Hilda Crane

Women dominate the movie : Jean Simmons, excellent as ever, as a woman who wants to live like a man at a time woman's lib had not yet happened ; her character is very modern : a racy past ,two failed marriages and yet,she comes back to her native town to latch onto one of the best matches :Russell ,a well-to-do guy ,still waiting for her . But this boy has an overpossessive mom, masterfully played by Evelyn Varden as the worst mother-in-law you can think of :doesn't she get as far as to compile a complete file about Hilda ,actions , doings ?

By comparison ,male acting is lackluster:Guy Madison was not suited for melodramas -action movies is his field- and French romantic male lead of the thirties in his native land Jean -Pierre Aumont is already too old for the part of a professor/novelist:maybe his slight accent could seduce a woman who's seen it all before ?or is -it some nostalgia for her student years?

The colors are sparkling in the restored version , recalling Douglas Sirk's melodramas ,but the master is not here .

Hilda Crane (Jean Simmons) is a woman who was just divorced for the second time and she's returned to her old home town to visit with her mother...and perhaps pick up a new husband in the process. The problem is that she's narrowed it down to two guys---both of which would make horrible husbands. Evidently Hilda's learned nothing during her adult life.

The problem with Russell (Guy Madison) is that she really doesn't love him, he's a 'momma's boy' and his mother is incredibly difficult. The mother is worried about her son marrying a woman twice divorced (a very reasonable concern) but she handles it about as badly as possible by being manipulative and vicious. As for the other guy, the Professor (Jean-Pierre Aumont), she loves him...though his intentions are simply dishonorable. He is passionate and offers thrills...but he essentially wants her as a mistress and makes no bones about it. Oddly, the film acts as if these two putzes are her only options. Marrying a goat would make more sense than either of these two guys.

"Hilda Crane' is well made. But the film is a difficult sell because it's hard to like or respect the titular character. Instead of remarrying, she could use some time out as well as therapy! And, by the end of the movie, it's obvious that she's suffering from a mental illness or a personality disorder. In this sense, the film is very interesting...even if you don't like Hilda or care about her poor life choices. Worth seeing but not one of Simmons' more enjoyable pictures.

There is nothing to commend this poor excuse for a film. They call it a movie, but it is even worse than a stage play. It comes nowhere near the quality of 'Footsteps in the Fog', and obviously Jean Simmons lends her name to this project so that it can sell. None of the characters are sympathetic. They are all one-dimensional, and the story itself is unengaging. It is typical of certain studio films in the 1950s which were poorly written, poorly acted and poorly directed.

I would advise all Simmons fans to stay away from this film as it adds nothing to her canon of work, nor will you miss anything but not seeing it.

If there were a variant on the Bechdel Test that involved a film containing a scene in which two women are engaged in a conversion and one of them is incessantly talking about herself - and particularly about her feelings - 'Hilda Crane' would pass such a test with flying colours.

Despite both male leads being of the Alpha variety, the real action derives from the interaction of the women of the piece; especially the conflict between sweet Jean Simmons (suffering in the lap of luxury while draped in furs in the sort of role you'd normally expect to see Joan Crawford) and grotesque matriarch Evelyn Varden.

I am surprised to read so many bad reviews of this movie on IMDd after having watched the restored version in glorious Technicolor and CinemaScope. Jean Simmons shines as usual and most of the secondary characters deliver a more than satisfying performance. Editing, cinematography and direction are fine.

So I agree with the former review untitled "Feverish melodrama, fifties malaise", except for one important point: I found the David Raksin score to be extremely annoying in the numerous intimate scenes with dialogue, undermining them with strings. It's not a matter of using dissonant music, rather a too old fashioned, and sirupy approach. Except for the opening titles and a few short dynamic passages, Raksin did a lousy job which actually deserves an otherwise very good film.