La usurpadora

That old romantic chestnut Back Street gets its third filming and a big Ross Hunter type budget with Ross Hunter type gloss. But the story is still the same.

Stepping into the shoes of Irene Dunne and Margaret Sullavan is another one of the greats and a personal favorite of mine. Susan Hayward is perfectly cast as the ultimate 'other' woman.

The original story was written in the twenties and it has been updated to the fifties and given fabulous European locations in Rome and Paris. But the story begins when Susan who is an aspiring clothing designer meets Marine John Gavin who is awaiting his discharge. It's as it always is, the guy's married as she learns on their next meeting.

One thing leads to another and pretty soon Hayward who is by now a very successful dress designer is working out of Paris where Gavin has also relocated. He's the heir to a department store chain and takes his wife and kids over there to oversee European operations.

In order for us to feel sympathy for Hayward and Gavin in their predicament you have to make the wife the world's biggest shrew. That's what Hunter did, but he cast Vera Miles totally against type. Usually Vera was a good girl on screen. But when she turned bad she was something to see. She really steals the film from Hayward not an easy thing to do against an actress who certainly played her share of bad girls. I'm surprised Miles was overlooked at Oscar time for this performance. In fact traditional casting would have had Hayward the drunk and slutty wife and Miles the understanding mistress.

I can only imagine that Rock Hudson had other commitments because the role of the husband is perfect for him. John Gavin however does a very good job in the part.

Look for a nice performance from Reginald Gardiner as the fashion designer who makes Hayward a protégé. Had this been done at 20th Century Fox instead of Universal, the part would have been Clifton Webb's.

This is a nice version of Fannie Hurst's story of a woman who sacrifices her legal happiness for her man. Maybe Back Street is due for another remake. I can see Meryl Streep now as the either the wife or the mistress.

I feel a great affinity with Back Street because of the way it shows that a love affair will stay exciting and endure longer because the lovers are only able to be together for short periods of time with long intervals between their meetings. The hum drum aspects of married life never changes their relationship. They are on a perpetual honeymoon. Every time they meet it is exciting and they always look forward to seeing each other. I have often thought that if I had never married my husband and just had a relationship with him like Susan Hayward had with John Gavin over the years I probably would have been happier. She had the best of both possible worlds in my estimation. A wonderful successful career and the knowledge that someone loved her passionately and completely all those years. In addition she could return that love without reservation and enjoy the happiness it gave her to do so. I bet there are thousands of married women who watched this movie and had the same thoughts as I.

Third movie-version of the Fannie Hurst novel, following successful adaptations in 1932 and 1941, this time with the glossy and unmistakable Ross Hunter touch. Susan Hayward is hardly a "back street gal" here, she's a would-be dress designer from Lincoln, Nebraska who has a meet-cute with returning soldier (and married man) John Gavin, apparently the sole heir to a department store chain. It takes a few reels to get these two together, but in the meanwhile our heroine goes to New York and then to Rome as the assistant to one of the top fashion designers in the world. Once Gavin catches up to her in Paris--and the gossip hits the fan--audiences can clearly see how dated this plot has become: a sharp, successful businesswoman wouldn't be shamed by her extra-marital affair, she'd be applauded! It isn't believable in the slightest, though producer Ross Hunter's penchant for luxurious suffering reaches almost an unparalleled peak here. The only thing Hunter can't quite fix is the chemistry between Hayward and Gavin; the stars have a comfortable, kiss-on-the-forehead type of love relationship (no big sparks), while Susan treats smitten Charles Drake so badly he completely vanishes from the scene! Vera Miles is a hoot as Gavin's alcoholic wife ("I almost forgot we had kids!"), while the screenplay pulls one astounding melodramatic event after another from its hat. For lovers of these woozy romantic pleasures, "Back Street" would be hard to top. *** from ****

I have watched this film probably more than a dozen times and finally purchased the DVD even though it was only available in full TV-Sized screen format. It may be low brow and poor in most respects for a movie critic's standards, but I love it. I did not think either Hayward or Gavin did a bad or wooden job with their performances. Maybe I am just a patsy for tear-jerker style movies, but I have always enjoyed this movie, even today when it appears so dated and somewhat impoverished by today's standards of movie making. Perhaps we have become too jaded and so-called sophisticated to just sit back and appreciate a story that is reasonably well told and beautifully filmed.

Many of the past reviewers of BACK STREET make good points in their comments on the film, stressing its clichés, its contrivances, its lack of real sincerity and emotion. Although I can see these points here and there, I have been hooked to this film ever since I saw it as a teenager, in the early sixties. Does this attraction have to do with the story itself? For me it does, no matter how rehashed it may be. Does it have to do with the characters? Yes, no matter how trite and unoriginal they may be. Does it have to do with the actors? CERTAINLY, especially Susan Hayward, an actress I admire profoundly, who is capable of keeping my attention as few others can, and who always dazzles with with her technique and capacity to be true, no matter how trashy the material originally is. Of course, BACK STREET owes a lot to its production values, the cinematography, the sets and gowns, but the motive of my attraction lies somewhere else, and it must be deep in myself, an area that was already sensitive to the film's values when I first saw it as a boy of 13.