Coeurs brûlés

Spirited performances by Crosby, Stevens, Seymour, and E.G. Marshall notches this one above its clinical routes. William Schallert has a wonderful bit as Judge Seymour's secretary. In many ways, a 20-year predecessor to Kramer vs. Kramer -- and in its own way, no less poignant.

Wealthy industrialist Earl Carleton (Bing Crosby) has full custody of his son Ted for the last two years after his divorce. His ex-wife Gwen is back in town with second husband lawyer Bryan Seward. Bryan is a skilled government lawyer and they're looking to share custody. Sam Dunstock (E. G. Marshall) is Earl's lawyer.

Bing is doing a more serious role without any singing. He's still Bing, but the character's stubbornness gets rather awful. He has a seething anger just under the surface which blows up after the judgement. It's a very modern role and a very modern subject matter. The big climax seems to happen in the middle. The self-pitying Earl is not a fun watch. I don't care much about the new romance. After all, it is all about the boy. My mind keeps drifting to Kramer vs Kramer. In a way, this movie is not as good, but it also shows how forward thinking this is. I do have two issues. First, the judgement is rather short-sighted. She should order the boy to go for a summer vacation. This seems to be done for dramatic purposes. Second, the boy is way too stupid. I get that he needs to ask questions about King Solomon, but he sounds so stupid. It would work better if the kid is younger.

This is a beautifully written, produced and acted drama about a bitter divorce situation. The subject is sensitive and the presentation direct, to the point, and brutally honest.

This finely crafted drama slowly builds from its foundation to reveal the ugly side of domestic tension. The photography, editing and music all are effective in their simplicity and at times stark execution.

The acting is top notch throughout, particularly Bing Crosby, Inger Stevens, and Anne Seymour as leads, with the always dependable E. G. Marshall in a supporting role.

An interesting footnote: at this writing the film lacks to date a single professional critic review on IMDb, only user reviews. A careful internet search reveals a most thoughtful review by Bosley Crowther of the N. Y. Times and a revealing article on TCM. Rarely has a work with such top notch actors and artistic accomplishment been so lacking in critical commentary.

For myself, I fully appreciate this "Man on Fire" as a thoughtful, deeply felt and often shattering drama of domestic strife.

Bing might have been one of the most loved singers of the early 20th century but he was no great actor.

From all I've heard he was no great father either. A complete tyrant. His children must have watched this movie in awe, not even recognizing his behavior towards his son.

Definitely a forerunner to "Kramer vs. Kramer" with Bing Crosby starring as a father who has custody of his young son. His wife (Mary Fickett) divorced him years ago for a Washington political person. Crosby is a successful businessman who has a wonderful relationship with his son. Enter mom and her husband who want custody of the child.

Anne Seymour, in a one-scene restrained performance, plays the judge who surprises everyone with her decision to give the boy to his mother since the child has no ties with her. An embittered Crosby goes on a brief binge while being consoled by Inger Stevens, an assistant to his attorney played by the usual movie-lawyer E.G. Marshall.

The film is interesting and well acted by all but my flaw with it is that the child is constantly bounced around as Crosby and Fickett fight it out. In addition, the Solomon-like decision did not apply here. If we remember our bible, the woman who was willing to see Solomon divide the child really didn't love the child at all, if she wanted this to happen. In the film, the mother finally relents as she sees that the child really wants to stay with his father and therefore, in the tradition of Solomon, she loves the child more. This is wrong and the writers of this picture should have read the bible more carefully.

Naturally, everyone comes to his senses in this one by the end as a reasonable solution is obtained. One could question why this solution couldn't be put forth at the beginning of the controversy.

Nevertheless, the film shows insight in its discussing the effects of divorce on children, the anger of one parent in particular and that a child should remain with the female parent. Yet, haven't we come a long way in equality for both parents?