Quem Ama não Teme

I will admit that I am not as enthusiastic about this film as others on this board. I love and admire Ida Lupino as an actress and a pioneer for women directors, and I have seen quite a bit of her directing. She always tackled difficult subjects. However, she never seemed to have much of a budget. Because of this, I assume, she couldn't afford to get really good actors.

This is a powerful story, written by Lupino and her then-husband, Collier Young. It's the story of Carol (Sally Forrest), a talented young dancer, who works with Guy (Keefe Brasselle). They're not only dance partners, but they're in love as well. Carol becomes ill and it turns out that she has polio. She is moved to a facility for rehab.

I was too young to know the full impact of polio; the worst of it was when I was very small. I certainly did know people who had it, and I know how frightening it was. Since no one was sure how it was contracted, I remember a woman in an AIDS documentary talking about people she knew, "good Christians" as she called them, who would leave food at the front door of a victim's family.

The problem I had with this film was the acting, which I consider abominable for the most part. Sally Forrest, a pretty young woman, was misdirected in the role and comes off as unpleasant. One of course understands anger and self-pity, but she was absolutely hateful for most of the movie. And one minute she would be screaming at a fellow victim, Len (Hugh O'Brian) and then in the next scene, she'd be friendly.

Keefe Brasselle could never act and, if what I know of him is correct, had the success he did thanks to mob connections. Apparently the President of CBS Television claimed he was forced by the mob to give Brasselle three TV series without a pilot or script. They all flopped and a lawsuit followed, as well as the president being ousted.

Anyway, he's not very good and when he begs Carol, "Be a woman for me, I need you" as she's sitting there with polio, one wonders if she maybe needed something too, and possibly the script needed a rewrite.

What is interesting is to see the therapy that polio patients had and the support and encouragement. The end of this film was very touching, demonstrating that with a few tweaks, it could have been good and a tear-jerker. Unfortunately I just couldn't warm up to Carol until close to the end.

Hugh O'Brian here has an early role. He and I are from the same home town, and about 15 years ago, I interviewed him. At a Hollywood Museum opening a year ago, I saw a man in a wheelchair who looked like a mountain man -- long gray hair and gray beard -- and I said to the person I was with, I think that's Hugh O'Brian. No one believed me. I spoke with him. He was 90 then, still had all his marbles, was very funny, and completely deaf.

A little context might be helpful since the scourge of polio has fortunately receded from public view. For those of us post-war kids, polio was a real fear. It struck a lot of youngsters and could not only cripple legs, but also impair breathing and even kill. I can still picture kids sadly confined to iron lungs. Common wisdom among us was to stay away from public pools in the summer. I don't know if this helped, but at least we felt it did. I still remember that day in spring 1955, I believe, when the Salk anti-polio vaccine was announced. It had real impact for us. Anyway, I'm glad folks today don't have to worry, thanks to medical science and The March of Dimes.

The movie itself deals with a young woman's affliction (Forrest) and her various stages of coping. The therapeutic stages are understandably emphasized, along with a generally hopeful resolution that should—for a movie—come as no surprise. Kudoes to Ida Lupino and husband Collier Young for producing a film on what was then (1949) a sensitive subject. (Note how the word 'polio' is hardly used in the screenplay.) The movie's mostly well acted without going over the top. I suspect the romantic angle is played up for greater commercial appeal, along with the alternate title 'Young Lovers'. After all, how many folks would be attracted by a disease themed screenplay. All in all, the human drama of dealing with affliction remains affecting, though the scourge of polio has fortunately receded. In that sense, the film still appeals over and above its time period.

Carol Williams and Guy Richards are a young dancing couple. They are fighting to climb a tough industry when she falls ill. She has polio. It's a devastating diagnosis as she loses her mobility.

This is written by Ida Lupino and Collier Young. Most importantly, this is one of Ida Lupino's earliest directing credits. As an actress, she was often overshadowed by the stars of her day and she would have been great Hollywood trivia. As a director, she cracked the glass ceiling and did interesting work despite the lower budgets. For this movie, there isn't much to the drama. At least, I'm not interested in the relationship melodrama. I'm more interested in the character growth journey.

Carol (Sally Forrest) and Guy (Keefe Brasselle) are an up and coming dance team. However, Carol contracts polio and is now unable to walk. Much of the film is set at a sanitarium that treats paralysis victims and is both about her treatment and adjustment to her new life. Like most people facing this, she goes through severe bouts of depression. It becomes so bad that she pushes Guy out of her life--though he loves her and seems accepting of her disability. Will Carol be able to make a new life for herself or will she give way to defeatism and failure?

This is a pretty unusual film. Despite as many as 58,000 cases of polio in the US (about half of which resulted in paralysis) and a president (FDR) with polio, films act as if the disease never existed. You just don't hear about it in movies for the most part--and "Never Fear" is a rare exception. The only film of the time that reminds me of this is "The Men"--though this is about soldiers who are paralyzed as a result of war wounds. And, both films are quite similar in themes and quality. While "The Men" is a must more prestigious and big-budget movie, director Ida Lupino did a wonderful job in "Never Fear"--providing it with realism that you often don't find in 'disease' films. Very informative and well done all around--with fine acting (by relative unknowns), script and direction--and shot almost documentary style. Well worth seeing.

Finally, let me explain my score of 9. Sure, it's not as pretty a film as many A-pictures. BUT, as a lower-budgeted B, it has a HUGE payoff dollar-for-dollar. You can easily see why Lupino was soon given more chances to direct other B-budget films.

My grandmother took me to see this film when I was 9 years old.It was at the start of the great polio scare in the U.K.The cinema was the Playhouse in Guildford situated in the Playhouse arcade,an area with rather twee shops(well,it was Guildford in 1950) and a teashop. Of course I wasn't aware that Ida Lupino had directed,co-produced and written "Never fear".For better or worse it was entirely her creature. In the movie business such power was rarely given to women. To my mind that makes her an auteur - or should that be auteuse? The one thing that stands out in my mind from that original viewing 55 years ago is that when polio struck the dancer the camera went out of focus and for years afterwards I thought that losing the focus of your eyes was a sign of the onset of polio.And they say that movies don't influence young children. In fact "never fear" has proved to be a well-made and effective movie in the genre now called rather unkindly "Disease of the Month". It's a very professional job by all concerned and if that sounds as if I am damning it with faint praise it is not the case. Anyone looking for "A woman's touch"(usually meant in a patronising and sexist way)will not find one.It stands up on it's on merits.