I just wanted to get
your attention. I’ve been away from this
blog for a long time. I’m still here.
But seriously, I really
do prefer The Unfaithful to the much more well-known and deservedly lauded The Letter. Pour yourself a cuppa and
I’ll tell you why. You don’t mind
spoilers, do you? I didn’t think so.
Both films are based on
the story and subsequent stage play by W. Somerset Maugham, (went through a
handful of other film versions as well) but The Unfaithful is a re-working of
the story to fit into a different locale: post-war Los Angeles. The original story, you’ll remember, is set
in a Malaya rubber plantation. The Letter stars Bette Davis and Herbert Marshall in the tale of an unfaithful
wife, who murders her married lover, and then must hide the truth from her
husband and the police. The device that
seals her fate and proves her guilt is a letter written to her lover. Gale Sondergaard, who strikes fear into the
hearts of everybody, not just in this movie—she probably struck fear into the
hearts of people just walking down Wilshire Boulevard—is the dead man’s wife
who holds the whip hand over Bette Davis.
But for me, the film is
a marshmallow: all air, sticky, and without nourishment. Even the impressive Miss Sondergaard reminds
me of The Dragon Lady in the old Terry and the Pirates comic strip, and so the “mysterious orient” clichés that
abound in this movie strike me as somewhat cartoonish. I prefer The Unfaithful for several
reasons. Here we go:
Ann Sheridan is in the
Bette Davis role, but unlike Davis—who we know is guilty from the very first
moment in the film—Ann Sheridan’s guilt, her sin of being unfaithful, is not
apparent until far into the movie. We start
with a happy Miss Sheridan speaking on the phone with her husband who is away
on a business trip. We see she is in
love, and eagerly awaiting his return the next day. We do not suspect her of an adulterous
affair. What we do learn about her comes
through twists and turns, and by the end of the film, we see we do not know her
at all. In comparison, Bette Davis comes
off as transparent, and I find her brittle rigidity, though compelling
psychologically, still two-dimensional, even if we are shocked by her
declaration at the end of the film.
Miss Sheridan attends a
party thrown by her husband’s cousin, Eve Arden. Any movie with Eve Arden is always better
than a movie without Eve Arden. Our Eve
has a good role here. We first meet her
as a new divorcee who throws herself a Happy Divorce Party. All her friends are there, and one who is not
her friend: her ex-husband shows up, drunk and angry, and vents his bitterness
before he is dragged away. Douglas
Kennedy has this small role. We saw him previously in South of St. Louis (1949).
Miss Arden is raucous,
crude, loud, and tasteless in the early part of the film, but she keeps popping
up from time to time, and each time we see her, a little more of her hard shell
gets peeled away and we discover by the end of the film she’s really a sad and
lonely person, and a mensch. She turns
out to be a real pal to Sheridan and her husband, played by Zachary Scott, when
they really need her.
Zachary Scott has a more interesting role than the character played by Herbert Marshall in The Letter. Though I love Herbert Marshall, and though we feel great sympathy for him as the cuckolded husband of Bette Davis, we also can’t help but regard him as a sap. She’s playing him like a fiddle. The story, and the director, allows us to see right through Davis, but he has no such advantage and we may wonder how he could be so dense.
Mr. Scott is nobody’s
fool, an enterprising builder taking advantage of the post-war boom. He’s devoted to Sheridan, but when the clues
of her guilt wipe the scales from his eyes, he’s determined to dump her and see
her rot. How quickly, and stunningly,
love turns to hate. It’s all passion in one
form or another.
Lew Ayres plays their
friend and lawyer in a role similar to James Stephenson in The Letter; likewise he is devoted to his friends, plays knight errant to the accused until
he discovers her guilt and then fights his own disgust to be able to save her.
Most especially, I love
that The Unfaithful is frankly and most purposefully without that fantasyland
setting of the tropics. It is set in a
mundane and more familiar time and place.
(Although, I confess, as a New Englander, I find palm trees, even lined up in front of a shopping mall, extremely exotic.) This is a setting we recognize; these are people with whom we are
familiar. It brings this tumultuous
story down to earth, with consequences that are real. We must take their troubles more seriously
because they may be our own.
This being a blog about
how classic films teach us much about the eras in which they were made, I find The Unfaithful a very useful tool in examining the post-war era. It’s got all the details. The narrator tells us as the camera pans from
the home of Sheridan and Scott to the palm-tree lined roadway, “The problem
with which it deals belongs not to any one town, city or country, but is of our
times.” In this respect, the movie is
less like The Letter and more like The Best Years of Our Lives.
The “problem,” it
seems, is that so many marriages begun in haste during the romantic and rushed
war years are ending in divorce. Lew
Ayres’ clients are mostly women seeking divorces, and he has mixed feelings
about that: a desire to be successful, and yet a sense of disgust for his
clients. Eve Arden is his latest client
and his latest victory in the courtroom.
Ann Sheridan is the
opposite of Eve Arden: she is a loving wife who waited patiently for her
husband to return from war, who still waits patiently for him to return from
every business trip. She waits around a
lot. She and Eve Arden are not close
friends; they are too different. One is
a lady and one is…not.
Things turn very bad
for Ann and progressively get worse. She
arrives home from Eve Arden’s divorce party, and parks her car in the back of
the house. As she pulls into the drive,
we see a man is watching her. Instantly, the tone of the movie changes. She walks
to the front of the house and we see her silhouetted in the mist. We watch her walk towards us, knowing the man
is hiding, also watching her. At her
door, the man attacks her, pulls her into the darkened house. We watch through the windows, from the
street, a scene of terror and the sounds of struggle, and screams. We don’t know what’s happened, but we’ve
imagined the worst.
It’s the next morning
and Zachary Scott lands at the airport, wondering why his wife isn’t there to
pick him up. I like the way the
director, Vincent Sherman, takes his time and lets this scene play out. He’s very good at developing these very tense
scenes from ordinary situations. Your
stomach tightens when you see Ann Sheridan walking at night in her own
driveway. Your stomach tightens when you
see Zachary Scott get bad news. We’ve
been there. This is a large part of why
I prefer this movie to The Letter—it brings high drama to smallest, quietest
elements of what we know as “real” life.
Mr. Scott looks and
looks around, finally goes to a phone booth to call home. Because he’s closed the door of the booth,
and because there are constant announcements on the public address system about
flights, we barely hear his voice. We
strain to hear him—a nice dramatic touch over not hearing him at all. It makes us an active participant. We don’t know what he’s saying—just like we
couldn’t see the attack except from yards away and through curtains. By his expression, we realize somebody on the
other end told him shocking news, and he rushes to find his checked luggage and
get a cab.
The phone, we learn,
was answered the by the police, and we see when he arrives that his home is
chaotic with reporters, and police all around.
For the first time, we learn that Ann Sheridan is well and survived the
attack, but that her attacker lies dead on the living room floor with an
ornamental knife in him that Mr. Scott had brought back from Japan during the
war. That’s about all of the mysterious
orient you’ll find in this movie.
When Miss Sheridan is
interviewed in her bedroom by the police, with her husband and Lew Ayres at her
side, we see that she is traumatized and miserable. We knew Bette Davis’ distress was just an
act, but Sheridan’s horror is real. The
million-dollar question is asked of her “Had you ever seen him before?” She answers no, and we have no reason to
doubt her. Neither does her husband or
her lawyer pal. The police detective,
played by John Hoyt, remains cynical, but that is his job.
Oh, note the matching plaid chair and curtains. See this previous post on my fascination for such stupid things.
The detective tells us
that the dead man has no criminal record, that he was a sculptor. His mind, and ours, turns to the question,
why did he go to her house? If robbery
wasn’t his motive, we are left with a question of attempted rape, though nobody
uses the word. Ann Sheridan’s expression
is our first clue that she’s not being completely honest, she’s withholding
some information, but we have to find out the hard way.
Steven Geray plays a
smarmy art dealer who contacts Lew Ayres about a bust of a woman, asking him if
he wants to buy it. It was sculpted by
the dead sculptor guy. The face is Ann
Sheridan’s.
Ann lied. The dead scupltor obviously knew her and she
knew him, because we are told that this kind of piece would have to be modeled
from real life. He didn’t sculpt it from
a photo of her. I find Ann's scatterbrained, guilt-driven, panic-induced deceit much more understandable and appealing than Bette Davis' psychotic, chilly posturing, but that is not to say that one actress is better than the other in the role; it's just a preference for characterization.
The art dealer is
attempting to blackmail Mr. Ayres’ client, but our noble Lew isn’t having any
of it. He brushes off the smarmy art
dealer and goes straight to Ann, who, reluctantly, relents and confesses she
did know the dead guy. It was during the
war, and she hired him to do the sculpture, but after a few sittings, he got
too personal and creepy and made her feel uncomfortable, so she avoided him and
never went back. He stalked her a few
times, but when her husband came home from oversees, it scared the guy off.
Ann tells Lew she
didn’t tell him or the police that she knew the guy because, “I was afraid of
what people would say.”
Now Lew has to hammer
home to her that what people say is not the problem. The problem is if she knew the guy, a jury
might think she let him into the house and murdered him, that it was not
self-defense. She’s frustratingly slow
on the uptake about this.
Unless there's more to it that she isn't saying.
And there is.
Then Ann goes to the smarmy art dealer herself to pay the blackmail, but the widow doesn’t want her money. She wants her to go to jail.
And there is.
Then Ann goes to the smarmy art dealer herself to pay the blackmail, but the widow doesn’t want her money. She wants her to go to jail.
Ann goes back to Lew
Ayres in a panic, getting herself in deeper and deeper, and finally Lew
understands, as do we, that she had more than a professional relationship with
the sculptor. She had a fling with him.
Lew, lawyer and
bachelor, is disgusted. “You’re no
different from all the other cheating, conniving women who parade through my
office.” Now he strips the final layer
away: Did she kill him on purpose to shut him up?
We pause here to watch
the how her web of lies has taken on a life of its own. Smarmy art dealer still wants a cut of the
blackmail money he thinks he’ll get, so he contacts Zachary Scott and meets
him, like a spy movie, in MacArthur Park (no cake out in the rain here, so just
never mind that), one of the many neato Los Angeles scenes we have in this
movie. He takes him to the widow’s
run-down apartment and meets Ann’s sculpted likeness as the art dealer hammers
him with the old Othello scenario about the treachery of women. Zachary
is crushed.
He goes home to have a
showdown with Ann. She tries to explain
her loneliness during the war. He blasts
her, “Millions of women waited, they waited decently, loyally. They didn’t cheat.”
Mr. Scott wants a
divorce, but just as he’s about to storm out, the cops show up at the door to
arrest Ann on suspicion of murder. See,
the cops discovered Zachary going to the widow’s apartment with the smarmy art
dealer. They know about the sculpture now. The jig is up.
Our Lew, despite his
profound disappointment in Ann, agrees to represent her at the murder trial,
where the prosecuting attorney is our old pal, Jerome Cowan.
The trial sequence
builds to a crescendo of self- knowledge—of Zachary about Ann, and of about
himself and his failings as a husband.
We learn they knew each other two short weeks before they were married,
and he was so eager to pursue his career on his return home, she became an afterthought. We also learn, somewhat surprisingly, that
she was a fashion editor for a magazine before the war, yet we are given the
impression she does not have a career now.
She gave up a job like that to stay home and volunteer for the Red
Cross? That is an interesting subplot that
is not pursued, however.
Neither is it fleshed out the
possibility that Lew Ayres may feel more than friendship and respect for Ann
and could present as a romantic rival, which would have been intriguing, but
no triangle happens.
What we do have is the
crime of the century—not the murder, and not just cheating on her husband, but
cheating on a vet in a post-war
climate that revered them.
Jerome Cowan asks us,
“Is this a woman you can believe?”
But Lew Ayres, and the
producers remind us, “She is not on trial for infidelity.” Mr. Ayres, from his own professional
perspective as a divorce lawyer counters: “How many personal tragedies occurred
far from the battlefield,” and “If there had been no war, she would not be in
this court today.” So it’s the war’s
fault. We see Zachary Scott mulling this
over.
The best summation of
the story is handled by Eve Arden. When
the jury is out a long time, Zachary Scott goes over his cousin Eve’s house to
wait. The merry divorcee is spending a
quiet evening alone, with a book, the radio, and a box of chocolates, still
wisecracking, but softer and sympathetic.
Zachary tears up, and cries, and she softly replies, “I’m glad to see
you acting like a human being for a change.”
Though she was never
best pals with Ann Sheridan, whom she regarded as too good to be true, she
defends her, and Zachary is upset. “Is
it my fault I was sent overseas?”
“You knew you were
going when you met her. Let’s face it,
that’s why you married her…what you wanted was a whirl and a memory. You wanted a beautiful woman waiting for you,
and you didn’t want anyone making time with her when you were away, so you hung
up a no trespassing sign, like you’d stake a gold claim. You didn’t marry her; you just took an option
on her.”
“She could have said
no.”
Eve continues her sane,
and somewhat shocking for the times, rebuttal: “When the band was playing? Listen, I was there. I saw you making with that uniform and that
‘today we live’ routine. And then you
were off.”
Production on this
movie was begun in late 1946. Just a
year after the war, and we’re already negating all that movie patriotism and
sacrifice that got us through the worst of it.
Then a phone call lets
them know that Ann has been acquitted by the jury. Mr. Scott quietly says, “Oh.” So that we are still not sure how the ending
will be played.
With Lew Ayres
seemingly guiding the shell-shocked couple to a negotiation, it ends with a cigarette on the
couch, and the leaden film noir score suddenly lighter, giving us hope, a
suggestion of gentleness, and we even hear bells pealing.
We are left with an
indictment not of Ann Sheridan, but of the era, and that gave the audience
then, and gives the viewer now, something to think about.
“With all my heart, I
still love the man I killed” is just a cheap thrill in comparison.
And the ending of The Letter where Bette Davis is murdered was not in the original story. This was tacked on by the stalwart keepers of
the Production Code to see that a murderess and adulteress was punished.
Ann Sheridan, in The Unfaithful remarkably gets away with both a killing and adultery, and still holds our sympathy. She’s rebuked, but still noble. Way to go, Ann. It would have been a great scene for the movie if Ann had discussed her affair, what attracted her to the man and why she needed to be with him. Perhaps the intimacy of her face and body being so closely studied in creating the sculpture was what seduced her. But I guess you can push the Hays Office just so far.
You may now rebut.
32 comments:
Well!
I can't say my love for "The Letter" has diminished as I'm still waiting for Sen Yung's Oscar nomination that I'm sure was held up in the mails. But... the food for thought you provided is quite nourishing and I look forward to meeting with the folks in "The Unfaithful".
I know what you mean about Sen Yung's missing Oscar nomination. Rum go, what? (As they say at the Raffles.)
No rebuttal - I agree!
That's one acquittal for "The Unfaithful" by a man who knows his noirs.
No rebuttal from me, as I've never seen it. I did skip a bit to avoid surprises, but read enough to really whet my appetite. How did this one ever slip by me? It sounds great. I will definitely be on the look out for this one.
I find post-war Lew Ayres quite interesting. He's pretty great in "Johnny Belinda" and there's a maturity there that wasn't there pre-war. He's like Tyrone Power, Gable, Robert Taylor, Jimmy Stewart...the war seemed to have aged them drastically. I know Ayres was a pacificst and refused to fight but was a medical corpsman, I believe. I'm sure he saw some awful things. It's reflected in his later performances.
I also love Lew Ayres in his post-war films, and agree with you about that appealing maturity in his post-war films. But that hint of world-weariness is also there in his comic turn in "Holiday" and "All Quiet on the Western Front", both pre-war.
He was a pacifist, but his being listed officially as a conscientious objector and sent to a CO camp I think was more due to the Army's refusing his initial request to serve as a medic. Once that got straightened out, he served as a medic and a chaplain's assistant in the Pacific for something like four years, at one point helping to set up an evac hospital under while fire at Leyte. He reportedly donated all his earnings from the service to the Red Cross. I haven't read the new bio on him yet, but I hope to one of these days. Interesting guy.
I loved the classic film noir "The Letter" and I'm sure I will also love what sounds like a very watchable melodrama "The Unfaithful". Which sounds a little familiar to me.. maybe I have seen it..
I'm about to utter what many will find hard to take, but Bette Davis has never been an actress that I find appealing on screen. There is almost always too much of an edge to her, which is odd because there are other actresses that I like because of it. I'm not sure I can ever explain my lack of interest in her.
I've seen "The Letter" and dspite y feeling on Bette Davis, I did enjoy it. I've never seen this movie, but I have a feeling I would like it more than "The Letter" and probably find myself willing to rewatch it, which is not something I will do with any Bette Davis movie.
Dawn, I hope you get to see the movie soon. "The Letter" is a great film, and it's fun to compare this with it.
Ryan, I don't think it's at all odd that you can't warm up to Bette Davis on screen. She is a stunning force to be reckoned with, but her acting style in most of her films is not natural. Though I admire many of the risks and chances she's taken, I think I liked her best in "All About Eve" where her style really seemed to fit.
I will say, that though I like Bette Davis, and Joan Crawford, when I watch their movies I rarely forget I'm watching Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. They are larger than life, and so I am entertained by them, but rarely taken in by their characterizations. I don't identify with them. To some extent, but not always, I would say Katharine Hepburn fits into this grouping, too. There are only a few movies where Hepburn transcends her own image. That's got to be a tough thing to do for actresses who are "stars" and spent their entire careers building up their images.
Very nicely put. I caught this movie the other day and was surprised to get caught up in it. It's a nice showcase for Sheridan, and you're right -- any movie with Eve Arden is automatically better than a movie without Eve Arden.
Thank you, David. I agree Sheridan gets a good role here. So glad to see another Eve Arden fan, and that this movie is getting some attention.
Great review. I've watched The Unfaithful many times and rate it highly. I never think to compare it to The Letter. Although the same basic theme, the two films are so very different .
The four leads are so good.
And I love the theme music .
I wonder what happened to that sculptured head of Anne!
Thanks, Vienna. I also wondered what happened to that sculpture. Like you, I also loved the musical theme -- Max Steiner, I guess, but that foreboding noir anthem, terrific.
I LOVE Ann Sheridan, so she can do no wrong here. I totally agree about the settings - the tropics just seemed an excuse for an English woman to go wild (Red Dust, too). Now, have yo seen the Jeanne Eagels version of "The Letter"? It is quite ancient and creaky, but that woman could act!
I'd love to see the JE version, which I understand Herbert Marshall appears in as well.
It's on YouTube, but very poor quality
Jacqueline,I've been meaning to catch up with your review of THE UNFAITHFUL, and I'm so glad I finally had an opportunity to read it! While I like Bette Davis in THE LETTER, your review of THE UNFAITHFUL really got me thinking more deeply about the characters and the post-war milieu where it's set. It may have its flaws, but with that backdrop and that great cast, you've really got me eager to give it my undivided attention the next time it turns up on TCM! Your blog posts are always a great read, and I'm looking forward to catching up with THE UNFAITHFUL!
Thank you, Dorian. I hope you get a chance to see "The Unfaithful" sometime. I don't think it necessarily competes with "The Letter", but it's fun to compare the two.
I would agree with you, Jacqueline, about Better Davis always being BETTE DAVIS in her films and I agree that in ALL ABOUT EVE, it works for her. But I'd also add her 'soft' role in THE MAN WHO CAME TO DINNER. She is wonderful and not at all BETTE DAVIS-like. One of my favorite films, by the way.
At any rate and though I love THE LETTER (especially the murder scene at the beginning) precisely because of its melodramatic larger than life tone(when Gale Sondergaard is in a movie, you KNOW it has no basis in reality - not that that is a bad thing), I would not be averse to watching THE UNFAITHFUL at some point. (Big of me, I know.) It's Zachary Scott who would make me think twice about the whole business. Never liked him. Always thought him Too Odd - more like a snake come to life. Okay, okay, I exaggerate, but really - can this this guy be for real? No, no, a thousand times no!
P.S. You stumped me a second time, Jacqueline. I KNOW I've never seen this film either. :)
Excellent Argument! Very persuasive. As much as I love Bette Davis and THE Letter I think I agree with you. I don't know if it is also because of the fabulous shots of Los Angeles!
Thank you very much, Ana, and welcome to the blog. I agree those fabulous Los Angeles scenes are such fun to see.
I agree with you 100%. I saw "The Unfaithful!" many years ago but was very impressed by it. Ann Sheridan plays a woman who is really sympathetic. She slipped in a moment of weakness but she deserves our fellow-feeling. The ending is very positive. I thought everything did well in this film.
Welcome, Denise, and thanks for sharing your thoughts on this great movie. So glad it's becoming more well known.
"The Unfaithful!" reminds me a bit of a Suspense radio show that aired in 1948 entitled "Beware the Quiet Man." It stars Ann Sothern as a wife "stepping out" on a nice-guy husband. She learns her lesson by the end of the episode and plans to be a better wife.
I'm not familiar with that episode, but I love Old Time Radio, and I'll have to look it up. Suspense was a great show.
I think it is wrong to say Chris Hunter "gets away with both a killing and adultery." The killing was self-defense. I think we are meant to believe that it was self-defense so her acquittal is simply justice. She doesn't "get away" with adultery. She is terribly embarrassed about it and it hurts her that she has hurt the husband she loves. That they stay together doesn't mean that she hasn't suffered for her sins. Rather, it shows that they belong together and it is possible to forgive someone for basically being human and giving into temptation.
Thanks for commenting, Denise. I appreciate your input. What I mean is in terms of the Production Code, she "got way with" both a killing and adultery because she remained the heroine of the movie, drawing our sympathy. This was unusual for the day, when the Code was quite strict about mandating that such faults lead to the ruin of the character committing them. I'm not suggesting the character didn't suffer and regret her actions, only that the Production Code was usually not so magnanimous in allowing forgiveness and redemption.
Here's "Beware the Quiet Man" http://www.oldtimeradiodownloads.com/thriller/suspense/beware-the-quiet-man-1948-08-12
Swell! Thanks, Denise.
I think someone hit it on the head when the person commented that "The Unfaithful!" is NOT a "remake" of "The Letter" but, rather, that both films draw on the same source material. They are completely different films. Bette Davis plays a murderer. Ann Sheridan plays a woman who genuinely killed in self-defense. Both play adulteresses but the character Davis plays is in love with "the man she killed" while the character Sheridan plays is in love with her husband. The audience can cheer at the end of "The Unfaithful!" because the two of them really are in love and really belong together.
I am SO GLAD you devoted a blog to "The Unfaithful!"
It would be really neat if someone could put the entire version of "The Unfaithful!" on YouTube. I would so like to watch this fine film again!
Just watched The Unfaithful on TCM. I couldn't agree more. Every line and emotion rings true. All characters have incredible interest and depth. Like many films of that era, the dialog is first rate. Loved the uncertainty at the end.
Post a Comment