Relation dangereuse

The case of Carolyn Warmus, a beautiful teacher who was accused of murdering the wife of her boyfriend, a co-worker, resulted in a three-year, two-trial case. In fact, Warmus maintains her innocence to this day, and there were some weaknesses in the prosecution's case. But none of this gets noticed. Virginia Madsen gives a respectable performance as Warmus, but the script is of the tabloid trash variety. The scene where she comes on to him is so ludicrous, it would embarrass a first-time screenwriter. I didn't watch the whole film, it was so dull. In fact, even though it was based on a real life case, it plays like fourth-rate crime fiction. All one can do after watching this is to wonder what really happened. Too bad.

As a longtime fan of Virginia Madsen, I have always felt that she could have done better than playing all of these 'femme-fatales' during that part of her career which includes this.

However, I have since learned that Virginia's influences in her acting were Barbara Stanwyck and Bette Davis, both masters of film noir.

Perhaps this finally explains this phase of her career, and therefore may deserve some sort of reassessment, so I may be back soon and do some editing here and other places on IMDb.

As for this film, she seems to have captured the essence of Carolyn Warmus, and since it is currently being rerun on the Lifetime Movie Network and may finally be on DVD in this country, others may now come to appreciate her work, now that her career seems to be back on track.

Director Martin Davidson has to be congratulated for being one of the few who has made Virginia Madsen look bad, and for presenting a story supposedly centred on a true life woman, with frustrating ambiguity and a general lack of skill.

Madsen plays Carolyn Warmus, a Greenville Springs New York school teacher who is accused of the murder of Betty Jean Solomon (Lenore Kasdorf), the wife of her lover and fellow school teacher Paul Solomon (Chris Sarandon).

The teleplay makes Paul the prime suspect until the narrative skips to Carolyn's stalking of him once he stops seeing her after Betty Jean is killed. Making Paul a womaniser is an interesting plot development, however writers Earl & Pamela Wallace and Davidson never add enough depth or characterisation to Carolyn to suggest that she is the murderer she goes on trial for being. Flashback memory is used clumsily in response to police interrogation of various people for the backstory, and the touches of Carolyn's relationship with her father in a pre-credit sequence and via his appearance at her 2nd trial are slight. This seeming unmotivated entrapment of Carolyn by the police is also highlighted by their insensitive ridicule of her during a search of her home. Paul is given a speech to Carolyn's defence attorney that no judge would ordinarily allow, and Betty Jean is shown to sleep whilst a war movie plays loudly on her television.

Matters aren't helped by Davidson's plodding direction, and cliched use of black & white, slow motion, tilted camera, lighting for flashbacks, and the overuse of saxophone to represent Carolyn's sexuality. Although he does use an interesting stylisation for Carolyn's hearing pleas and sentencing, otherwise Davidson paints her in the broadest possible strokes, where Madsen overplays being a femme fatale, and is particularly ridiculous in a montage of her being photographed. She only manages subtlety when looking at herself in the mirror on 2 occasions, where her sultriness is not forced, in a scene of anger and in some of her silent reactions at the trial. Davidson also strangely provides a lot of footage of Sarandon's bare and sweaty torso, though once works against an expectation, as the water splash from a pool where he sunbakes comes from a fat lady.

I recall the headlines somewhat, & recall knowing there was a significant amount of evidence against Warmus, including that she had stalked previous lovers and tried to run over one of their girlfriends. But in watching this film in 2021, I was expecting to have my memory refreshed on the actual facts of the case. This film doesn't do that, really, except to link the murder weapon to Warmus and show her femme fatal persona -- which is a bit hard to believe looking at actual photos of her. So, while the film shows her as a siren I think the attraction men may have had to her was much more basic and looks like a dollar sign. I will assume the actress was just following direction in trying to show how self-engrossed Warmus was and how highly she thought of herself; but Virginia Madsen is said to have been influenced by people like Betty Davis, Katherine Hepburn, and Marilyn Monroe which I think gives more background on how she played the role than anything related to Carolyn. I remember Madsen from a great tv series called The Witches at East End. The film also does nothing to provide any back story on Warmus such as that her daddy was a wealthy businessman, making us wonder how a teacher could afford her lavish style and spur of the moment travel. There is a very vague insinuation that she had daddy issues but the vague innuendo is based on the viewer having a solid background on the case via the media. Maybe at the time the film was made it was relevant to those who had some prior knowledge of the case and anti-social behavior of Warmus. But this film, imo, is poorly done using romantic jazz music every time Warmus is shown, and seems to be more a vehicle to plant doubt. What actually turned the tables on the 2nd trial was the additional evidence where they matched an expensive bloody glove found at the scene to gloves in Warmus' closet (also not in the film). And apparently Warmus has a legal fund-me type site open that her own father has never contributed to. The film also doesn't tell us that Mrs. Solomon knew about the affair and that Warmus had sent her notes that could be construed as threatening. The fact is, though, not everyone who stalks and has the financial means to try to control others is capable of murder. But in this case, Warmus was proven to be the killer and I feel this film tries to leave that open. All in all, this film overplays the seductive abilities of Warmus, downplays the stupidity of Solomon (and his family who all accepted financial favors and gifts from Warmus), and fails to show us even 50% of what the jury was shown. It's just a way to fill airspace and take advantage of headlines.

This film was made in the early 90's and it seems that was a time (before reality TV glutted the market) and when subject matter was scarce, so audiences were treated with "ripped from the headlines" type Lifetime movies. Some were okay, some not. A few (though not many) were memorable.

This falls into the forgettable category. Virginia Madsen is worth watching, although the little "get-up" costumes she wears are blatantly obvious and one-dimensional. Surely the director must know of other ways to portray a flirtatious and narcissistic woman other than the little tennis dress and obsession with stuffed animals - silly.

Chris Sarandon is in a thankless role, Lenore Kasdorf as the executed wife. Basically the story does not reveal Warmus' motives, (other than the flat notion that she was jealous). A tired idea, unless the audience is shown WHY she is the way she is; perhaps it was based in childhood?. There is a brief clip of Warmus' childhood, but no depth, no inference. We do not care about the characters.

By the time we get to the courtroom scene, we have lost interest. William H. Macy as prosecutor does nothing to redeem the film. This film with the material, could have been interesting. First we need to care about the characters. Many films may not be masterpieces but if we CARE about the outcome, the story becomes worthwhile. Not so in this case.