L'ivresse et l'amour

I enjoyed this film a lot. Joan Fontaine plays Jenny Carey, a struggling actress whose insecurities and stage fright drive her to drink. Ray Milland is Allan Miller, an advertising executive who is a recovering alcoholic and a member of AA. He is called to Jenny's hotel room by the elevator operator one night when Jenny had been on a drinking binge. She was due at a rehearsal of a Broadway play. This meeting of Jenny and Alan lead to romance, even though Allen is married and has two children and one on the way. Jenny tries to cut off the romance as she feels it is improper, but Allan is totally taken with Jenny and wants to continue the romance. Joan Fontaine and Ray Milland have wonderful screen chemistry. Both are excellent as their respective characters, although parts of the script are somewhat weak. Will Alan leave his wife for Jenny? Will Jenny conquer alcoholism and get her chance to star in a Broadway play? This film is seldom seen on cable, but is sometimes put up for bid on eBay. It is certainly worth a look. The film was directed by George Stevens.

This movie is not your standard run of the mill drama. For its time, it's played very naturalistically. Both Milland and Fontaine give solid performances that are restrained and grounded in reality. Unfortunately, Teresa Wright (one of my favorites from the 40s) doesn't get much screen time and when she does it always involves rather stilted conversations with husband Milland.

The movie is an odd conversation piece because there are in fact a lot of real life endings going on.

Take Fontaine for instance, this movie is, arguably her last major leading lady role. Sure her next picture after this was IVANHOE (a big money maker in color) but I'd hardly call that movie a vehicle for Fontaine. For better or worse, this really is her swan song as a leading lady when she was still a major star that audiences were interested in seeing. Sure she had some other leading roles (not many though), THE WITCHES from 1966 though a leading role could hardly be compared to a major studio production with a leading director of Stevens' caliber co-starring a major motion picture star like Milland. She was 35 in this movie.

Milland's career too as a leading man was about to close. After this movie he basically had one BIG picture as a lead in a major motion picture and that would be Alfred Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER. He was 45 in this movie.

Wright's career never did gel completely and consequently it's a rare movie that featured her as the lead...especially with her role being the driving force. But in a handful of movies in the 1940s she made her mark that remains to this day. If nothing else, she was Marlon Brando's co-star in his first movie THE MEN. Hard to believe but she was only 34 in this movie.

One thing I'm surprised no one has commented on is the cinematography. From the very beginning I noticed special attention was being paid to the filming of this movie and there are quite a few dissolve shots where you see two images laid over each other as the scene shifts from one scene to the next. I looked the cinematographer up and discovered it was the legendary GEORGE BARNES. Not too remembered now but in his day one of the best..and one of the earliest. He was nominated five times for an Oscar, winning for 1940s Alfred Hitchcock production of REBECCA. He only made a couple of movies after this then passed away.

Director GEORGE STEVENS was near the end of his career as a director as well, though he still had five films left in him, almost all hits, especially SHANE and GIANT.

I liked the the tone and subject matter of the movie and the manner in which it was handled. Unfortunately, the biggest liability is the writing. There just wasn't enough development to the story. As one other reviewer here suggested, it might have been salvaged if they shortened it and presented it as one of the live dramatic pieces on TV. Or, and I would have gone with this option, and had a script doctor brought in who could have added a bit more conflict. Certainly the interplay between husband Milland and wife Wright should have been beefed up. If nothing else, Wright should have been given at least one scene that she could've sunk her teeth into. And Fontaine too was robbed of a meatier role.

Milland gets the most screen time and thankfully he played it well.

Buy the movie lacked a central theme of URGENCY.

So it plays, perhaps, almost TOO realistically without the needed and wanted dramatic punch.

Still, it was great to see Fontaine not all lacquered up for a change and playing a real woman. And she still looked great.

I'd give the movie a chance. Especially on a winter rainy afternoon.

Jenny Carey is an actress but her dependence on alcohol and a destructive relationship is threatening her blossoming career. A married reformed alcoholic Tony Miller tries to help her but they soon fall in love, straining his marriage.

Sleek romance with a subtle ending in which the couple increasingly face a dependence of a different type, which helps them avoid a return to alcoholism. Joan Fontaine and Ray Milland play the couple with Teresa Wright as the wife.

I am surprised to see how subtle this film actually is in its depiction of alcoholism. There are no great dramatic scenes, and the film is based more on character than plot. An actress calls for help played adequately well by Joan Fontaine ( I did not feel she was at ease in the film ) and Ray Milland arrives to help as he has been through the same addiction, and in many subtle ways the scenario shows the temptation of drink and how probably, despite all ' cures ' the need never really goes away. This aspect Milland explains in a glance, and his wife excellently played by Theresa Wright watches and by a look expresses more than dialogue. As for the dialogue I found most of it natural and only in sequences of a dreadful Broadway play does it descend into banality. But with the absurd title of ' The Egyptions ' ' with terrible sets and costumes George Stevens should have chosen better. The ending is low key and yes many could find this dull, and given the publics need for melodrama in films dealing with this subject ( I'll Cry Tomorrow with Susan Hayward is an example ) the way Steven's treats it could appear too soft. In fact it appeared to me quite the contrary, showing how it can develop ' love ' out of need more than true equality of relationship and also how jobs could be put into jeopardy. There is a cruel scene at a party where everyone knows that Milland and Fontaine are ' together ' despite Milland's wife being there as well, and both are mocked and humiliated which was cruelly accurate of certain human behaviour. This is George Steven's at his best. and his best is very good indeed. He made a few uneven films, and this in its way is one of them, but he also made ' Shane ' and ' A Place in the Sun, ' both fine examples of inner suffering in cinema. It should also be remembered that he filmed the liberation of places like Dachau, and that he could not film comedy afterwards. But coming back to ' Something to Live for ' it is flawed, but it also has a quiet punch about human nature that hits hard.

I wonder if Ray Milland was roped into Something to Live For due to a contractual obligation, but I don't have to wonder if he was insulted - of course he was! Did Hollywood see him as anything other than a chronic alcoholic? His role in this "romance" is practically a sequel to The Lost Weekend, but somehow his character manages to be even more unlikable. There are some movies you can watch him in that show him as a great actor; in this one, he's just Ray Mi-bland.

Joan Fontaine is also just Joan Fontaine. Her hunched posture, inability to voice the ends of her sentences, and her ill-fitting smile are all present in this role, not distinguishing it from countless others she played. She's meek and mousey, going on a bender every time she has to perform onstage. If she feels that way about an audition, reading, or opening night, she has no business seeking a career in the theater. Instead of calling AA whenever she collapses, the well-intentioned bellhop Harry Bellaver should have called an employment agency. Joan is a joke.

At the start of the movie, Harry calls Ray to come over for an emergency drunk resuscitation. Ray is unnerved because AA segregates them by gender, and Joan should have had a woman come. Nevertheless, he spends the evening with her and helps her back on her feet. When he returns to his own home, his wife Teresa Wright isn't happy that he's still involved with alcoholism even though he's kicked the habit himself. There are so many flaws with this plot, it's not even a pleasure to watch and criticize it. Ray would never have been allowed to be a sponsor if he was only one year sober and still holding on by a thread. He would have had his own sponsor, to whom he would have told he's mentoring a single (supposedly attractive) woman; and his sponsor would have put a stop to the dangerous behavior immediately.

The "romance" of the story is also a problem. It's extremely obvious that Ray is only attracted to Joan's weakness. She makes him feel strong by comparison, and his wife reminds him of his past mistakes (through his own conscience; she never actually does this). Is the audience supposed to think theirs is actually a deep love? Joan is unhinged and would cling to anyone. Through their clandestine relationship, doesn't the audience recognize the signs of addiction? Ray starts lying again, he experiences highs and lows, he makes excuses to see Joan when he knows it's unhealthy, and he enjoys his alternative persona during his secret life. How are we supposed to root for these people? How can we think their affair gives them "something to live for"? I was very mad at Harry's character, encouraging an adulterous relationship when he had no stake in Joan's future. If he was Joan's brother and truly believed Ray was the only man who could help her live another day, he might rationalize his aiding and abetting. He holds no investment and should therefore stay out of their lives.