Eternels Ennemis

Army surgeon Charlton Heston is happy with his work, but a visit home to the coal-mining town he was born in,as well as society vamp Lizabeth Scott, make him think there's more to life than patching up wounded soldiers. At first he's interested in serving the poor people he grew up with. However Miss Scott gets him a job with society doctor Lester Matthews and becomes engaged to him. He finds his practice consists largely of giving nostrums to wealthy women at $250 a visit. Finally his nurse, Dianne Foster, leaves him to assist Dr. Arthur Franz, who's taking care of the miners and their families. His crisis of faith, however, is yet to come.

Heston has already developed his deep-throated growl in this movie, although he has not perfected it. It has a quality to it that I think is supposed to denote dissatisfaction, but sounds whiny to me. In a world where everyone else struggles for status and wealth, it's up to the woman at the top of both trees to point out the necessity of honesty and honor; well, she's the only one who can.

Charlton Heston stars as doctor and retired Army colonel Tom Owen. He has returned to his home turf, the small mining town of Coalville. The miners hate him because of something his now-dead brother did years earlier, but the upper crust of Coalville society are excited by the new hunky doctor's arrival. With the help of rich man-eater Helen (Lizabeth Scott), Tom is soon in private practice, catering to the lonely and wealthy women of Coalville. His nurse Joan (Dianne Foster) wants to practice the "right kind of medicine", but is Tom only interested in a fast buck and a good time?

This was just terrible, badly written and even more poorly acted. Heston wins the prize for "Worst in Show", delivering his lines in the most grating, hammy way imaginable, while also exhibiting some of the most overwrought physical business I've ever seen on the screen. The script never fails to tell you how wonderful Heston's Tom Mason is supposed to be, even if we are given scant evidence of it. Every woman falls at his feet, while every man is either in awe or angry with jealousy. Some may enjoy how the movie moves from just bad to amusingly camp, while others will just hit the "stop" button and find something better to do with their remaining time.

Charlton Heston and Lizabeth Scott are "Bad for Each Other" in this predictable 1953 film, also starring Mildred Dunnock, Arthur Franz, Marjorie Rambeau, and Dianne Foster.

Heston plays a doctor who returns from the service to the coal town where he grew up. After meeting the wealthy, twice-married, shallow Scott, he decides not to stay in the service and becomes a society doctor, in it for the money. The nurse he hires to work for him (Foster) thinks he's better than that.

The role played by Arthur Franz, that of a young doctor who admires him and doesn't mind going into the trenches, is essentially Heston's conscience.

I found this film pretty bland, but the big problem for me was that the main character as portrayed by Heston was just not likable. He wasn't likable before he took up with Scott nor was he likable throughout the film. Some of this was in the script, but some of it was in his line readings. He had fat attitude every time he opened his mouth. Frankly I didn't care what he did.

Lizabeth Scott was best earlier in her career, in her noir days, where her great voice, sexy blond looks, and ambiguous performances fit very well. Her character in this also was annoying. Now, she's not supposed to be likable, but we should have been able to see why Heston liked her. She seemed awfully pushy for his character to have put up with her.

Heston was tall, handsome, with a great voice and a dominating presence. This film was unfortunately directed in a somewhat old-fashioned manner so as to seem melodramatic and over the top. When someone with that strong a screen persona is directed that way, his performance becomes too actor-y.

Nothing special.

This film is an 83 minute sermon on selflessness vs selfishness, with particular emphasis on the medical profession. The dialogue is full of grandiose turns of phrase that often mean nothing and do not advance the plot. No one's acting stands out because almost everyone is playing a one-dimensional type.

Charlton Heston stars as the only character with any choices to make or an arc to follow. At the start of the story, he plays a skilled military surgeon on leave after the death of his brother. He is initially content to remain in the army where he has been doing good. However, immediately upon arriving in his old hometown, he is offered two positions in private practice. One serving the poor for little pay, one coddling the wealthy for big bucks. He doesn't even have to think about it. Lizabeth Scott plays his new girlfriend, although there is no chemistry between them at all. They both profess their love for the other, but his interest in her seems to be her rich friends, her interest in him is his status as the current fashion.

In case Heston's "bad choices" are not obvious enough, another young doctor and a nurse who both care more about people than money are provided for contrast. Both came to town because they were so impressed by Heston when he was a "real" doctor while in the army. Could that mean he might yet choose the right path?

Finally, to underline the film's version of right vs wrong choices even further is Mildred Dunnock as Heston's mother. She proudly lives in poverty and is distressed that her two sons both preferred a wealthy lifestyle and the corrupting influence of rich women. Neither of her sons appear to have done anything to help out their mother, not for any reason explained in the script, but just because for the sake of the film, everyone must be identified as poor or rich.

Subtle this script is not. Once everything is set up for us, with all the "correct" choices clearly flagged, the rest of the film is just following a predictable path (with some nonsensical speeches) until Heston reaches all the right conclusions.

Maybe if John Garfield had been cast instead of Charlton Heston (who looks and moves like Frankinstein's monster here); and if the producers (writers? director?) had not backed away from the mine safety, health, and company criminal negligence theme that packs a punch in the first ten minutes of the movie.