Les Folles Héritières

Like so many movies that were produced in the B&W era, much of this one is filled with melodramatic scenes and lines written to carry along the diverging feelings of a family of three sisters whose lives intermingle merely because they are related, not necessarily because they agree. In fact, it is often difficult to see where the three blend as a family, except that they are guided by the commands of a big sister.

Barbara Stanwyck is that big sister who rules the roost, though not in a way that is intentionally abusive. She thinks she knows what must be done to keep things in line with the purpose she was given as a little girl. It is what her father would have wanted, a devotion to something above even God. He leaves to fight in Europe during WWI where he is killed, which places the house in the care of Barbara Stanwyck.

Do the sisters love one another? Yes, in an argumentative sort of way, as each one's desires cross the others'. Big sister wants no man in her life, doesn't trust them, considers them merely a means to an end. Middle sister is playing romantic games with her little sister's love, Gig Young, which causes the youngest to attempt a drastic solution.

In addition to a housekeeper, the three sisters share their home with a little boy who knows nothing of the secret that's been hidden for a number of years and whose future is a matter for the courts. The little fellow is one of the most polite boys I have seen on screen in a long while -- a refreshing breath when compared to today's norm.

I recommend this film despite the melodramatics. The lines are well written and well spoken. Don't be run away by the negative reviews. This one is worth the time whether you like the ending or not.

When you have three fine actresses like Barbara Stanwyck, Geraldine Fitzgerald and Nancy Coleman, plus an intelligent script, and a good director, you have a very watchable movie. What makes the film particularly good is, that it concentrates on lives of each of the three sisters. Yes, it is a chick flick, but as a man, I found it quite engaging. The one weakness of the film, is George Brent, he lacks sexuality. But, the important point is, that it is an interesting story line, with complexity, and sophistication.

In the case of 1942's The Gay Sisters, more is supposed to mean better. The mansion set and the very epic-like nature of the sisters' story lines signify that it is a top-grade project from a top-grade studio (Warner Brothers). Barbara Stanwyck, as the older sister, Fiona Gaylord, seems to be particularly tough. She is never really a soft-touch, except in those moments where she undergoes a severe script-sanctioned transformation. But I think she is at her most real in this film, and it is more true to her off-screen self. Like the character she plays, she was also orphaned; and also, like the character she plays, she had one son, so in many ways, this project is tailor-made for Stanwyck. It is a treat watching her, and if modern audiences can get over the title, they will discover a classic gem.

Three girls, the youngest descendents of the Gaylord family, one of America's most royal families, are orphaned at a young age. Right before he goes off to France to fight in WWI, their father tells the oldest, Fiona, never to sell the land. By the time the sisters have become adults, they have had to squander most of their money to pay for lawyers to defend their property. Through certain loopholes in the father's will, a man named Charles Barclay stands to gain possession of the Gaylord land, on which he wants to build a complex called Barclay Circle. Barclay is actually based on John D. Rockefeller, who was buying up land and buildings from affluent families in New York so he could build Rockefeller Center.

This film deals mostly with the melodramatic concerns of the three sisters. Fiona, well played by Barbara Stanwyck, although it's certainly not to be counted as one of her best roles, seems like a cold, domineering woman, and it becomes clear that she has some skeletons in her closet. Susanna, played by Nancy Coleman, is a little ditsy and completely in love with a young modern artist named Gig Young. Coleman's was my favorite performance in the film. Evelyn, played by Geraldine Fitzgerald, is a rather pretentious seductress with a monocle who married into noble blood in England, but that doesn't stop her from trying to steal Gig from her sister. The three sisters are developed quite well but, as is the major trend in The Gay Sisters, never well enough. Charles Barclay is played by George Brent. He isn't very good. Well, he would be satisfactory if the story had played out the way it should have, but he always seems like a scumbag in the film. When we're asked to sympathize with him late in the film, it's impossible. Gig Young is played by, huh?, Gig Young. No, he's not playing himself. What happened is that the actor, who had acted in several movies previously under his real name, Byron Barr, was pressured by Warner Brothers to change his name to something more catchy. I'm not sure who made the final choice, but he eventually changed his screen name to Gig Young, after the character whom he plays in The Gay Sisters. Weird, eh? Young is quite good through most of the film, but the script does some unfortunate things with his character late in the film which ultimately harm the audience's sympathy for him. In two other supporting roles, Helen Thimig and Gene Lockhart are quite good.

The Gay Sisters had great potential to turn out to be one of the great cinematic family sagas. The characters are all interesting, as are their situations. Unfortunately, the script never strives for anything more than the simplest melodrama. If it had made the interrelationships of all the major characters more complex, fleshed out, for example, the rivalry between Evelyn and Susanna or made the flashback more intricate, the film could have been fantastic. It also could have fleshed out the prologue more, let us know more about the Gaylord family. We need to care more about the characters and we need to sympathize with them more. And the ending needed some major fixing. It basically just gives up at the end. Fiona's problems are solved so poorly that it hurts. Whatever sympathy her character had gained as the film progressed falls apart. It's also far too happy. This story seems moving towards tragedy, or maybe just a sense of historical significance or loss. And we still hate Barclay. And the conflict between the two sisters and Gig is never solved. As bad as Fiona's story ends, Susanna's, Gig's, and Evelyn's is even worse.

I still liked the film. It's thoroughly watchable, even if it doesn't involve us like other great films of the era. 7/10, mostly for its potential. It should have been remade, or the novel should have been re-adapted, at some point during the studio era. It is too dated to be remade now. The 1950s would have been the best time, during the time of films like Giant.

Most of your reviewers certainly had an aversion to this film. One of them even asserted it had no music despite an excellent score by Max Steiner. I thought Barbara Stanwyck with all her emotional storms and plottings really sizzled. This must have been one of her best roles ever. I couldn't stop watching it though I came in somewhere in a courtroom scene after the beginning and missed all the prologues. I thought the emotional relationships of everybody involved were strong and fascinating. In contrast to most of your reviewers I thought the plot lines got wrapped up satisfactorily and clearly and I was quite happy with how everything finally turned out. Especially with Stanwyck and Brent trying finally to make a go of it basically because of their child. Call me soft hearted and sentimental but I felt for them and their final solution. Though this film rubbed most of your reviewers the wrong way I loved it and thought it was great.