Und die Nacht wird schweigen

Despite coming off the success of 1959's classic sudser, "Imitation of Life", and 1960's mystery/soap, "Portrait in Black", Lana Turner made a poor career choice with "By Love Possessed". Not a bad film exactly, it does pale in comparison to the other melodramas of Turner's later career. The great cast includes Efrem Zimbalist,Jr., Jason Robards, George Hamilton, Susan Kohner(the black daughter passing as white in "Imitation of Life"), and Barbara Bel Geddes. In this vehicle, Turner plays the alcoholic, pleasure-deprived wife of a handicapped lawyer(Robards). So, she begins an affair with his law partner(Zimbalist), despite the fact that he is married to Bel Geddes and has a son(Hamilton). Hamilton is involved in a lacking side plot in which he's in love with a rich, but mentally unstable local girl(Kohner). The film is super plush and has a great score. However, the character development is so lacking, that by the end of it all we don't care about them. Too bad. It could all have been so good. This movie's only worth a look if you're a big fan of Turner's.

What can be more laughable than a film that attempts to skewer wasp hypocrisy and small-town stereotyping, but uses such stereotyping in it's presentation of characters? This is an unabashed attempt to gather the Peyton Place fans by bringing back Lana Turner to a New England setting in Autumn, along with the period Boy-Man of angst, George Hamilton. While Turner is so good that she can do this type of role in her sleep, and still come off well, the rest of the cast is pretty wooden, especially Efrem Zimbalist. It's easy to see why he could portray an FBI agent on TV so well.

Nothing more than a turgid melodrama, so popular at the time, filmed in color with a panoramic view so that it could lure the women of 1961 away from the B&W small-screen TV daytime soap operas, to see the exact same stuff on a big screen. Pass on it and get Peyton Place instead, unless you're a Lana Turner fanatic.

James Gould Cozzens wrote two novels that were truly great-Guard of Honor and the Just and the Unjust--and ,occasionally, melodramatic junk that was wildly over praised at the time of publication.The ne plus ultra of his ;iterary artlessness was undoubtedly By Love Possessed. When it was published, it was a wildly praised best -seller. The only dissents came from Dwight McDonald, who wrote a hilarious assault on the book called "By Cozzens Possessed", and William F.Buckley, Jr. who took a page and a half to sink it beneath the waves in his National Review. Of course, like all melodramatic best sellers, it eventually had to be made into a Hollywood film. However, the only Hollywood directors at the time capable of making it into a good movie were Sirk (and maybe, just maybe, Preminger).Sirk, in fact, with his exquisitely controlled irony, and his insight into American manners and mores would have produced a chilly, superbly calibrated, yet compassionate melodrama, comparable to All that Heaven Allows, Written on The Wind, or Imitation of Life. Unfortunatly, Sirk had fled Hollywood, and Preminger was busy making Advise and Consent. So the decadent Hollywood system in its "genius' gave it John Sturges. Result: a movie that looks like a Sirk film( thanks to Russell Metty), sounds like a Sirk film, and has the cast and plot of a Sirk film..but isn't a Sirk film. Result..bloated, turgid, melodrama, without a drop of genuine wit, irony, compassion , or human insight. Well, maybe Cozzens deserved it, at least for this one. On the other hand, having carefully read Guard of Honor and The Just and the Unjust, both could be made into superb films-with the right direction and/or cast. Paul Thomas Anderson, are you paying attention?

There's nothing better than Lana's voice when she's being quietly emphatic about whatever ... she can purr with the best of them and takes you back to her earliest days in film. Otherwise, the movie seems to jump all over the place as far as plot/who we really want to focus on. In many ways Zimbalist and Robards should have switched parts: to see Hamilton get riled up each time he has a conversation with the incredibly passive Zimbalist is laughable. Great '60s period piece, great cast - the inimitable Thomas Mitchell (Pa O'Hara from "GWTW"), Everett Sloane and Barbara Bel Geddes ("Miss Ellie" from "Dallas") add to the fun of this soaper (I agree with the review that says "Sirk - without Sirk") and it was a good find.

By Love Possessed (1961)

In the vein of a Douglas Sirk film this is bordering on some kind of flawed masterpiece. It's flawed, it has some stumbles in the writing and story, and it really is awfully conversational and slow--but there is a very serious probing soap opera tone here that's wonderful. Maybe the single largest limitation is that the nexus of all these searching yearning people is a law firm, which lacks a level of romanticism (no offense to all those attorneys out there). And it's all filmed with a flat bright light that smacks of indifference--something you could never accuse Sirk of.

But the best of this is fabulous and cumulative. It gets better as it goes. The writing--the story and the dialog both--is stunning. It might be melodrama, but it has nuance and truth on its side. In fact, the ability to show the bottled up emotional train wreck that much of America experienced in the 1950s is remarkable. There are all these good people, yearning people, who can't quite express themselves. They're smart, they know their dilemma, but they've been so trained to simply be good and lead noble lives that they forgot how to express themselves. Except maybe through words, careful and precious words.

The cast here is stellar. In the lead is an actor at his best, Efrem Zimbalist Jr., who became much better known as a t.v. actor (mainly in the ten year run of "F.B.I."). He's sort of perfect, even if you might find him restrained and polished and unexciting. That's exactly his part, and he plays it with inner conviction. Next to him in the law firm is Jason Robards, a more impressive Hollywood staple, who has a smaller role but another perfect one. Their boss is the aging and almost bumbling Thomas Mitchell, who is by 1961 a kind of legend in the industry, and he's great, adding depth and warmth to the place, as much as a brightly lit law firm has human warmth.

The women are equally strong, from the ever understated and impressive Barbara Bel Geddes as the wife of one lawyer and Lana Turner (no less) as the wife of another. The two children of note are a somewhat dry George Hamilton and an increasingly convincing and moving and subtle Susan Kohner, who are struggling with a rocky relationship. But then, everyone is in a rotten relationship--that's what the movie is about, as the title suggests. Throw in the great Everett Sloane (from "Citizen Kane" and so forth) and Carol O'Connor (the lead in "All in the Family") and you see you have an uncompromising ensemble situation.

Yes, you might say these are all actors of a certain stripe, and no Brando or Newman or Monroe or Janet Leigh or the other flashier names of the day. That's true, and it's partly why the movie eventually sinks in deep and is effective. By the end I was really moved. It seems I'm in mixed company here, as some reviews show a total disconnect (and disparagement) of the film. I can see why someone would say that--and even if you like the overblown and moody Sirk kind of movies (the second "Imitation of Life" above all) you might see this as a, uh, pale imitation.

Maybe. Or maybe it's its own beast, with superb and probing writing, whatever the contrived situation might be behind it all. I also found the first half hour almost unbearable--it's so bland in the filming and so slow in the talk talk talk and so subtle in the non-emotional development of relationship. If you abandon ship too soon you'll miss the best of it. And if you expect a more naturalistic movie than this bottled up play-on-a-screen you'll be disappointed. It is actually based on a book which stormed the New York Times bestseller list in 1957, and was nominated for a Pulitzer (and was later condemned for its pro-establishment and slightly anti-semitic content).

Take this movie for what it is, it might surprise you as much as it did me, giving it some effort after all.