L'amour n'est pas un jeu

The film 'In This Our Life' is adapted from the novel of the same name by Ellen Glasgow (1873-1945), whose novels had healthy sales figures during her lifetime, yet who is now almost totally forgotten. Her own life was extremely unhappy, largely due to unpleasant memories of her abusive father. (In her will, Glasgow stipulated that she was not to be buried in the same cemetery as her father.) If she is remembered at all nowadays, she is classified as both a 'Southern' author and a feminist. A life-long Virginian, Glasgow typically set her stories in that state.

This is the second film directed by John Huston, following his impressive debut with 'The Maltese Falcon'. Considering how far removed the subject matter is from Huston's usual territory, he does an impressive job here. More about Huston a bit later.

Here we have Bette Davis and Olivia de Havilland as sisters, and there are no prizes for guessing which is the bad sister and which is the good 'un. The sisters are named Stanley and Roy, but there's no sexual subtext for those male names. The bad sister, having dumped her boring fiancé (George Brent), sets her cap for the good sister's handsome husband (Dennis Morgan).

In her later years, Bette Davis occasionally gave informal talks at colleges in California. My future sister-in-law was present at one of these. During the Q&A, an eager fan breathlessly pointed out that Bette Davis had co-starred with Bogart, Cagney, Spencer Tracy, Ronald Reagan, Errol Flynn and other great male stars ... so, who was her favourite? Without hesitation, Davis replied 'George Brent', leaving most of the audience to murmur 'Who?'. It's not hard to guess the reason for Bette's preference. Brent was a bland leading man who concentrated on making his leading ladies look good, never generating a screen presence with the wattage of Bogart or Cagney. Davis preferred working with Brent because -- unlike Bogart or Cagney -- she didn't have to compete with him.

Here, as Davis's jilted fiancé, Brent gives possibly the best performance of his career in a maudlin scene, getting drunk on a park bench. When I saw this scene, I burst out laughing: Brent overplays it ridiculously ... but this is perhaps the only time in his career when he didn't underplay.

A superlative performance is given here by a young African-American actor named Ernest Anderson -- no relation to the much older Eddie 'Rochester' Anderson -- as a black man unfairly arrested for a crime committed by Davis. (She's perfectly willing to let him take the rap, of course.) Anderson conveys intelligence and dignity, in an era when most roles for black actors consisted of 'Yassuh!' stereotypes. It's a shame that Anderson's career never prospered; few decent roles were given to black actors in his day. In this film, I was impressed with a scene in an all-negro cellblock, conveying that segregation persists even in prison. Also seen here, all too briefly, is a young black man named Ernest Morrison ... who, as a boy, had appeared in Hal Roach's silent comedy shorts as "Sunshine Sammy".

Now, about the director. John Huston's father Walter Huston was one of the few character actors who had attained first-rank stardom. To bring good luck to his son's first two films ('The Maltese Falcon' and 'In This Our Life'), Walter Huston played small unbilled roles in both. Here, he plays the bartender in a roadhouse where Davis tarries. The same scene introduces a character played by Lee Patrick. This actress was a Warners contract player at the time, but she's now remembered solely for playing Bogart's secretary in 'The Maltese Falcon' (and hilariously parodying that same character decades later, in 'The Black Bird'.) Because Walter Huston and Lee Patrick show up in the same scene in this movie, an annoying (and untrue) rumour has arisen, claiming that all the major cast members of 'The Maltese Falcon' make unbilled appearances in 'In This Our Life'. Bogart, Astor, Lorre, Greenstreet, Elisha Cook, Uncle Tom Cobley and the suicidal Munchkin from 'The Wizard of Oz' are all ostensibly hiding in this movie someplace. A nice story, but it's just not true. During the roadhouse sequence, bartender Huston keeps trying to have a conversation with some dimly-seen customers in the background while Davis is talking in the foreground ... but they're all just unidentified extras. They're definitely NOT the 'Falcon' cast. Adding to the confusion is the presence in this film of John Hamilton as a cop, after playing a D.A. in 'Falcon'.

There are excellent performances all round here; John Huston's prowess as an actors' director is under-rated. Even Hattie McDaniel has better material than usual. Max Steiner's scoring falls below his usual high standard, but even the worst Steiner score is better than almost anybody else's best. My rating: 7 out of 10. Rest in peace, Ellen Glasgow.

The family patriarch (Frank Craven), who has long since lost control of the business he himself started, and winds up only being an employee at, raises two distinctly different daughters. One (played by Bette Davis) is corrupted by her own personality defects and the attentions of her uncle (Charles Coburn), who has plenty of ability in business (it is revealed that he swooped in and took over the business that Craven started at an opportune time), but has a childless and cold marriage and presumably for that reason, showers money, gifts, and attention on his niece, foolishly believing he can buy her love and his happiness. This turns out to be probably Stanley's (Bette Davis) most formative relationship. Why De Havilland's Roy is so different we can only assume was because she came more under the influence of her father (Craven). That involved background story is actually more interesting than the story that is presented in the foreground, of Davis and sister Olivia De Havilland and their relationships with George Brent and Dennis Morgan. Nonetheless, Davis' relationship with Uncle William (Coburn) reaches a climactic point that ties in beautifully with the climax of the film.

Fortunately, I stumbled upon this film airing early one morning on TCM. Bette Davis is quite wonderful, and contrary to what some posters have stated, she actually underplays what could have been an hilarious, scenery-chewing role. DeHavilland is, likewise, outstanding as the initially timid individual, who must cope with the devastating actions of her selfish sister.

Supporting performances are directed well by Houston, with young Ernest Anderson standing out as the wrongly accused black man. It is disappointing that the remainder of his career consisted mainly of parts such as waiters, doormen, porters, etc.

Max Steiner's score is a bit overpowering at times, but he was at the top of his game in the early 40s. The Warner back lot works effectively as Virginia, and the absence of fake/forced Southern accents actually lends credibility to the performances.

As others have stated, I will now seek out the original source material, especially after having learned of its honors. I am curious as to the source of a previous claim that the film was a critical and financial bomb on release.

I loved this film, and it had me howling in several parts, such as the classically predictable ending. Such a great morality tale. I especially liked the portrayal of the developing and mature relationship between Olivia de Havilland and George Brent. This is the best Brent role in a Davis movie. I appreciate Davis not playing a more subtle character, such as in Mr. Skeffington, because the Stanley character is so boorish that she can't consider anything but her own whims and pleasures. She is not evil in the sense of making reasoned choices, but as a child, has no capacity for self denial. Delusionally, she actually thinks that Brent can be lured back under her spell after what she has done to him, and that a wealthy white woman's claim will alway be considered above a young black man's. Her world starts to crumble after she reels off the list of those who accepted her story over Parry's, when her sister, de Havilland says "I believe him." This is an emblematic tale of deliverance and hopeful new beginning. Bravo to all involved.

Wonderful performances by all concerned. And one of the very few films from the 40's that shows a black man who is actually not lazy or stupid--but just a man! Very interesting plot also. I would recommend!!