L'ange impur

The Waldo Salt screenplay takes a small story and develops it into an affecting portrait of three surprisingly convincing and complex human characters, all of whom transcend the typical dramatic constraints of late '30s Hollywood. All three principals turn in excellent, low-key performances in perfect keeping with the film's narrative strengths. I find it particularly interesting to compare this with the other bookend to Salt's screenwriting career, Coming Home, also a character-driven story that revolves around the complex, three-way relationship between a woman and the two men who love her in a time of war.

I know I am going to sound really picky here, but the hairstyles and clothes are 1938--not WWI like the movie is supposed to be (other than uniforms). You'd think that MGM would pay attention to this detail, as it was THE top studio at the time. Yet, oddly, nearly everyone (especially the women) wear clothes that just would never have been worn in 1917--and hair to boot. And, when the folks were riding the roller coaster, they almost all had hats on--and none of them flew off! As a retired history teacher, I notice these things and felt the movie didn't try very hard to get these simple details right. So is the rest of the film worth seeing? Well, considering that it's got Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan, what do you think?!

The film is a sweet romance. Stewart is a backward country boy who, unlike all his other friends in the army, does not have a girlfriend and is very awkward around women. So, to stop them from making fun of him, on an impulse, he pretends that an actress (Sullavan) is his girlfriend. Oddly, she feels sorry for him and agrees to the ruse. However, over time, this jaded lady comes to life when she's with Stewart and eventually they fall in love for real. Where it goes next, I won't say--but I was very surprised where the film went. Some may hate the surprise but I appreciated how the writer avoided the clichéd or simple ending.

Well worth seeing despite some poor attention to details. Exceptionally acted (it doesn't get much better) and a dynamite script. See this one.

This one aired on TCM the other day and was well worth seeing. Had heard about it but had never seen it. I thought it was a good example of Jimmy Stewart's work in earlier films before he became a big star.

But as much as I enjoy and admire Jimmy Stewart, I thought Margaret Sullavan took acting honors in this one. Showing depth and range, she went from cold and cynical to sensitive and caring - from a turn-off to someone to root for. I also thought the chemistry between the two was a plus.

Stories like this one have been done many times in the past - country bumpkin meets jaded big-city veteran - but this picture had a unique charm about it that makes movie-going so enjoyable and rewarding. I rated it a well-deserved seven.

James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan made four films together, the most she had with any leading man. In fact Stewart's career was given a considerable boost when Sullavan requested him in the lead of their first film, Next Time We Love. Sullavan had been married to Henry Fonda, Stewart fellow Princeton alumnus from the Triangle Club and Fonda and Stewart were a pair of starving New York actors back in the day.

The film is a sweet romantic story about a young soldier who quite accidentally comes between a Broadway actress and her playboy boyfriend. The story had been previously filmed at Paramount earlier during the last dying days of the silent screen with Gary Cooper, Nancy Carroll, and Paul Lukas in the roles that Stewart, Sullavan, and Walter Pidgeon play here.

Stewart is just perfect as the earnest young private from Texas who Sullavan while using Pidgeon's car as transportation, knocks down in a New York City street. One thing leads to another and Sullavan finds she's got two men on her hands. What to do.

As in all films in Hollywood of 1938 it all gets resolved in a poetic, but tragic way. The leads are cast quite perfectly. I'm surprised this film has not been made again. Hattie McDaniel is in this one also as Sullavan's maid of course. I doubt today though that there would be a Hattie McDaniel type role in it.

While the Stewart-Sullivan pairing doesn't quite live up to the chemistry they have in The Shop Around the Corner, this earlier film shows they had it even then. It's their acting talent that keeps this film from being a major letdown. Walter Pidgeon is also good in his role, for what it is. It's the plot that stinks. The two leads have SO much chemistry that it makes Sullavan's character Daisy Heath's relationship with Pidgeon's Sam Bailey not so realistic. She was supposed to have realized she was still more in love with Sam than ever but it just doesn't quite come across. What does leap off the screen is the chemistry between Bill Pettigrew (played by Stewart) and Daisy Heath..so yes, it's a letdown that Heath is not supposed to be in love with Bill when the plot builds up to it.