La citadelle du mal

Destined for the stage, but somehow ingeniously made into a movie, this heavy drama about an ostracized family and there internal implosion gets better with each passing minute all the way up to its smashing ending. The superb cast includes an impressive list of names, but even the lesser roles (Dona Drake in particular) contribute significantly, while the story is nearly flawlessly presented, with a few touches that take advantage of the cinematic medium, especially a terrifically edited sequence with Drake doing a Can-Can in a dancehall while out in the woods the KKK is beating a carpetbagger senseless. But what gets the most attention is the constant state of maneuvering between three siblings for the father's favor and his money, and the father's utter disdain, brilliantly portrayed by Frederic March, for his two sons, the hardworking Edmond O'Brien and his lazy younger brother played by Dan Duryea. What stands out is the consistent level of fascination and intensity that the film maintains from start to finish, and the fact that it (this film) seems all but lost today.

Even though this is a prequel to 1941's The Little Foxes, you don't have to know the original story to appreciate the back story behind the characters. In fact, I was mostly confused during the first half, trying to piece together what I remembered from the earlier movie, and once I stopped trying, the movie became much more enjoyable.

If you do know The Little Foxes, this movie shows you how Bette Davis's and Charles Dingle's characters became conniving and evil in their youth. Still living under their parents' roof, they long to break free and live their own lives, and money, power, and status threaten their journey to the top. Ann Blyth plays a young Bette Davis and Edmond O'Brien plays a young Charles Dingle. Vladimir Pozner's screenplay shows great parallels to Lillian Helman's story and characters, but even if you're not familiar with them, it's still an entertaining movie with backstabbing and double-crosses galore. As you might remember from 1941, Charles Dingle was married to the unhappy, repressed Patricia Collinge. While we do see Patricia's younger self portrayed by Betsy Blair, it's an even more interesting parallel to see the family's matriarch, Florence Eldridge, and how similar those two characters are. Fredric March plays the family patriarch, and he's extremely effective as overbearing, stubborn, and mean. A very cute tie to both versions is Dan Duryea, who plays his own father - or his own son, depending on which movie you watch first. In Another Part of the Forest, Dan plays the young, irresponsible brother recklessly in love with a can-can dancer. In The Little Foxes, he's the slimy young son who also does something reckless that affects the rest of the family.

Believe it or not, I liked Another Part of the Forest far better than The Little Foxes. The acting is splendid, and everyone tries very hard to mirror their predecessors, with the exception of Ann Blyth. Had she put on a Bette Davis impression, it would have been too comical, so instead she's a beautiful Southern belle in her own right whom audiences can imagine later turned into Bette Davis. The plot is easier to follow, and while it's still a very heavy drama, it's not as upsetting as watching Herbert Marshall in a wheelchair back in 1941. Check this one out, and think about skipping the original.

This is one of the most wicked and dysfunctional families ever to make it to the big screen during the 1940s. Of course, by today's standards they would seem a bit tame! This is the same sick, backstabbing, conniving family seen in little foxes. Some of the original actors are here (such as the slimy Dan Duryea) and some new ones are along for the ride (Edmund O'Brien, Ann Blythe and Frederick March). So why did I like the movie? Well, the evilness of the characters and how deliciously they scheme and change sides when it best suits their needs make it a very mesmerizing film. Also, because the schemes change A LOT, it's tough to predict where the movie will end.

This movie, though made AFTER Little Foxes, is the prequel. So after seeing this, see Little Foxes and hold on tight!

Avarice, backstabbing and conniving under a thin layer of gentility.

What an undiscovered jewel. A perfectly executed prequel to The Little Foxes. A grade A cast at the top of their game, well written and directed.

'Another Part of the Forest' has been compared often inevitably and for good reason to 1941's 'The Little Foxes', a great film with one of legendary Bette Davis' best performances. The reason for the comparison is that this is a prequel to that film despite being made seven years later. It sees a fascinatingly evil and ruthless family and the source material was shocking at the time and with the portrayal of such ruthlessness in just one household still has the ability to shock.

Have actually seen mixed reviews for 'Another Part of the Forest'. It is very positively received here and a number of classic/Golden Age film fans like/love it too. At the same time, there have been criticisms from some critics, mostly trusted ones from personal view but they're not without dubious opinions every now and again, of 'Another Part of the Forest' being static and that the stage origins are obvious. Actually lean more towards the former and it is great to see people here fond of it. To me, it was very good even if there is a preference for 'The Little Foxes'.

The direction could have been sharper in places, parts of it tend to be on the limp side and lacks William Wyler's imaginative use of camera and atmosphere a little.

Did think too that Ann Blyth's acting, though she does absolutely have great moments, didn't quite gel with that of the rest of the cast. She didn't quite seem monstrous enough and could have gone for it more, Davis was so toweringly monstrous in 'The Little Foxes' and there didn't quite seem to be enough here of how the character came to be the way she became.

However, the cast on the most part are wonderful. Fredric March is perfectly cast and he was never more chilling than here. Dan Duryea does calculating in a way that is very sinister and Florence Eldridge is effectively dotty. Edward O'Brien is a great and more sympathetic contrast to March, their conflict is not just ruthless but also very interesting. The father-daughter chemistry also unsettles and although the characters are with few redeeming qualities and very unsympathetic they are interesting and didn't come over as too over-written, motivations take a lot of unpredictable turns but they were at least buyable.

It, 'Another Part of the Forest' that is, moreover looks great. Very sumptuous and atmospheric, with eerie shadowy lighting and elegant costuming and settings. The music is haunting without over-shadowing or being over-bearing orchestrally. The script thought provokes and bites and doesn't feel too overly talky in the way a lot of other stage to film adaptations do, found it quite vicious too. Personally didn't think it was static or stagy at all, the character interactions were very believable, there were tension and chills in the atmosphere, it was darkly dull and it didn't feel that much of a filmed play or get too melodramatic again like some stage to film adaptations do and also considering the subject. If there was an improvement over 'The Little Foxes' it was the ending, it was the one weak spot in that film whereas it was unpredictable and didn't come over as abrupt.

On the whole, very good. 8/10