VALUTAZIONE IMDb
7,5/10
15.355
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaThe wife of a rubber-plantation administrator shoots a man to death and claims it was self-defense, but a letter written in her own hand might prove her undoing.The wife of a rubber-plantation administrator shoots a man to death and claims it was self-defense, but a letter written in her own hand might prove her undoing.The wife of a rubber-plantation administrator shoots a man to death and claims it was self-defense, but a letter written in her own hand might prove her undoing.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Candidato a 7 Oscar
- 5 vittorie e 9 candidature totali
Elizabeth Inglis
- Adele Ainsworth
- (as Elizabeth Earl)
Victor Sen Yung
- Ong Chi Seng
- (as Sen Yung)
Zita Baca
- Undetermined Role
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Brooks Benedict
- Party Guest
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
William A. Boardway
- Trial Spectator
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
David Bruce
- Undetermined Role
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
James Carlisle
- Attorney
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
George Ford
- Party Guest
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Recensioni in evidenza
In `The Letter' William Wyler takes a predictable plot and turns it into a brilliant film with the help of one of the grande dames of film. For hell hath no fury like Bette Davis with a revolver in her hand.
The film opens with Leslie Crosby (Bette Davis) emptying her revolver into a man on her front porch, shooting him twice after he hits the ground. She tells the police she was defending herself against his sexual assault. She seems to be headed for an easy acquittal until (surprise) an incriminating letter surfaces that suggests that she summoned the victim to her house with the clear intention of murdering him.
Can the evidence be suppressed? Will she be acquitted? Was she really in love with the victim? The answers to these questions are obvious to all but the most naïve viewer. Yet, despite the transparency of the plot, this film works for two reasons: Bette Davis and William Wyler.
Bette Davis is arguably among the best actresses of all time. She was originally signed by Universal Studios, who dropped her because she didn't have the looks to be a movie star. Still, Warner Brothers decided to take a chance on her in 1932, signing her to a seven-year contract that would produce two Oscars. She was nominated for best actress eleven times, winning twice (`Dangerous', 1936 and `Jezebel' 1939). She was nominated five straight years from 1939 to 1943. This performance was in the middle of that run. It is classic Bette Davis, utterly in command of every scene. Her portrayal of Leslie is superb, a duplicitous and cunning woman who could manipulate any man to do her bidding. It took another woman to humble her. This is Davis in her prime and it is awesome to see her at work. She could make a dog food commercial exciting to watch.
What Davis was to acting William Wyler was to directing. (The two shared more than a professional relationship, and it was widely rumored at that time that they were romantically involved.) Wyler was nominated for best director twelve times winning three (`Mrs. Miniver', 1942; `The Best Years of Our Lives', 1943; `Ben Hur', 1960). Like Davis, he was also nominated for this film. Wyler's camerawork here is fantastic. In black and white films, lighting is critical, because the director doesn't have the luxury of relying on color to dramatize the images. Aided by veteran cinematographer Tony Gaudio, Wyler's use of lighting and shadows in this film is brilliant. It could serve as a primer for dramatic black and white cinematography. Gaudio was also nominated for an Oscar for this film, one of his six nominations in a forty-year career.
This film was nominated for seven Academy Awards, including best picture, but it was shut out. Despite a predictable story, I rated it a 9/10 on the strength of the acting, directing and cinematography. It is an excellent opportunity to see Bette Davis during her glory years in one of her many outstanding performances.
The film opens with Leslie Crosby (Bette Davis) emptying her revolver into a man on her front porch, shooting him twice after he hits the ground. She tells the police she was defending herself against his sexual assault. She seems to be headed for an easy acquittal until (surprise) an incriminating letter surfaces that suggests that she summoned the victim to her house with the clear intention of murdering him.
Can the evidence be suppressed? Will she be acquitted? Was she really in love with the victim? The answers to these questions are obvious to all but the most naïve viewer. Yet, despite the transparency of the plot, this film works for two reasons: Bette Davis and William Wyler.
Bette Davis is arguably among the best actresses of all time. She was originally signed by Universal Studios, who dropped her because she didn't have the looks to be a movie star. Still, Warner Brothers decided to take a chance on her in 1932, signing her to a seven-year contract that would produce two Oscars. She was nominated for best actress eleven times, winning twice (`Dangerous', 1936 and `Jezebel' 1939). She was nominated five straight years from 1939 to 1943. This performance was in the middle of that run. It is classic Bette Davis, utterly in command of every scene. Her portrayal of Leslie is superb, a duplicitous and cunning woman who could manipulate any man to do her bidding. It took another woman to humble her. This is Davis in her prime and it is awesome to see her at work. She could make a dog food commercial exciting to watch.
What Davis was to acting William Wyler was to directing. (The two shared more than a professional relationship, and it was widely rumored at that time that they were romantically involved.) Wyler was nominated for best director twelve times winning three (`Mrs. Miniver', 1942; `The Best Years of Our Lives', 1943; `Ben Hur', 1960). Like Davis, he was also nominated for this film. Wyler's camerawork here is fantastic. In black and white films, lighting is critical, because the director doesn't have the luxury of relying on color to dramatize the images. Aided by veteran cinematographer Tony Gaudio, Wyler's use of lighting and shadows in this film is brilliant. It could serve as a primer for dramatic black and white cinematography. Gaudio was also nominated for an Oscar for this film, one of his six nominations in a forty-year career.
This film was nominated for seven Academy Awards, including best picture, but it was shut out. Despite a predictable story, I rated it a 9/10 on the strength of the acting, directing and cinematography. It is an excellent opportunity to see Bette Davis during her glory years in one of her many outstanding performances.
10garrard
In a career that spanned almost six decades, it would be hard pressed to cite one definitive Davis performance. There are so many, and with the number of Davis fans worldwide, it would be redundant to list them here.
However, Davis's performance as adulterer/"devoted" wife "Leslie Crosbie" has to rank as one of her finest. Davis does more in the short span of ninety-five minutes (the film's running time) than an actor of lesser skill could do in an entire career. Her "Leslie" is delicate, yet demanding, appealing yet repulsive, and submissive yet authoritative. The character dominates every inch of the screen and the actress makes full use of those trademark "eyes" of which Kim Carnes sang.
The supporting cast is equally as brilliant, with Herbert Marshall outstanding as her loving (but dim-witted) husband, James Stephenson, suave and determined, as Davis's lawyer, Victor Sen Yung (later to achieve fame as "Hop Sing" on TV's "Bonanza"), and Gale Sondergaard, magnificent in the speechless yet captivating role of "Mrs. Hammond."
And praise of this film is not complete without mention of its score. Max Steiner contributed one of film's greatest musical accompaniments. So powerful is this work that Laurence Rosenthal adapted themes in his score to the television version, starring the late Lee Remick.
However, Davis's performance as adulterer/"devoted" wife "Leslie Crosbie" has to rank as one of her finest. Davis does more in the short span of ninety-five minutes (the film's running time) than an actor of lesser skill could do in an entire career. Her "Leslie" is delicate, yet demanding, appealing yet repulsive, and submissive yet authoritative. The character dominates every inch of the screen and the actress makes full use of those trademark "eyes" of which Kim Carnes sang.
The supporting cast is equally as brilliant, with Herbert Marshall outstanding as her loving (but dim-witted) husband, James Stephenson, suave and determined, as Davis's lawyer, Victor Sen Yung (later to achieve fame as "Hop Sing" on TV's "Bonanza"), and Gale Sondergaard, magnificent in the speechless yet captivating role of "Mrs. Hammond."
And praise of this film is not complete without mention of its score. Max Steiner contributed one of film's greatest musical accompaniments. So powerful is this work that Laurence Rosenthal adapted themes in his score to the television version, starring the late Lee Remick.
With a fine cast, an atmospheric setting, and a tight, tension-packed plot, this is a memorable adaptation of the Somerset Maugham story. Both the story and the film are well-constructed, and indeed both are also aptly titled, in that "The Letter" is what drives the characters and most of the action.
The opening sequence starts out with a languid look at the rubber plantation, immediately establishing the atmosphere, and then suddenly grabs your attention with the shooting. From then on, most of the suspense is psychological, and the scenario is very well-crafted, wringing everything it can out of the setup.
The cast is led by Bette Davis, who gives a vivid performance in the kind of role that she seemed born to play. Herbert Marshall is also excellent as the husband, using little mannerisms and gestures to complement his lines, as he convincingly portrays his earnest, naive character.
The supporting cast has many good moments of their own. James Stephenson's performance is essential to making the movie work so well. His portrayal of the anguished lawyer could not have been surpassed, as he flawlessly shows his outward restraint and inner torment. Victor Sen Yung also performs well - his oily character is perhaps somewhat uncomfortable to watch, but he is essential to the plot, and Yung plays him to good effect. Gale Sondergaard has very few lines, but she establishes an imposing presence all the same.
The British colonial setting, with its clubby atmosphere, its social inequalities, its opportunities, and its contrasting cultures, is done well, and even the tropical heat is believably rendered. Light and darkness are also used well - in addition to the frequent shots of the moon, the slats on so many of the windows not only make for attractive scenery, but at times they are also used creatively, as they let just a little bit of light shine on characters who themselves might not want too much light to come into their lives.
Everything adds up to a memorable melodrama with many strong features, well worth seeing both for the cast and for the story.
The opening sequence starts out with a languid look at the rubber plantation, immediately establishing the atmosphere, and then suddenly grabs your attention with the shooting. From then on, most of the suspense is psychological, and the scenario is very well-crafted, wringing everything it can out of the setup.
The cast is led by Bette Davis, who gives a vivid performance in the kind of role that she seemed born to play. Herbert Marshall is also excellent as the husband, using little mannerisms and gestures to complement his lines, as he convincingly portrays his earnest, naive character.
The supporting cast has many good moments of their own. James Stephenson's performance is essential to making the movie work so well. His portrayal of the anguished lawyer could not have been surpassed, as he flawlessly shows his outward restraint and inner torment. Victor Sen Yung also performs well - his oily character is perhaps somewhat uncomfortable to watch, but he is essential to the plot, and Yung plays him to good effect. Gale Sondergaard has very few lines, but she establishes an imposing presence all the same.
The British colonial setting, with its clubby atmosphere, its social inequalities, its opportunities, and its contrasting cultures, is done well, and even the tropical heat is believably rendered. Light and darkness are also used well - in addition to the frequent shots of the moon, the slats on so many of the windows not only make for attractive scenery, but at times they are also used creatively, as they let just a little bit of light shine on characters who themselves might not want too much light to come into their lives.
Everything adds up to a memorable melodrama with many strong features, well worth seeing both for the cast and for the story.
What a wonderful film this still is, so long as you're not hamstrung with all the modern pc prejudices. Sadly I feel that one far-off day this film will be banned, when apparent white moral repugnance of the past overwhelms the remaining whites with shame. I've seen "The Letter" now maybe 12 times and it hasn't polluted my mind with imperialist or racial stereotypes, just filled it with pleasure that Wyler at Warners could make such an atmospheric studio-bound gem in 1940.
At the start woman shoots man - but was it murder or justified homicide? All of the cast are superb in their roles, Bette never looked sexier, Herbert Marshall never so realistic, and Gale Sondergaard never so sinister - but James Stephenson! He only made a few more films before his premature death but his understated sweaty performance as the lawyer in this electrifies me every time I watch - without him it might have a very different story! Although on a serious level it is (to me) typical Somerset Maugham fare, I haven't read any better from him as yet. Bette has some fine lines and scenes, and only occasionally hamming it up. Steiner's music is repetitive, but memorable anyhow, and the photography gleams well under the Warners arc-moonlight. But as near perfect in every department as it could get, it's still dignified Stephenson's film - he steals every scene he's in, come what or who may.
The Hays Office was the real uncivilised savage at the end, not the inscrutable "Orientals", but even with such a contrived messy ending it remains compulsive classic viewing for me, once every couple of years.
At the start woman shoots man - but was it murder or justified homicide? All of the cast are superb in their roles, Bette never looked sexier, Herbert Marshall never so realistic, and Gale Sondergaard never so sinister - but James Stephenson! He only made a few more films before his premature death but his understated sweaty performance as the lawyer in this electrifies me every time I watch - without him it might have a very different story! Although on a serious level it is (to me) typical Somerset Maugham fare, I haven't read any better from him as yet. Bette has some fine lines and scenes, and only occasionally hamming it up. Steiner's music is repetitive, but memorable anyhow, and the photography gleams well under the Warners arc-moonlight. But as near perfect in every department as it could get, it's still dignified Stephenson's film - he steals every scene he's in, come what or who may.
The Hays Office was the real uncivilised savage at the end, not the inscrutable "Orientals", but even with such a contrived messy ending it remains compulsive classic viewing for me, once every couple of years.
Bette Davis was known at some point to never let her audience down when it came to her movie roles and this movie supports that. Powerful in its story-telling and slow to reel you in and then hook, The Letter gets better as it unfolds but not to disappoint those that like to get right to it, this movie also hits the ground running right at the start. Every viewer gains as this movie is played. Good cast and crew to not mention memorable scenes that make one want to see the movie again despite knowing the ending. Excellent character and ethics being acted out and how quick they can all come to risk should the right circumstances prevail. This movie presents those ducks all lined up and ready to quack away. What fascinates us is when a fellow human being bets all they have on a thing, outcome or want. Not one but three people succumb making us see that dark forces if given an inch will take a mile if we blink. We blink and the rest is good entertainment. Ask yourself if this could have happened to you and if so, what would you do? Play the different characters and keep asking. In the end, all we say or do comes down to truth or whatever topples us. In this case, its in writing and peoples life's
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe first scene that William Wyler filmed was the famous opening shot in which Leslie shoots Geoffrey Hammond. This sequence, which lasted two minutes on screen, took an entire day to film, and that was before even a single word of dialogue was spoken. The studio expected him to shoot at a rate of 3-4 script pages a day, but the opening shot reflected a mere paragraph on page one.
- BlooperThe motor vehicles throughout are all left-hand drive. In Singapore traffic drives on the left, and all vehicles there are right-hand drive.
- Versioni alternativeAlso shown in computer colorized version.
- ConnessioniEdited into Chi ha paura di Virginia Woolf? (1966)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 16.455 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 35 minuti
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
By what name was Ombre malesi (1940) officially released in India in English?
Rispondi