Caprichos do Destino

I think that when we think of George Sanders we tend to see him doing some dirty business. He's cheating his nephew Tyrone Power out of a noble title and estate (SON OF FURY), or he's leading a pack of Nazi agents in London to track down Walter Pidgeon and Joan Bennett (MANHUNT), or he kills poor Nelson Eddy in a hopeless sword duel (BITTERSWEET). But there was always something more in his characters (even his villains). Take his Oscar performance (Addison De Witt in ALL ABOUT EVE). Yes, he puts his powers to the benefit of Eve Harrington, with an eye to her being his permanent partner (I don't think marriage is necessary - he doesn't look like he'd like a family, or domestic arrangement). But if you follow Joseph Mankiewicz's dialogue carefully, Addison is more complex and acceptable than Eve. He is in her corner because as a theatre critic he realizes that she is talented, and can bring back a youthful vigor to the parts that Margo Channing is constantly playing. Look at the scene where he tells Margo and Karen what a wonder Eve's performance is when she reads for the understudy position. It's not just sexual allure, but he really likes her talent. Moreover, Addison is a realist about himself and theatre people in general. He admits he has limitations (he's not a people person), but he does love good art. Actually, in some respects he is a better person than he admits. Karen goes to speak to him (we are told by Addison in his famous scene with Eve in the Hartford hotel) to find out what he knows about her husband and Eve. While he makes a snide comment about Karen telling more than learning, it's obvious Karen does consider Addison a friend - even an ally. And actually, by putting Eve into her place finally (Addison appears to be the only one with brains who could) he does save Karen's marriage as well.

It comes as a pleasant surprise to movie goers that Sanders could (given his talent and a good script) appear as a nice guy. He does so in this film. Uncle Harry is a decent man who lives with two sisters, and who keeps the family household going. The younger of the sisters, played by Geraldine Fitzgerald, is too attached to him - and for a 1940s film the clutching of Ms Fitzgerald spells out incest more than was usual (interesting to think that this 1945 film comes only two years after Hitchcock's SHADOW OF A DOUBT, where "Uncle" and "Niece" Charlie are very close - until Theresa Wright begins to wonder how Joseph Cotton makes his living). The arrival of Ella Raines as a love rival sparks all out warfare from Fitzgerald, with Sanders befuddled about which way to turn. Raines seems to leave town, and Fitzgerald seems victorious and Sanders is morose when he finds a bottle of poison in the house, and begins to reconsider his options.

It is hard to see now what ending could have been tacked on to the film to make it satisfactory to everyone in the audience. The moral code of the 1940s made it imperative that if a villain kills someone, no matter how lively, likeable, or sympathetic the villain was he or she had to pay. Fitzgerald could only pay if she were defeated by Raines. If Sanders died that would not have defeated Fitzgerald. If Sanders lived in despair after Fitzgerald's death that would not help either. I think the film's "trick" ending here is as good as it could be. But that is only my opinion.

I saw this movie last night at an Austin Film Society screening, with a very receptive audience. I'm sure someone else will write the in-depth, perceptive review, but I happen to like the shallow stuff:

Whether intended by the makers or not, this audience found some hilarious double entendres (e.g. George Sanders showing off his 9-inch telescope).

A scene with inappropriate dubbing of Mr. Sanders' singing voice brought groans. I would have liked to hear him sing. (Audrey Hepburn's real voice should have been used in 'My Fair Lady', too!)

The older sister of the main character looked so much like Jessica Fletcher that my husband suspected a relationship and we looked her up. The actress was Moyna MacGill, the mother of Angela Lansbury... it was fascinating to see the similarity in motions and gestures.

The family's cook was played by Sara Algood. One of her other roles was as the matron Morton in 'Roxie Hart', the forerunner to 'Chicago'.

There was something very charming about seeing George Sanders without the cynicism.

Geraldine Fitzgerald is the sister from hell in "The Strange Affair of Uncle Harry," a 1945 film directed by Robert Siodmak, who knows a thing or two about suspense. The film stars George Sanders, Ella Raines, Moyna Macgill (Angela Lansbury's mother), and Sara Algood.

The Quincy family, a brother (Sanders) and two sisters (Macgill and Fitzgerald) live in an big, old house - all that was left to them by their parents. Harry is the head designer of patterns in a cloth family; his sister Lettie (Fitzgerald) is a professional invalid; and his other sister, Hester (Macgill), is a rather silly, complaining woman who feels unappreciated.

When a New York firm comes to town to look at the cloth factory, Harry meets and falls in love with Deborah (Raines) and announces they are going to be married. Hester is thrilled beyond belief for him; Lettie, on the other hand, is very upset. Deborah has her number immediately and is determined not to allow Lettie to break up her relationship with Harry.

Lettie and Hester are supposed to move into another house, but that doesn't happen. On the day Harry and Deborah are to leave for Boston to be married, Lettie has one of her "attacks" and Harry refuses to leave town. Deborah realizes that he will never leave his sisters and walks out of his life. When Harry finds out that Lettie's inability to find a suitable house after six months and her illness were just manipulations to drive Deborah away, something in him snaps.

Based on a play, this film proved somewhat controversial. Censorship would not allow the original ending, so five different endings were filmed and shown in preview. The ending that was chosen is derivative, drawing on a device used successfully in the past.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I really loved the way it ended, in spite of some people seeing it as a cop-out. I liked it because of my sympathy for Harry, so well portrayed by George Sanders, who was cast against type here.

Geraldine Fitzgerald gives a fantastic performance as the awful Lettie, an unbelievable shrew. Fitzgerald was perfect. Macgill is excellent as well, likable because she sincerely wants the best for Harry, and annoying because she's a whiner. Ella Raines made a lovely Deborah.

Very entertaining - I loved it!

I strongly disagree with Norm Vogel's comments regarding Leonard Maltin's remark about "censorship" and the ending. Without giving the ending away, I can only say that because of the strict censorship code that existed in 1945, the ending HAD TO BE CHANGED to conform with the rules involving crime and punishment. Thus, the film is weakened in straying from the original ending that was used in the stage play on which this is based--and which had more impact.

George Sanders gives a quietly effective performance as the harried man torn between two sisters, one of whom has a neurotic stranglehold on his affections (Geraldine Fitzgerald). Interesting melodrama given taut direction by Robert Siodmak. Ella Raines is effective in a sympathetic role and Geraldine Fitzgerald is fascinating as a hypochondriac, whining sister who makes Harry's life miserable.

Again, Leonard Maltin was right--censorship had everything to do with the ending.

Robert Siodmak directs this psychological film noir that is based on the Broadway play Uncle Harry by Thomas Job. It stars George Sanders, Ella Raines, Geraldine Fitzgerald & Moyna MacGill. The story follows Harry Quincey (Sanders) a shy clothes designer in small town New England. He lives with his two sisters, the pretty but manipulative Lettie (Fitzgerald) and the more scatty and care free Hester (MacGill). Into his life comes the gorgeous Deborah Brown (Raines) who quickly brings colour to his otherwise dull existence. But Lettie is far from impressed and sets about doing all she can to stop the couple getting married and living together. Her actions will have dire consequences for all of the Quincey family.

Though falling some way short of the noir standards of Siodmak's best genre efforts ("The Killers"/"Criss Cross"), this none the less is a dandy piece dealing in various forms of obsession. Finding that it's produced by Joan Harrison gives weight to the notion that this is more a "Hitchcockian" small town thriller than an overtly film noir piece. Harrison of course wrote a number of screenplays for "Hitchcock", and sure enough as the film unfolds one feels like we are involved in something the big director would have revelled in. Quite what "Hitch" would have made of the palaver surrounding the ending of the film, one can only imagine, but yet again a nifty 40s thriller is saddled with an ending that has caused division across the decades.

Because of the Hays Code, five different endings were tested for the film, with the one chosen vastly different to the one in the play. So while I personally find the existing ending quirky, and certainly not film destroying, it's sad that the incestuous elements of the source have been jettisoned and therefore taking away a crucial dark edge to the turn of events in the last quarter of the film. Harrison was incensed and promptly quit Universal Pictures in protest. With hindsight now, they could have ended the film about ten minutes earlier and it would have worked better. But cest la vie and all that.

Sanders is superb, very touching as the shy, naive designer pushed to his limit by sibling suffocation. Fitzgerald is glamorous and nails the devious side of her character with much conviction. While Raines, a touch underused due to the story, has a hard quality that puts one in mind of a certain Lauren Bacall, and that to my mind is very much a good thing. Some food for thought though, I couldn't help wonder about if the roles had been reversed. Raines playing manipulative bitch and Fitzgerald the love interest definitely cries out as a winner me thinks.

It's a conventional story, but one that has depth and boasts a director capable of crafting the right sort of itchy mood. There's no technical trickery exactly, but attention to detail exists and between them the makers have produced an intelligent and gripping film, that, in spite of some foregoing of dark emotional undercurrents, is very recommended to noir and "Hitchcockian" supporters. 7.5/10