Femme ou maîtresse

I liked this film a lot because it's a rare movie where Joan Crawford doesn't overshadow her male co-stars and here she is pitted up against two fine male actors who match her emotions and intelligence. Dana Andrews was never better stepping out from his usual good guy roles to play a heel with compassion. Mr Andrews acting is both subtle and emotinaly strong. Coming off his strong performance a year earlier in the Best Years of Our Lives he was clearly at his peak at this time. There is a lot going on in this film from suggestions of child abuse on the part of Ruth Warrick to an interesting spin on the theme of infidelity where the most sympathetic character is the "other" woman Daisy Kenyon. I can see why this role would have appealed to Ms. Crawford having played variotions on it in "The Women" and "Rain" among others throughout her career. She is the wise one here and it makes the movie very interesting for that reason. I won't say who wins her in the end but it leaves a nice smile on your face and you have a little laugh to boot.

I wanted to respond to a few comments about this wonderful film (which was a strong and highly effective character study). Dana Andrews received billing over Henry Fonda because Andrews was at the peak of his career with A WALK IN THE SUN, LAURA, THE FALLEN ANGEL AND THE BEST FILM OF 1946, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIFE. He was a superstar at that time and held on to stardom until the early 1960s but in films of lesser quality as the years went by. He was an excellent and underrated actor.

Henry Fonda, whose first starring role was in 1935, was in the middle of his long career, not in the early stages as one writer said. Fonda, after serving 3 full years in WWII, had a difficult time maintaining his stardom, was never a strong box office star but was an outstanding actor. Fonda did not make any films after 1948 until MR. ROBERTS in 1955, his comeback. He constantly did fine and critically acclaimed stage work. Peter, his son, said he was gray-listed because of his liberal political views also. Fonda worked in major films with lead roles in films and on television until his death in 1982.

Fonda was under contract and was forced to perform in this film by his studio. Andrews liked working with Otto Preminger and did so 4 times. Andrews was easy to work with and the autocratic Preminger liked Andrews because of his professionalism, easy going personality and outstanding acting ability.

I was surprised that something more was not said or done about Dana Andrews' child torturing wife. Andrew shed a tear but did not report this beast to the authorities. (She yanked on her child's ear until the ear bled and the child had a significant ear ache.) That, even in the dark ages, should have been enough to have the child removed from her care, wouldn't it?

This film is the latest release in the Fox Film Noir DVD series. Although it is not a noir film at all, but is instead a potent emotional melodrama, this does not matter. We don't complain, do we, when splendid DVDs of classic films are released under any pretext from those perfectly preserved negatives sitting in California archives crying in unison: 'Release me! Release me!' Anything directed by Otto Preminger is welcome. He may have been a nightmare as a person, but his films were terrific. This film is beautifully directed, and the lighting by Ken Shamroy and the sets by art directors George David and Lyle Wheeler all combine to give tremendous atmosphere to a film which could so easily have had none. Shamroy's lighting is not only good because of the shadows, but the subtle ways he picks out the faces and the eyes. Those were the days! Who can do that so well now? The Hollywood stars then knew how to play to their lights in order to deify themselves to still higher celestial orders. In those days, facial surgery took place by lighting methods, and there was no need for the knife. I am far from being a Joan Crawford admirer, but although she was an even worse nightmare than Preminger as a person, she can act with fantastic, mesmeric power when she wants to. And she does so here. The story is about a confused 'independent woman' of the immediate postwar era who is a mistress of a self-absorbed cad and the wife of a perversely self-denying idealist. Which shall she choose? She dithers with all the uncertainty of a woman in love who is not sure with whom. Does she go for the strong and cruel one, or the weak and adoring one? (Animal instinct always urges the former, on the premise that it is a better breeding prospect for the species that the strong, however cruel, should procreate.) Dana Andrews, usually a nice guy in films, here does a very good job of being a real jerk. Henry Fonda always found it easy, with his relaxed, gangly walk of a hillbilly, to be Mr. Nice Guy, since after all, only nice guys walk like that. He doesn't have a lot of acting to do, but what is needed is there. (No need to chew gum or 'baccy' this time.) This love triangle is greatly aided by a spectacular performance in a supporting role by Ruth Warrick as a harridan wife of Dana Andrews, although the fact that she is a child abuser who beats up her own little girl is severely down-played in the film. There are some wonderful small touches: a garrulous taxi driver reciting endless boring statistics about his trade, and a glassy-eyed couple who descend the stairs and do not say hello, the woman surprisingly being former silent film star Mae Marsh! Yes, it is a pity about the Greenwich Theatre being gone, not to mention Pennsylvania Station, of the interior of which we get a glimpse. This is a powerful soap opera story raised to a higher level by the talent involved.

I've seen about a dozen Preminger films and this is my favorite. I wasn't expecting too much once the movie began because it seemed I had seen this all done before but Preminger's characters (as is usually the case) are much more realistic than typical Hollywood movies of this era. The characterization actually compares favorably to foreign films of the time, like for example Quai des Orfèvres from the same year; this movie could easily have been a French production. I'm not much a fan of Crawford or Fonda but this is probably the best I've seen Fonda; and Crawford was just fine. Dana Andrews is superb - probably his best movie! What made this movie for me was that I could relate to all three main characters - in many ways they are more ideas (or philosophies) than actual people but the odd thing is that the line was so blurred that even though I knew this was the case I still enjoyed them as people. What puts this above the other Premingers I've seen is the very tight script, the fast pacing, and three fully realized characters that came across not only as real but as themes in themselves. Add in a memorable supporting cast and everything just blends together to make a perfect concoction.

Though the second half descends into more suds than the first, the movie is more uncompromising than I expected. Daisy (Crawford) gets caught up in a triangle between married man O'Mara (Andrews) and returning soldier Lapham (Fonda). The latter is a sweet guy who more importantly wants to marry her, while the high-powered attorney O'Mara seems more interested in himself. The trouble is Daisy can't seem to resist the self-centered attorney. Worse, he's got two loving little girls at home and a wife who would respond if he just treated her right. So, Daisy's head is pulled in one direction, while her heart is yanked in the other.

Surprisingly, it's really Andrews's movie as he plays the cad to forceful perfection. At the same time, dear Joan's more restrained than expected as she anguishes over the next tug on her heart strings. Fonda slyly low-keys it until the end when we finally get some insight into the ex-soldier's taciturn style. Together, the three play off one another effectively, and they better since their interactions comprise the movie.

The first half sets up the predicament pretty compellingly as we get to know the three main characters. It's hard to like O'Mara and his abrupt manner until we see him soften with his enchanting daughters (Garner & Marshall). Then too, the problems with his wife appear more his doing than hers. But is divorce the answer and does Daisy really want something more permanent with a guy who would leave such a promising family, especially with a nice guy like Lapham waiting in the wings.

No need to give away the ending, except I think it's more unsparing than I expected, particularly for the two little girls. All in all, it's Joan hitting the right emotional keys, even if Andrews steals the film.