Sombra de uma Mulher

This is one of those postwar "shrink-anxiety" movies in which an >unscrupulous psychotherapist manipulates, blackmails, or robs >his patients. It's not bad of its type, though nothing out of >the ordinary. *But* it's the answer to a truly obscure trivia >question, because in an early scene, the villain and the heroine >have dinner in a restaurant where the band is playing "How >Little We Know", the Hoagy Carmichael song that Lauren Bacall >sang in "To Have and Have Not"!

Andrea King makes a mistake when she marries sinister alternative-medicine doctor Helmut Dantine. She realizes it pretty quickly, as we see in a story told from her point of view in flashback.

He seems like a truly loathsome person. It's hard, though, not to wonder if this movie was unwritten by the AMA. After all, not ALL people practicing alternative therapies, even back then are/were evil and/or quacks.

The most poignant part is the man's son, who is being held captive and being given a horrifyingly Spartan diet, ostensibly for his health.

That part will send chills up your spine. (If it knocks your spine out of quack, call a chiropractor.)

The beautiful and financially independent Brooke Gifford comes to regret her hasty marriage to quack "Doctor" Eric Ryder. Too late, she discovers their marriage is just a ruse to get custody of his son back and steal his inheritance. Why did she marry him in the first place? He's a divorced guy with a bizarre health food fixation (he's written a book called "Are You Eating Yourself Into the Grave?"). But it's the usual story. She was lonely; there weren't many marriageable men around during just-ended WWII. Slickly manipulative Eric, in the typical style of abusive men, swept her off her feet. Brooke's now older-and-wiser narration tells the story in the form of flashbacks.

This fascinating postwar film (over) dramatizes the way women were sucked back into domesticity after years of emotional and financial self-sufficiency during the war--and the pitfalls it held for them. Thank god Brooke still has some money and a house in San Bernardino--it gives her the means to fight back. It also enables her to have a terrific wardrobe--just because her husband's a potential murderer doesn't mean she can't look great. And you can be sure that cheapskate Eric wouldn't pop for all those trips to the hairdresser and manicurist, either.

Eric's health-food fixation is interesting, too. We think of healthy food as virtuous these days, but this film shows that in postwar America, too much of a concern with nutrition was considered quackery, if not worse (and in this case, it is worse). Eric, talks with a bogus European accent--"Have face in me, my dahling!" he tells Brooke. There's also a lot about women being "tired" in this film. Eric is always telling women they're "tired" so he can get them out of the way. How tired can these women actually be? They probably worked twelve hour shifts during the war and now they're supposed to be fragile?

The title, "Shadow of a Woman" is significant. The way women were driven from the public sphere into lives of forced domesticity after the war indeed led them to become shadows of their former selves.

I caught this movie on Saturday Night Noir. I wasn't planning on watching it, but it came on after NIAGARA and I left the television on while I was cleaning and getting ready for bed. It sucked me in! I really liked the atmosphere of the movie and the spooky old house. I liked the characters. I especially liked Andrea King and the little boy.

During the commercials I looked up the movie and saw that it wasn't much of a success when it came out. I was surprised because I didn't think it was that bad. I watch a lot of old movies (seldom ever watch anything new to be honest.) and I am sort of a hyper person who constantly keeps busy. I often half watch movies while doing another task like working (I work from home online) cleaning, cooking etc. A movie has to be pretty good to get me to actually sit down. I sat down for this movie. Was it the best acting I have ever seen? No, but the main character was likable enough and the story good enough, that I didn't care. It wasn't Oscar worthy, but most of the movies I like aren't. I liked this movie very much. It kept my attention and kept me entertained to the end.

Interesting but flawed mystery set in post-war California. A newly married woman who grows afraid of her newly met husband is a good premise for a movie and one that Alfred Hitchcock would have probably done better with. There is a doubt in this film whether the husband is indeed guilty of something…although there is no doubt that he is suspicious. Suspicion itself if not enough to salvage this film.

The writing could have been better. Some of the plot is too hard to swallow. We are cheated out of seeing what brought the newlyweds together. What kind of doctor is the husband? He claims he is not an MD and others say he worked in the entertainment field.

The acting could have been better. The wife accepts too much aberrant behavior from her odd husband and the folks he attracts. By opening the film with a flashback, we already know that the wife survives to tell the tale – thus robbing the story of some needed tension.

Not a terrible movie, but one that could have been better and might be if it were remade.