Un amour désespéré

Melodrama had come a long way between the thirties austere black and white Stahl tear-jerkers to the fifties flaming Sirk extravaganzas ,which were often remakes of the first director's works ( "when tomorrow comes" "imitation of life" "magnificent obsession")

At the beginning of the fifties ,Wyler -who had already approached melodrama ("Mrs Minniver","little foxes" and even elements of his admirable "best years of our lives) opted for full bore weepie,the "enough is enough" genre and thus anticipated on the great maudlin movies of the fifties which was another golden era for the style,not only Douglas Sirk but also Minelli,Cukor,Dmytryk ,King... Jennifer Jones ,the romantic actress par excellence ,is the bridge between the two eras:she has nothing to do with Irene Dunne or Margaret Sullavan because she's primarily an intuitive:her face is constantly longing for the love which ceaselessly eludes her :no actress succeeded as she did as far romantic passion is concerned ("duel in the sun" "madame Bovary" "Ruby Gentry" are good examples).

And yet,despite the title,the plot focuses on Olivier's character.the great thespian is very moving,going from riches to rag with equal command.The plot encompasses everything that makes a melodrama a delight for afficionados of the genre.Olivier's downfall is almost realist -and sometimes recalls Murnau's "der Letzte Mann" (1924).Wyler depicts his plight and humiliation in lavish detail .That's strange,because ,generally ,man is spared in melodramas .

The legendary depth of field you can find in any Wyler movie is used with great results in the scenes when Carrie comes for the first time in the luxury restaurant where she's invited.

At a time when many cineasts are beginning to respond to the beauties of Powell and Pressburger's "Gone to Earth", Wyler's "Carrie", that other most underrated masterpiece, continues to attract too little appreciative attention. It is not difficult to see why insofar that its depressing subject material is incompatible with audience expectations of its genre, Hollywood studio romanticism. It has a hero who slides into despair and degradation whilst the heroine succeeds in her chosen profession as an aspiring actress. Women who take their handkerchiefs to the cinema have always seemed indifferent to the film: indeed the only admirers I have personally found have been male, possibly identifying with the debonaire restaurateur, Hurstwood (magnificently played by Laurence Olivier), sowing the seeds of his downfall through human weakness which destroys everything except his innate dignity. Had the film been set in its own period (mid 20th century) and directed by, say, a De Sica or Kurosawa, we might still be talking about it. Instead it is set shortly after the beginning of the century, a transitional period when the romantic past was rapidly being overcome by the grainy realism of a new mechanised age. However, far from being weakened by the genre conventions of a highly romantic approach,the superbly crafted direction by William Wyler, photography perfectly composed by Victor Milner and a wonderfully lyrical score by David Raksin are elements that serve to enhance the material. They never sentimentalise it, somehow proving that when as here the Hollywood romantic cinema was given a really mature theme and text, it could, in the hands of some of its greatest craftsmen, be responsible for producing a work of the highest cinematic art.

This was a pretty powerful melodrama, thanks to the great performance of Sir Laurence Olivier.

Olivier plays an unhappily-married older man who falls for the young and beautiful Jennifer Jones (not hard to understand!).....and pays a huge price for his adultery. Olivier is near-mesmerizing in this film and Jones is absolutely gorgeous, as she was in "Portrait Of Jennie," made about five years prior to this film.

Eddie Albert was a bit annoying (but effective) in his role and Miriam Hopkins is downright brutal in her small part as Olivier's wife.

The shocking thing about this film was the subject matter, rare for its day. It was ahead of its day in one respect: it makes the adulterers into the sympathetic "good guys." I'm surprised that got by the censors of the day. Jones' character is oddly innocent for someone "shacking up" with Albert.

I am not a fan of soap operas, but this was highly involving, a tough story to put down once it started I didn't particularly like the ending, but are you gonna do? Note: One of the scenes near the end was inserted on the DVD. It had previously been cut out of the theatrical release. That "flophouse" scene was one that was not passed over by the censors.

This is a curious little sleeper from 1952, a grim, objective look at the upward mobility of a country girl who first adapts to the needs of the men around her, and then moves on to a successful stage career on her own, leaving one of the men in abject poverty.

Today Carrie succeeds not only because of it's splendid recreation of a time, but as one of the few American vehicles where the legendary Laurence Olivier, (who often walked through a character role for the paycheck) performs to his best advantage, evolving from an assured man of the world to a pathetic morsel at the bottom of the heap, a restrained and beautifully measured performance given 13 years later than his dynamic Heathcliff for the same directer in 1939's Wuthering Heights.

Jennifer Jones, too, is a good deal less hysterical and florid than usual; the music score by David Raksin underscores without bombast, and the supporting cast provide excellent contrast. This is definitely not a cheerer-upper, but a picture neatly tuning into it's original author's concerns. It deserves another look, and as time goes by, will be considered one of Wyler's significant contributions.

Olivier and Albert certainly play supporting roles in this terrific William Wyler flick, but as in the Dreiser novel, Jones/Carrie is the star. Is she really evil incarnate, or is she lied to and corrupted by two men who both claim to love her? Does she take care of herself at their expense, or does she sell herself to them out of necessity? These men make a bargain from which both men derive benefits that in 1890, they would not be entitled to unless they deceived and took advantage of Carrie. The scene from the original filming that has been included in the DVD release helps clarify Carrie's motives. She is certainly guilty, but not evil incarnate. But the first wife is much worse, far more grasping, self-serving, and vicious than Carrie.

Jones is good here, but Olivier is amazing.