Les Folles Héritières

In the case of 1942's The Gay Sisters, more is supposed to mean better. The mansion set and the very epic-like nature of the sisters' story lines signify that it is a top-grade project from a top-grade studio (Warner Brothers). Barbara Stanwyck, as the older sister, Fiona Gaylord, seems to be particularly tough. She is never really a soft-touch, except in those moments where she undergoes a severe script-sanctioned transformation. But I think she is at her most real in this film, and it is more true to her off-screen self. Like the character she plays, she was also orphaned; and also, like the character she plays, she had one son, so in many ways, this project is tailor-made for Stanwyck. It is a treat watching her, and if modern audiences can get over the title, they will discover a classic gem.

Three girls, the youngest descendents of the Gaylord family, one of America's most royal families, are orphaned at a young age. Right before he goes off to France to fight in WWI, their father tells the oldest, Fiona, never to sell the land. By the time the sisters have become adults, they have had to squander most of their money to pay for lawyers to defend their property. Through certain loopholes in the father's will, a man named Charles Barclay stands to gain possession of the Gaylord land, on which he wants to build a complex called Barclay Circle. Barclay is actually based on John D. Rockefeller, who was buying up land and buildings from affluent families in New York so he could build Rockefeller Center.

This film deals mostly with the melodramatic concerns of the three sisters. Fiona, well played by Barbara Stanwyck, although it's certainly not to be counted as one of her best roles, seems like a cold, domineering woman, and it becomes clear that she has some skeletons in her closet. Susanna, played by Nancy Coleman, is a little ditsy and completely in love with a young modern artist named Gig Young. Coleman's was my favorite performance in the film. Evelyn, played by Geraldine Fitzgerald, is a rather pretentious seductress with a monocle who married into noble blood in England, but that doesn't stop her from trying to steal Gig from her sister. The three sisters are developed quite well but, as is the major trend in The Gay Sisters, never well enough. Charles Barclay is played by George Brent. He isn't very good. Well, he would be satisfactory if the story had played out the way it should have, but he always seems like a scumbag in the film. When we're asked to sympathize with him late in the film, it's impossible. Gig Young is played by, huh?, Gig Young. No, he's not playing himself. What happened is that the actor, who had acted in several movies previously under his real name, Byron Barr, was pressured by Warner Brothers to change his name to something more catchy. I'm not sure who made the final choice, but he eventually changed his screen name to Gig Young, after the character whom he plays in The Gay Sisters. Weird, eh? Young is quite good through most of the film, but the script does some unfortunate things with his character late in the film which ultimately harm the audience's sympathy for him. In two other supporting roles, Helen Thimig and Gene Lockhart are quite good.

The Gay Sisters had great potential to turn out to be one of the great cinematic family sagas. The characters are all interesting, as are their situations. Unfortunately, the script never strives for anything more than the simplest melodrama. If it had made the interrelationships of all the major characters more complex, fleshed out, for example, the rivalry between Evelyn and Susanna or made the flashback more intricate, the film could have been fantastic. It also could have fleshed out the prologue more, let us know more about the Gaylord family. We need to care more about the characters and we need to sympathize with them more. And the ending needed some major fixing. It basically just gives up at the end. Fiona's problems are solved so poorly that it hurts. Whatever sympathy her character had gained as the film progressed falls apart. It's also far too happy. This story seems moving towards tragedy, or maybe just a sense of historical significance or loss. And we still hate Barclay. And the conflict between the two sisters and Gig is never solved. As bad as Fiona's story ends, Susanna's, Gig's, and Evelyn's is even worse.

I still liked the film. It's thoroughly watchable, even if it doesn't involve us like other great films of the era. 7/10, mostly for its potential. It should have been remade, or the novel should have been re-adapted, at some point during the studio era. It is too dated to be remade now. The 1950s would have been the best time, during the time of films like Giant.

The three Gaylord sisters (Barbara Stanwyck, Geraldine Fitzgerald, Nancy Coleman), lose their parents at an early age and fight to keep their family mansion. George Brent plays the guy after the mansion and when you find out why your eyes will roll so hard they'll fall out of your head. Stanwyck is feisty to the point of obnoxiousness and Brent is a prick. He's also a rapist, if I interpreted one crucial scene correctly. Very disappointing melodrama with a plot that's much ado about nothing. Inappropriate moments of humor don't help. Protracted opening with Donald Woods as the father who goes on and on about the family legacy and what it means to be a Gaylord has next to nothing to do with the rest of the movie. One little bit of interesting trivia: actor (and future murderer) Gig Young took his stage name from the character he plays in this movie. Before this he went by his real name of Byron Barr.

Like so many movies that were produced in the B&W era, much of this one is filled with melodramatic scenes and lines written to carry along the diverging feelings of a family of three sisters whose lives intermingle merely because they are related, not necessarily because they agree. In fact, it is often difficult to see where the three blend as a family, except that they are guided by the commands of a big sister.

Barbara Stanwyck is that big sister who rules the roost, though not in a way that is intentionally abusive. She thinks she knows what must be done to keep things in line with the purpose she was given as a little girl. It is what her father would have wanted, a devotion to something above even God. He leaves to fight in Europe during WWI where he is killed, which places the house in the care of Barbara Stanwyck.

Do the sisters love one another? Yes, in an argumentative sort of way, as each one's desires cross the others'. Big sister wants no man in her life, doesn't trust them, considers them merely a means to an end. Middle sister is playing romantic games with her little sister's love, Gig Young, which causes the youngest to attempt a drastic solution.

In addition to a housekeeper, the three sisters share their home with a little boy who knows nothing of the secret that's been hidden for a number of years and whose future is a matter for the courts. The little fellow is one of the most polite boys I have seen on screen in a long while -- a refreshing breath when compared to today's norm.

I recommend this film despite the melodramatics. The lines are well written and well spoken. Don't be run away by the negative reviews. This one is worth the time whether you like the ending or not.

This was probably one of the most well-made films of the 40's - Warner Bros. at the very height of their style. The photography by Sol Polito is arguably his finest achievement - gorgeous compositions and lighting with delicate shadowing. Max Steiner contributes one of his most complex and beautiful scores - the epitome of his classical leit motif method. The music adds great emotion and excitement to the plot and is exquisite and memorable. It's interesting to note that the same production team that made this movie went right on to make "Now, Voyager" later that year - a fine film which won honors and awards and went down as a historical favorite, ciefly because it starred Bette Davis. IN my opinion, "The Gay Sisters" is a much better film - better made in all departments, and more interesting, complex and enjoyable. A most unusual film which entertains those who take it for what it is, rather than project their own modern creative sensibilities or their advanced and demanding standards of hyper-critical perfection. Each thing has to be judged in it's own time reference and for what it is trying to achieve on its own terms. Most of the complaints I've read in these reviews are so childish and totally missing the point. If you're hungry for a perfect filet mignon, don't go to the bakery counter and start whining and complaining about the fluff pastry. The art of film criticism is truly lost on a large segment of the population. Sorry folks - maybe if this movie had had a score by the Rolling Stones and a hundred intricate and soul searching subplots, you'd all be gleefully gratified. I'll take an old movie without modern intellectual pretensions an day of the week!