IMDb RATING
6.2/10
1.6K
YOUR RATING
Bette Davis is a successful poetess who falls in love with a war hero in this romantic melodrama that is a moving film experience any time of year.Bette Davis is a successful poetess who falls in love with a war hero in this romantic melodrama that is a moving film experience any time of year.Bette Davis is a successful poetess who falls in love with a war hero in this romantic melodrama that is a moving film experience any time of year.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
Jim Davis
- Slick Novak
- (as James Davis)
Woody Herman
- Leader - Woody Herman and His Orchestra
- (as Woody Herman and His Orchestra)
Lois Austin
- Marcia
- (uncredited)
Tex Brodus
- Restaurant Patron
- (uncredited)
Gertrude Carr
- Woman on Subway
- (uncredited)
Steve Carruthers
- Restaurant Patron
- (uncredited)
Douglas Carter
- Waiter
- (uncredited)
Hugh Charles
- Headwaiter
- (uncredited)
Russ Clark
- Man in Cafe
- (uncredited)
Franklyn Farnum
- Restaurant Patron
- (uncredited)
Bess Flowers
- Restaurant Patron
- (uncredited)
Charles Fogel
- Restaurant Patron
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
In many ways, this film is a nice departure from the typical Bette Davis film. Having her play a not particularly attractive spinster who is reluctant in love is a nice idea. For once, the "plain Jane" in the film gets the man while the sexy vamp is left in the cold--and I appreciate this. Plus, the film talks a lot about psychological motivations and struggles--as both leads are extremely screwed up and are emotionally "stuck". However, despite these decent story ideas, the film manages to never really hit the mark. This is possibly due to the film packing in too many plot points, or it might be because the film ends on a down note or it could be because the male lead was an unknown and didn't especially distinguish himself. All I know is that the film did keep my attention but I just never felt satisfied by much of it--except the final phone call Bette makes as the film concludes.
For huge Davis fans like myself, it's worth seeing. For those who aren't, please try some of her great films first--she was an amazing and great actress and this movie might give you the impression she was just ordinary.
Two final observations. First, in a cliché that I hate but is present in so many films, a round of drinks is bought and no one really drinks any of it! If I were paying about $5 a drink, I'd be sure to drink mine AND I might be tempted to drink all the other drinks--after all, this costs money!! Second, if you see the film, watch John Hoyt's performance and then ask yourself if this role didn't seem exactly the sort you'd normally see Clifton Webb play. It's got "Webb" written all over it!
For huge Davis fans like myself, it's worth seeing. For those who aren't, please try some of her great films first--she was an amazing and great actress and this movie might give you the impression she was just ordinary.
Two final observations. First, in a cliché that I hate but is present in so many films, a round of drinks is bought and no one really drinks any of it! If I were paying about $5 a drink, I'd be sure to drink mine AND I might be tempted to drink all the other drinks--after all, this costs money!! Second, if you see the film, watch John Hoyt's performance and then ask yourself if this role didn't seem exactly the sort you'd normally see Clifton Webb play. It's got "Webb" written all over it!
Possible *Spoiler*
What I liked about this film was the dialogue. Yes, the dialogue. To me, this film was about two people who were struggling with their inner desires, disappointments, hurts and longings. Both main characters were somewhat stiff in social situations. The uneasiness between them was understandable to me because of their past experiences.
The romantic scenes were awkward in my opinion because of a spinster who is within her shell; and a man struggling with his inner desire to be a priest. Plus it appears the characters were two introverts.
Yes indeed, the film was slow moving, just like real life is sometimes. I do not mind slow moving films, for films should not always be about speed and excess of excitement. There were some really good moments in this film. If you do not mind a story unfolding slowly, with an emphasis on dialogue, check out this film.
What I liked about this film was the dialogue. Yes, the dialogue. To me, this film was about two people who were struggling with their inner desires, disappointments, hurts and longings. Both main characters were somewhat stiff in social situations. The uneasiness between them was understandable to me because of their past experiences.
The romantic scenes were awkward in my opinion because of a spinster who is within her shell; and a man struggling with his inner desire to be a priest. Plus it appears the characters were two introverts.
Yes indeed, the film was slow moving, just like real life is sometimes. I do not mind slow moving films, for films should not always be about speed and excess of excitement. There were some really good moments in this film. If you do not mind a story unfolding slowly, with an emphasis on dialogue, check out this film.
The first thirty minutes may repel some.It's very talky ,it's filmed stage production style.This is a film which grows on you,you 've got to be patient for the "action" is minimal,and most amazing thing, in what is pure psychological drama ,there's not the easy way out : the flashbacks.Another director -it's the first film I've seen by Bretaigne Windust-would have at least enlivened things by introducing two very long flashbacks dealing with the two characters' past.Both have a secret to conceal .This is the very long conversation between them which reveals us that the poetess was demanding,idolizing her father,displaying no compassion for a mother who did not live up to her /their expectations;the soldier is a hero but someone told him something that has completely changed his way of seeing things .
People who expect a mushy romance ,a melodrama ,a love triangle (with the secretary) will be disappointed."Winter Meeting" shows the way to compassion for the others,be they hopeless.
People who expect a mushy romance ,a melodrama ,a love triangle (with the secretary) will be disappointed."Winter Meeting" shows the way to compassion for the others,be they hopeless.
7jhkp
I've seen this film a few times, and, perhaps because I'm an admirer of Miss Davis, I've always enjoyed it. Her performance of the long scene in the country house is really magnificent. Brilliant, thrilling acting, of the highest order. I enjoyed the dialogue very much, because, unlike many films, we really get to hear someone let out their innermost thoughts and it's very much like such a scene would be in real life. I think you have to be in the mood for this picture, and it will not strike everyone the same way - but it would be sad not to be able to identify or sympathize with characters trying to come to grips with sad facts in their past, because that's all of us, at one time or another.
Bette Davis stars as lonely NYC poetess Susan Grieve. Her best friend Stacy (John Hoyt) asks her to accompany him on a blind double date along with visiting war hero Slick Novak (Jim Davis) and Stacy's secretary Peggy (Janis Paige). The sparks are immediate between Susan and Slick, and they spend a snowy weekend together in the country where they both confront deep-seated issues.
Bette Davis is dependably good, but Jim Davis is one of the worst regularly-employed actors in Hollywood history. Watching him struggle through his lines is almost as painful as it is humorous. When his character finally reveals his "dark secret", it elicited a chuckle rather than a gasp, which I don't think was the intention. The film's high point is a surprisingly open performance by John Hoyt as the proverbial "gay best friend" from countless future romance films. Of course it's never explicitly stated that Hoyt's Stacy is gay, given this is still the production code era. It's not a mocking or condescending performance, either, which is doubly surprising for the time. Some of the dialogue between he and Davis has a pre-Code vibe, rich in double entendre. If only his character had been in service of a better story and movie.
Bette Davis is dependably good, but Jim Davis is one of the worst regularly-employed actors in Hollywood history. Watching him struggle through his lines is almost as painful as it is humorous. When his character finally reveals his "dark secret", it elicited a chuckle rather than a gasp, which I don't think was the intention. The film's high point is a surprisingly open performance by John Hoyt as the proverbial "gay best friend" from countless future romance films. Of course it's never explicitly stated that Hoyt's Stacy is gay, given this is still the production code era. It's not a mocking or condescending performance, either, which is doubly surprising for the time. Some of the dialogue between he and Davis has a pre-Code vibe, rich in double entendre. If only his character had been in service of a better story and movie.
Did you know
- TriviaThis film was a huge box office failure, bringing in less than half the cost of production and promotion. It was Bette Davis's biggest flop at Warner Bros. and came after Jalousie (1946), another money-loser for the studio, causing Jack L. Warner to lose faith in Davis's box office appeal.
- GoofsWhen Stacey goes to Susan's apartment at the beginning of the film, he takes off a light-colored scarf. When he goes to leave, he puts on a much different and dark-colored scarf.
- Quotes
Stacy Grant: [to Peggy] Let me give you a piece of advice, culled from years of devestating experience. Next to loss of money, deafness, and skin disease, passion can be the most dangerous.
- ConnectionsFeatured in AFI Life Achievement Award: A Tribute to Bette Davis (1977)
- SoundtracksIf I Could Be with You
(uncredited)
Music by James P. Johnson
Played when Susan and Stacey arrive at the restaurant
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $1,927,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 44m(104 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content