Êxtase de Amor

This one may seem quite turgid to a modern audience's sensibilities but, for its time, it was fairly strong stuff, with solid performances by its three leads, Crawford, Fonda and Andrews, under Otto Preminger's brisk direction. Dana, who never really achieved the recognition he deserved for the subtlety of his work, in an extremely difficult role, gives it all the shadings one could wish for. Nice production values and one of the talented David Raksin's best scores enhance a very watchable story with an outcome that isn't as predictable as it seems, come the final clinch.

This film is the latest release in the Fox Film Noir DVD series. Although it is not a noir film at all, but is instead a potent emotional melodrama, this does not matter. We don't complain, do we, when splendid DVDs of classic films are released under any pretext from those perfectly preserved negatives sitting in California archives crying in unison: 'Release me! Release me!' Anything directed by Otto Preminger is welcome. He may have been a nightmare as a person, but his films were terrific. This film is beautifully directed, and the lighting by Ken Shamroy and the sets by art directors George David and Lyle Wheeler all combine to give tremendous atmosphere to a film which could so easily have had none. Shamroy's lighting is not only good because of the shadows, but the subtle ways he picks out the faces and the eyes. Those were the days! Who can do that so well now? The Hollywood stars then knew how to play to their lights in order to deify themselves to still higher celestial orders. In those days, facial surgery took place by lighting methods, and there was no need for the knife. I am far from being a Joan Crawford admirer, but although she was an even worse nightmare than Preminger as a person, she can act with fantastic, mesmeric power when she wants to. And she does so here. The story is about a confused 'independent woman' of the immediate postwar era who is a mistress of a self-absorbed cad and the wife of a perversely self-denying idealist. Which shall she choose? She dithers with all the uncertainty of a woman in love who is not sure with whom. Does she go for the strong and cruel one, or the weak and adoring one? (Animal instinct always urges the former, on the premise that it is a better breeding prospect for the species that the strong, however cruel, should procreate.) Dana Andrews, usually a nice guy in films, here does a very good job of being a real jerk. Henry Fonda always found it easy, with his relaxed, gangly walk of a hillbilly, to be Mr. Nice Guy, since after all, only nice guys walk like that. He doesn't have a lot of acting to do, but what is needed is there. (No need to chew gum or 'baccy' this time.) This love triangle is greatly aided by a spectacular performance in a supporting role by Ruth Warrick as a harridan wife of Dana Andrews, although the fact that she is a child abuser who beats up her own little girl is severely down-played in the film. There are some wonderful small touches: a garrulous taxi driver reciting endless boring statistics about his trade, and a glassy-eyed couple who descend the stairs and do not say hello, the woman surprisingly being former silent film star Mae Marsh! Yes, it is a pity about the Greenwich Theatre being gone, not to mention Pennsylvania Station, of the interior of which we get a glimpse. This is a powerful soap opera story raised to a higher level by the talent involved.

Joan Crawford is "Daisy Kenyon" in this 1947 film about a woman torn between two men - one, a married, successful man (Dana Andrews), and the other, a returning soldier and widower (Henry Fonda). Directed by Otto Preminger, it's a good noir, better than "Dark Angel" but nowhere near "Laura."

Andrews is married to Ruth Warrick and has two daughters who need him, as their mother, when unhappy, tends to be abusive. He has a long-time relationship with Daisy, who is a successful commercial artist.

The situation isn't ideal for her, but she's in love. One night she meets a soldier who wants to build a life with her. Can she break from Andrews - and will he let her?

There are several striking things about this film. One is the casting. In order to play the lead in "Grapes of Wrath" in 1940, Darryl Zanuck forced Henry Fonda to sign a 7-year-contract, for which Fonda never forgave him.

One can see an example of why here. In this film, he has to share leading man duties with Dana Andrews in what is, in fact, a Joan Crawford movie. To me, Fonda's role in this seems very inauspicious and one where a lesser star could have been cast. Just an opinion. He's excellent as a lonely, unhappy man who falls for Daisy - Fonda at this point still had some traces of boyishness.

The second striking thing for me was the subtlety of the acting. There is a scene in which Dana Andrews, returning from an 18-day-trip, can't get the usually reliable Daisy on the phone, so he goes to see her.

It's a scene that should be shown in acting schools - full of atmosphere and subtext, so little is said in dialogue; so much is what lies beneath the surface. Both Crawford and Andrews give wonderful performances.

The third striking thing is the Greenwich Theater, which I had no idea was torn down until now. There was indeed a restaurant across from it, too. That's also my old neighborhood, and it was a delight to see. I believe I went to the opening day of "Fargo" there.

Throughout the film, the symbolism of a New York cab is used: if you were staying where you were, you let the cab go; if not, you asked it to wait. The theme reinforces the ending of "Daisy Kenyon" very well. A good movie.

In the early scenes, Crawford has a dog that looks like a border collie. His name is Tubby and she appears to dote on him. Suddenly, he disappears.

That said, this is one of Crawford's very best movie's. Twentieth Century Fox, and Otto Preminger, did beautifully by her.

So many things to say ...! It takes place in the neighborhood where I was born and still live. The Greenwich Theater, where Joan attends a movie, was a staple of Greenwich Village. When it was twinned it started showing less interesting things but it was still a landmark. Then it was torn down and in its place stands a health club.

The diner where Henry Fonda waits for Crawford while she's at the movie is still there. The curtain in its window looks the same -- almost 60 years later.

Crawford and Dana Andrews make a somewhat unlikely torrid romantic duo. But they work well together. The same can be said for Crawford and Fonda. Their romance is a bit more implausible but, again, they are directed beautifully and advance the plot admirably.

In a sense, this is Fonda's closest brush with film noir. He is a vet who has also lost his wife. The scene in which he thrashes around a nightmare is brilliantly staged. The background music there, as elsewhere, is excellent.

Most of the characters speak in a sort of Henry Higgins manner. "Hurricane" is pronounced just as Eliza Doolittle was taught to say it: "hurricen." Crawford always had that quality -- "syew" for "sue," "cahn't" for "can't." But the movie withstands these petty issues. It's exciting and it is beautifully cast. Ruth Warrick is superb in the small role of Andrews's wife. Peggy Ann Garner is too, as one of his daughters. So is the girl playing his other daughter. And Crawford's roommate, whose name I don't recognize, is convincing as well.

This is one of the lesser known vehicles of all three of its stars and not one of Preminger's better known, either. But it's fascinating and deserves kudos for all concerned.

I've seen about a dozen Preminger films and this is my favorite. I wasn't expecting too much once the movie began because it seemed I had seen this all done before but Preminger's characters (as is usually the case) are much more realistic than typical Hollywood movies of this era. The characterization actually compares favorably to foreign films of the time, like for example Quai des Orfèvres from the same year; this movie could easily have been a French production. I'm not much a fan of Crawford or Fonda but this is probably the best I've seen Fonda; and Crawford was just fine. Dana Andrews is superb - probably his best movie! What made this movie for me was that I could relate to all three main characters - in many ways they are more ideas (or philosophies) than actual people but the odd thing is that the line was so blurred that even though I knew this was the case I still enjoyed them as people. What puts this above the other Premingers I've seen is the very tight script, the fast pacing, and three fully realized characters that came across not only as real but as themes in themselves. Add in a memorable supporting cast and everything just blends together to make a perfect concoction.