he will stay and help the local community, but he discovers that his late brother had run up quite a bit of debt and determines to pay it back. A chance meeting with the "Helen" (Lizabeth Scott) - the daughter of the man who holds the debt - introduces him to new opportunities. She is wealthy, twice divorced, and well connected. His quick thinking after an incident at a party sees an association with prominent, and rather venal, doctor "Gleeson" (Lester Matthews) offer him a route to success and prosperity. Along the way, he proposes to "Helen" and all looks set fair. Much of this film takes a swipe at the hypochondriac patients - mostly wealthy women - and at the physicians who are little better than charlatans; charging a small fortune for glorified Alka Seltzer. Will "Owen" continue to be satisfied with this increasingly unfulfilling existence or will his innate instincts developed during wartime send him back to tend to the more legitimate and urgent needs of the community at large? Heston is a bit on the wooden side here, he delivers his dialogue rather stiltedly and without much passion. Scott is adequate - but more as an effective conduit for the decisions the doctor might make, and there is a decent, if sparing, contribution from Dianne Foster as the voice of reason in the man's increasingly conflicted life - and not just professionally, either. It's way too wordy but it does offer food for thought about practices that probably still exist today and is a bit better than I was expecting.