A Bill of Divorcement

Maureen O'Hara and Adolphe Menjou make marvellous performances in this rather confused play of confused relationships, where in the beginning everything seems all right as the mother is going to marry Herbert Marshall and Maureen has found her John, an Australian, they are in love and are going to be happy, and no one bothers about the creaking old aunt and her puritan objections to everything, but then something most unexpected happens, like a shocking surprise: the father comes home after having escaped from his asylum. He claims he is all right, but nothing can be all right any more from that moment on. Everyone's circles are upset, and the only way out of the sudden imposture of complications seems to escape. Here is entered a hornet's nest of complications and considerations, as the father's insanity is regarded as hereditary and incurable, there have been others in the family suffering from the same predicament, and this falls like a doom on the family. You will have objections to the credibility of such a plot, the matter of insanity in the family becomes like an obsession if not a superstition of a fixed idea, and those who just run away appear the sanest. But the acting is wonderful on all parts, there is lovely music as well, which actually plays an important part in the intrigue, this is a chamber play at its best, and it is enjoyable all the way.

There are some very solid performances here with O'Hara and Menjou leading the way. May Witty is also on-point as the overly pious, self-righteous, miserable old windbag that everyone will love to hate. The story is very old-fashioned but never-the-less it does still kind of work. Sure, it's a little bit slow but there are enough moments that when put together almost makes it worth your time until . . . The final section comes. The fact that John just gets up and walks away never to be seen again with absolutely no protestions is quite a sham really. Did he ever really love her? I think he did and that is not how his character would have responded to that bit of news. And then the very ending between O'Hara and Menjou - was that supposed to be inspiring, uplifting? I have no idea what the viewer is supposed to feel but I found of completely unsatisfying.

Maureen O'Hara, aka the tempestuous queen of technicolor, helpmate and sparring partner for John Wayne, (or is it John Ford?), was still finding her way tentatively after being plucked from obscurity by an astute Charles Laughton. Her introduction to worldwide audiences as the benighted gypsy girl in the masterpiece of Hollywood storytelling, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" brought her fame for her sensitivity and astounding beauty.

Here, hampered by the unimaginative direction of John Farrow and hammy acting of Adolphe Menjou, she attempted to make audiences forget Katharine Hepburn's still moving portrayal of the same character. But then, aside from an intense talent, Hepburn also had George Cukor behind the camera to guide her and a chastened John Barrymore giving one of his better late career moments.

You can glimpse the makings of a thoughtful actress in O'Hara here, who might've shone brighter if she could've had more opportunities to display some of the inner turmoil that made her remarkably beautiful face so haunting long after the technicolor prints of more bombastic films fade. It is worth a look for that alone.

I'm a big Adolphe Menjou family, but I didn't find this Never to Love/A Bill of Divorcement an interesting film. Everyone is so terribly overwrought and exaggerated. I lose interest in them. They don't seem like real people. I don't care anything about them. When blank-faced, monotone Herbert Marshall shows up as the lover and he seems to practically vibrate with suppressed emotion...well, I could barely watch the rest. I feel the same about the 1932 Katharine Hepburn/John Barrymore version, although, thankfully, Maureen O'Hara as the daughter does not have the awful, strident, harsh voice in this version that makes listening to the 1932 film so painful.

From what I understand this film is a remake of an earlier picture produced in 1932 which starred notable actors like John Barrymore and Katharine Hepburn. Now having never seen the previous movie I cannot honestly say how well the 1940 version compares with it. That said I can only render my opinion based on what I have seen. Be that as it may, in this particular movie Maureen O'Hara stars as a young woman named "Sydney Fairfield" who is engaged to be married soon but gets some very unpleasant news when her father "Hilary Fairfield" (Adolphe Menjou) comes home after escaping from an insane asylum. Her mother, "Margaret Fairfield" (Fay Bainter) had been granted a divorce a year earlier but now her subsequent remarriage in just a few days is also put into question. At any rate, rather than reveal any more of this movie I will just say that I found this drama to be rather mediocre in that some of the scenes seemed to ramble on at times and the ending left much to be desired. As matter of fact, I honestly believe that this movie would have been slightly better if it had been converted into a comedy instead. But that is just my opinion. In any case, all things considered I rate the film as about average.