Back Street

Margaret Sullavan is one of my all-time favorite actresses with her husky voice and haunting screen presence. The original version in 1932 with Irene Dunne and John Boles was dull and stage-bound; the later version with Susan Hayward was just too gaudy. This is the version to watch!

Margaret gives an exquisitely heart-rending performance as a turn-of-the-century miss who falls in love with a man (played by the smooth but oh-so-serious Charles Boyer). Fate intervenes and the two lovers are separated. They meet again years later, but, true to the classic weeper formula, he is married. Despite her better judgment, she carries on a "Back Street" romance with him for many years until their untimely demises.

Promoted with the tag line, "If you have tears, be prepared to shed them", this movie does involve some suspension of disbelief. For example, for such a level-headed gal, why does Margaret allow Boyer to treat her so shabbily? Just when I am about to shake my head and yell "Why?", Margaret then either let loose with the tears or try to hide the choking sob in her voice, and I'm transfixed all over again.

This film does feature solid direction, beautiful photography and some good supporting performances (I particularly liked Frank McHugh in this one). This film remains on my "Wish-They-Release-This-One-on-Video" list.

a moment. and its significance. love. and its force who change everything. and the need to respect the rules. one of the films who gives more than the flavor of old fashion cinema. but good performances, seductive - dramatic story, the bitter perspective about chance, choices and sacrifice, the opportunity to come back to a broken dream and the moral lesson who remains the perfect end. a love story who becomes game of memories. at the first sigh, this is all. but only the top of the iceberg. because Charles Boyer seems be perfect as the man looking for the true love. and he has the great gift to be part of beautiful cast who gives to story brilliance and profound roots.

This is my favorite movie of all times. It makes me cry, laugh, and hope. Rae makes your heart break for her. I never stop hoping that the ending will change. I know thats silly but...hey its a movie! Every woman should see this film if she is considering having an affair with a married man! I love all the versions but this is the best one! The ending just floors me each time I watch it.

This is the second of the thrice filmed Fanny Hurst novel about the other woman. Tastefully directed and lensed by Robert Stephenson and Charles Daniels and featuring standout performances from Charles Boyer and Margaret Sullavan it is probably the best of the bunch.

Traveling salesman Walter Saxel and free spirit Ray Smith meet through an acquaintance and in the course of an evening become strongly attracted to each other. He is engaged but makes a decision to marry her on board a river boat. She unfortunately misses the boat and Saxel doesn't see her for another five years marrying in the meantime. They rekindle and she becomes his mistress. As he grows in fame and fortune she remains in the shadow for decades until his children confront her.

Boyer and Sullavan as the long time lovers display a wonderful chemistry with each other. Sullavan's husky voice and Boyer's suave inflection reinforced by telling glances unite the two in an odd but perfect romantic match. Richard Carlson as a well intentioned suitor is also well cast and Frank McHugh, allowed to stretch, shines as Ray's loyal friend with an eternal crush.

Director Stephenson does an excellent job of keeping mood subdued without resorting to hysterics to bring life to the story. His adults behaving like adults expressing and suppressing their feelings in a tempered but passionate way gives the film a graceful tension. Cinematographer Charles Daniels turns in his usual array of impeccably lit compositions such as an evening snowfall where Ray and Walter meet for the first time in five years and the powerful final moments that he along with Stephens jarring and effectively de-romanticizes with stunning portraiture that evokes Goya.

"This film (based on a Fanny Hurst best seller) is way out of date in the modern age. No self-respecting woman would be so willing to sacrifice her career for the prospect of being a millionaire's kept woman. No man, seriously in love with any woman, would put them through such a demeaning situation (they would consider divorce first of all, then remarriage). But there was supposed to be a sense of self-sacrifice by the heroine (Margaret Sullivan) that transcended the entire story."

The point is, this film isn't set in the modern age. There's no sense judging this or any other movie set in another era by today's standards. At the time this story took place, divorce wasn't common. In fact, it was still considered scandalous. Many women put up with unhappy, even abusive marriages, rather than incur the wrath of society that a divorce would have brought upon them. Also, regardless of what her career prospects may have been, a man's career always took precedence. There's no way that he would have sacrificed his family and his career in order to divorce his wife and marry his mistress. There's no way she would have asked him to. This was made very clear in a conversation that took place between them.

When you watch a movie set in another time you need to keep in mind that the rules that governed society are most likely far different than the ones we have today. You need to judge it by those rules or not at all.