L'insoumise

They said that nobody was better than Bette than when she was bad and in "Jezebel" she is pretty rank, hardly batting an eye as she encourages her suitors to fight duels over her. This is the one in which she wears a red dress to the ball when it was the custom for unmarried young ladies to wear white. Naturally she not only scandalizes the town but loses her uptight fiancée (Henry Fonda, excellent) as well. Of course she redeems herself in the end but it takes a dose of Yellow Fever for her to do it.

It was said she got the part as compensation for losing out on the role of Scarlett O'Hara and to make up for the slight she also got a (richly deserved) second Oscar. She's quite wonderful in the part as is Fay Bainter as her Aunt Belle, (Bainter also won an Oscar), and, as God is my witness, even George Brent is good this time round but then that great actor's director William Wyler was at the helm. It was, of course, a prestige production and John Huston was one of the three credited script writers and if the material was something of a sow's ear Wyler did manage to make a silk purse out of it.

The American South has always had an aura of sadness around it. I don't know why exactly. This film tends to reinforce that perception. Characters start off with high hopes for the future, only to succumb to some unfortunate fate, as a direct result of their Southern roots.

In pre-Civil War New Orleans, Julie Marsden (Bette Davis) is a wealthy young woman, engaged to respected banker Preston Dillard (Henry Fonda). But Julie is strong-willed, independent, and impetuous, traits considered unwomanly by that era's Southern aristocracy. Against Preston's wishes, Julie wears a red dress, instead of the customary white, to a gala ball. This event sets up the rest of the story.

While the support cast in "Jezebel" is fine, especially Fay Bainter, the film would not be the same without Bette Davis. I just can't see anyone else in the role of Julie. Davis' performance and the film's setting are what make this film so memorable. The costumes, the production design, the cinematography, and the music combine to convey a genuine sense of the antebellum South, with its stately manners that conceal narrow-mindedness and barbaric "chivalry".

Normally, I don't care for films whose subject matter is long ago history. But "Jezebel" is an exception, because it is so well made. I guess it is the tone of the film that really got my attention. The stately beauty of that time and place masks an underlying sadness, as a prelude to tragedy. Some might call it melodrama. But to me, that's just good drama.

It is 1850's New Orleans, and Julie Marsten (Davis), a head-strong young woman who doesn't find it the least improper to be late for her own engagement party because she feels like riding her horse instead, is getting married to Preston Dillard (Fonda). Unfortunately, Preston isn't at the party because he is hammering out business at his family's bank; when they are married, he and Julie will be moving north, an almost sacrilegious action during this time. Buck Cantrell (George Brent) is Julie's former beau, who remains a family friend and still defends Julie's honor. One day, when Preston doesn't drop everything to attend a dress fitting for Julie that he had originally promised to attend, she defiantly insists that she purchase a red dress, breaking the white dress only tradition for the ball they were attending. Despite the protestations of everyone she knows, including Preston, she wears the dress to the ball, causing her to be ostracized and the official break up of her engagement to Preston when he realizes that he cannot deal with her headstrong attitude. He leaves for the north without her, and comes back a year later with a surprise, and sees that Yellow Fever has gripped New Orleans, a peril that threatens everyone.

"Jezebel" is a tale of defiance, love and redemption. Davis plays her role so well that it is hard to determine whether you want to support her or marginalize her as a spoiled brat. I think that even when the film was made, (1938) the lines were still blurred as to how many freedoms and how much free-thinking should be afforded to women. It is easy for me to say that Julie's red dress was much ado about nothing, but then again, this is the millennium, when nothing is overtly shocking anymore. The mere fact that I thought so much about a classic film (which generally has throwaway plots) is a true testament to Davis' performance and the writing, under William Wyler's direction. "Jezebel" is essentially "Gone with the Wind" without the budget or the color, and was made the year before that film was released. Most of the characters are fairly throwaway, but the subject is Julie, and her development is amazing and very believable, despite the melodramatic genre. This is a film that most classic film lovers have seen, I'm sure (I am apparently a late bloomer in regard to this film) but if you are one and you haven't seen it, or are a Bette Davis fan, see this movie. Most of her late 30's to 1950 films are so spectacular just because of her performance (if the rest is good, it's gravy), and this is one of her best known performances. 7/10 --Shelly

There are lots of cases in classic-era Hollywood where a hit movie has been followed by a lesser copycat from a rival studio. However, the gargantuan and protracted production of David O. Selznick's Gone with the Wind was of such public interest that Warner Brothers could actually pre-emptively get on board the antebellum melodrama bandwagon before it really got going. And thus Jezebel became Warner's 1938 vehicle for its top female star, Bette Davis.

Davis had already won considerable critical and popular acclaim, establishing her type as the archetypal woman scorned. Despite having already won an Oscar for Dangerous in 1935, this is her first really magnificent performance. Her earliest work, while certainly very powerful, was often a little exaggerated and lacking control. In Jezebel however she manages to cram in all that fiery personality, even into tiny details like the way her head bobs as she walks, but with so much more finesse and restraint. The result is very realistic but still utterly engaging. Her lead man Henry Fonda could not match her for experience but he has a decent manly presence that makes him well-cast here. Fine support is given by Fay Bainter, acting like the movie's conscience, numerous reactions playing out on her face. There's also Donald Crisp, struggling with a southern drawl even though he was normally a master at accents, but giving a commanding turn all the same. And finally, watch out for a young(ish) Eddie "Rochester" Anderson.

It's no wonder there is so much top class acting in Jezebel when the director is William Wyler. Wyler, known for his repeated takes and painstaking perfectionism, no doubt had a hand in shaping Davis's sublime performance. But what Wyler also does is actually draw our focus upon the right person and the right facet of their performance for any given moment. Look at the social gathering scene where we first meet Davis and Bainter's characters. Wyler is continually rearranging the players and the camera to frame one face or another. The following scene at the bank's boardroom begins with a fairly standard establishing sweep across the table. Now, remember that Henry Fonda wasn't an especially big star at the time and audiences wouldn't necessarily have picked him out. And yet Wyler makes us realise that he is the one to watch by the way he is staring thoughtfully ahead, the only one whose face we really see full on, the one who stands out even though other characters are talking and nodding their heads. And that's in this innocuous camera move, without any obtrusive close-up or dolly in on Fonda. This is the beauty of Wyler's direction – he makes you notice things without noticing you've noticed them.

And now a few brief words on the Max Steiner musical score. Steiner represented a growing trend in Hollywood of lavish, blaring scores that underlined every single emotion in the picture. His work in particular is rather blunt and even distracting at times. This however is among his more restrained scores, and also happens to be nice and low in the mix. As it's not blasting out over every scene you can actually appreciate just how much complexity and timing there is at work here. Different characters and ideas have their own little leitmotifs. When Davis hears that Pres is returning, their love theme cuts seamlessly into the score on the very instant his name is mentioned. There is even a little peal of bells when she mentions the possibility of marriage. It's still not necessarily the best way of adding music to a motion picture, but one must at least admire the skill and precision that has gone into the score's construction.

Despite the similarities in setting and spitfire heroine, Jezebel is of course very different from its competitor Gone with the Wind in terms of scale. The latter movie, for all its melodramatic roots is a tour de force in lavish historical sweep and epic storytelling. Jezebel by contrast is a firmly small-canvas picture with a rather trite storyline, and the only thing to really keep the viewer hooked throughout is Bette Davis's arresting acting performance. Still, it is far from being some cheap knock-off, and can be considered a light piece of chamber music to Gone with the Wind's orchestral symphony.

... because in the Bible Jezebel was a worshipper of Baal who encouraged brutality against all who opposed her. Bette Davis as 1852 southern belle Jule Marsden, just seems at first intent on subverting the will of her fiance Preston Dillard (Henry Fonda) to her own. Their battle of wills escalates until she wears a red dress to a ball when all single women are supposed to dress in white. An unexplainable southern custom with probably silly roots, just like everybody calling a slave "Uncle Kato" when he is NOT your relative, he is forced labor. But I digress. Preston and Julie break up over the issue of the red dress, and Preston leaves New Orleans and goes to New York to take a job in a sister bank to try and forget. Who knew that banks had branches in the 1850s?

Preston is gone for a year. Julie finds her pride is cold comfort, and when Preston returns she intends to beg his forgiveness. Unfortunately, life is what happens when you are making plans and Preston returns from New York with a wife - Amy (Margaret Sullivan). Julie is devastated because marriage in 1850 is pretty much permanent, and yet she plans to break up this marriage which she considers illegitimate at least partially because Amy is a Yankee. This is where the plot goes a bit haywire. Julie does lots of disruptive things, but she is just plain terrible at executing her so-called cunning plan.

Did Preston marry Amy on the rebound and just intended to stick with it because he is a southern gentleman? Is Julie perhaps obsessed at this point rather than in love - like Scarlet O'Hara was with Ashley Wilkes - but just figured that out sooner? I don't know. The actors never tip their hand. Maybe because of astute direction, maybe because of a lack of direction so they don't know themselves.

I'd say this film is reverse synergy - the parts are greater than the whole. Bette Davis' acting was surely worthy of her Oscar, because her acting transcends the meandering plot. The dress looks red in the ballroom scene in spite of the black and white photography. All of the small individual scenes are so well done, and you have great supporting performances in the persons of Fay Bainter, George Brent, and Donald Crisp. I'd give the plot just a 5/10. All of the other things I mentioned raises my appraisal to a 7/10. An unpopular opinion I know.