"DODSWORTH" (1936) Review

"DODSWORTH" (1936) Review

I might as well place my cards on the table. William Wyler has been one of my favorite Old Hollywood directors for as long as I can remember. One particular movie that had impressed me as a teenager and a woman in my 20s was his 1936 film, "DODSWORTH". However, a good number of years had passed since I last saw it. Realizing this, I decided to view the movie again for a new assessment. 

Based upon Sinclair Lewis' 1929 novel and Sidney Howard's 1934 stage adaptation, "DODSWORTH" tells the story of a Midwestern auto tycoon named Sam Dodsworth, who decides to sell his auto manufacturing plant and retire at the urging of his wife Fran. Feeling trapped by their small-town social life, Fran also convinces Sam to start off his retirement with a trip to Europe. Sam comes to regard the trip as an opportunity to see the sights. Fran has different ideas. She views the trip as an opportunity to escape her Midwestern life and enjoy the pleasures of European high society. She manages to achieve this with a succession of European Lotharios by her side. The different desires and expectations of the pair eventually fractures their marriage for good.

When all is said and done, "DODSWORTH" is basically a portrait of a failing marriage. A part of me wondered why "DODSWORTH" had never been filmed during Hollywood's pre-Code era. Sinclair Lewis' tale seemed aptly suited for that particular period in film history. I tried to remember how many movies I have seen or heard about a failing marriage and divorce and realized they were few in numbers. Another aspect of "DODSWORTH" I found interesting was director William Wyler and screenwriter Sidney Howard's attempt to portray the Dodsworths' marital breakup with as much maturity as possible. One could easily blame the Fran Dodsworth for the marriage's eventual failure, due to the character's vanity, infatuation with European high society and infidelity. But I read somewhere that both Wyler and Howard (especially the former) went out of their way to portray Fran with as much sympathy and complexity as possible - especially in the movie's first half. 

I do believe that Wyler, Howard and the movie's cast did an excellent job in their attempt to create a realistic and mature film. I found scenes in the film that seemed to exemplify this attempt at mature melodrama. They include Ruth's embarassing last conversation with Captain Clyde Lockert, the good-looking British Army officer she had flirted with aboard the ocean liner that took her and Sam to Europe; the Dodsworths' last conversation before Sam returns to the U.S.; and their frank conversation about Fran's affair with aging playboy Arnold Iselin upon Sam's return to Europe. But the two best scenes - well shot by Wyler and superbly performed - featured Fran's even more embarassing encounter with Baroness Von Obersdorf, the elderly mother of the young Baron Kurt Von Obersdorf, whom she wished to marry; and Sam and Fran's last moment together in which the former decides to end their marriage permanently. Watching this movie, it was easy for me to see why "DODSWORTH" managed to earn seven Academy Award nominations - including a Best Director nomination for William Wyler and one for Best Picture.

Two of those nominations were for technical achievements. Richard Day not only earned a nomination for the movie's art direction, he also won. And I could see why, especially in the images below:

 

Day's work seemed to feature a clean, yet stylish look that was evocative of the Art Deco period of the 1920s and 30s. 

At least two cast members earned Oscar nominations for their performances. Walter Huston earned a well-deserved nomination for his natural and down-to-earth portrayal of the very likeable and mature retired tycoon, Sam Dodsworth. A surprising Best Supporting Actress nomination was given to Maria Ouspenskaya in a small role as Baroness Von Obersdorf, the woman whom Fran Dodsworth hoped to call "mother-in-law". I cannot deny that Ouspenskaya was very effective as the frank and no-nonsense German aristocrat who crushed Fran's dreams of marriage to the younger Kurt Von Obersdorf. But I rather doubt if I would have considered her for an Oscar nomination. The movie also featured competent performances from Mary Astor, Kathryn Marlowe, John Payne, Spring Byington and Gregory Gaye. The two more memorable performances - at least for me - came from a young David Niven as the well-born British Army officer, who teaches Fran a lesson about flirtation and Paul Lukas as the much older Lothario, Arnold Iselin, who seemed amused by the chaos he causes within the Dodsworth marriage. But for me, Ruth Chatterton gave the best performance in the film. Despite the negative manner in which her character was written, her portrayal of the vain Fran Dodsworth provided the film with backbone, drive and a great deal of first-rate drama. "DODSWORTH" would be nothing without the Fran Dodsworth character . . . and Chatterton's superb performance. And yet . . . the actress did not receive an Academy Award nomination.

In the end, "DODSWORTH" is a very well made movie. Actually, it is quite superbly made. I can see why it earned those seven Oscar nominations. But despite the excellent direction, acting and writing .. . I ended up hating this film. I hated the unbalanced portrayal of the Dodsworth marriage. I hated how the story placed all of the blame for the marriage's failure on Fran. If Wyler was trying to portray Fran in a more flexible light, he and Sidney Howard failed miserably in the end. I hated how Howard's screenplay portrayed Fran's flaws in a serious light, whereas Dodsworth's flaws - namely his own penchant for self-absorption at home - was portrayed as comic relief. I hated the fact that Sam Dodsworth ended up with a younger and more beautiful woman who seemed to be portrayed as an ideal woman, despite her divorce status. I especially hated the fact that Dodsworth was portrayed as a nearly ridiculously idealized himself - the self made man who still adhered to good old-fashioned American values, while Fran was portrayed as an incredibly flawed woman who had failed to live up to American society's ideal of a married woman. 

I realize there are many women moviegoers who really enjoyed this film. But this is one woman who disliked it. And "DODSWORTH" might be one of the few William Wyler films I may never have a desire to watch again.

"DODSWORTH" (1936) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "DODSWORTH", the 1936 adaptation of Sinclair Lewis' 1929 novel and Sidney Howard's 1934 stage play. Directed by William Wyler, the movie starred Walter Huston and Ruth Chatterton. 


"DODSWORTH" (1936) Photo Gallery

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1949) Review

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1949) Review

Louisa May Alcott's 1868 novel is a bit of a conundrum for me. I have never been a fan of the novel. I have read it once, but it failed to maintain my interest. Worse, I have never had the urge to read it again. The problem is that it is that sentimental family dramas - at least in print - has never been appealing to me. And this is why I find it perplexing that I have never had any problems watching any of the film or television adaptations of her novel. 

One of those adaptations proved to be Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's 1949 adaptation, which was produced and directed by Mervyn LeRoy. It is hard to believe that the same man who had directed such hard-biting films like "LITTLE CAESAR", "I AM A FUGITIVE FROM A CHAIN GANG" and "THEY WON'T FORGET", was the artistic force behind this sentimental comedy-drama. Or perhaps MGM studio boss, Louis B. Meyer, was the real force. The studio boss preferred sentimental dramas, comedies and musicals. Due to this preference, he was always in constant conflict with the new production chief, Dore Schary, who preferred more realistic and hard-biting movies. Then you had David O. Selznick, who wanted to remake his 1933 adaptation of Alcott's novel. One can assume (or not) that in the end, Meyer had his way.

"LITTLE WOMEN", as many know, told the experiences of the four March sisters of Concord, Massachusetts during and after the U.S. Civil War. The second daughter, Josephine (Jo) March, is the main character and the story focuses on her relationships with her three other sisters, the elders in her family - namely her mother Mrs. March ("Marmee") and Aunt March, and the family's next-door neighbor, Mr. Laurence. For Jo, the story becomes a "coming-of-age" story, due to her relationships with Mr. Laurence's good-looking grandson, Theodore ("Laurie") and a German immigrant she meets in New York City after the war, the equally good-looking and much older Professor Bhaer. Jo and her sisters deal with the anxiety of their father fighting in the Civil War, genteel poverty, scarlet fever, and the scary prospect of oldest sister Meg falling in love with Laurie's tutor.

Despite my disinterest in Alcott's novel, I have always liked the screen adaptations I have seen so far - including this film. Due to the casting of Margaret O'Brien as the mild-mannered Beth, her character became the youngest sister, instead of Amy. Screenwriters Sally Benson, Victor Heerman, Sarah Y. Mason and Andrew Solt made other changes. But they were so mild that in the end, the changes did not have any real impact on Alcott's original story. Ironically, both Victor Heerman and Sarah Y. Mason wrote the screenplay for Selznick's 1933 film. I thought Mervyn LeRoy's direction injected a good deal of energy into a tale that could have easily bored me senseless. In fact, MGM probably should have thank its lucky stars that LeRoy had served as producer and director. 

As much as I admired LeRoy's direction of this film, I must admit there was a point in the story - especially in the third act - in which the pacing threatened to drag a bit. My only other problem with "LITTLE WOMEN" is that I never really got the impression that this film was set during the 1860s, despite its emphasis on costumes and the fact that the March patriarch was fighting the Civil War. Some might say that since "LITTLE WOMEN" was set in the North - New England, as a matter of fact - it is only natural that the movie struggled with its 1860s setting. But I have seen other Civil War era films set in the North - including the 1994 version of "LITTLE WOMEN" - that managed to project a strong emphasis of that period. And the production values for this adaptation of Alcott's novel seemed more like a generic 19th century period drama, instead of a movie set during a particular decade. It is ironic that I would make such a complaint, considering that the set decoration team led by Cedric Gibbons won Academy Awards for Best Art Direction.


I certainly had no problems with the cast selected for this movie. Jo March seemed a far cry from the roles for which June Allyson was known - you know, the usual "sweet, girl-next-door" type. I will admit that at the age of 31 or 32, Allyson was probably too young for the role of Jo March. But she did such a phenomenon job in recapturing Jo's extroverted nature and insecurities that I found the issue of her age irrelevant. Peter Lawford, who was her co-star in the 1947 musical, "GOOD NEWS", gave a very charming, yet complex performance as Jo's next door neighbor and friend, Theodore "Laurie" Laurence. Beneath the sweet charm, Lawford did an excellent job in revealing Laurie's initial loneliness and infatuation of Jo. Margaret O'Brien gave one of her best on-screen performance as the March family's sickly sibling, Beth. Although the literary Beth was the third of four sisters, she is portrayed as the youngest, due to O'Brien's casting. And I feel that Le Roy and MGM made a wise choice, for O'Brien not only gave one of her best performances, I believe that she gave the best performance in the movie, overall.

Janet Leigh, who was a decade younger than Allyson, portrayed the oldest March sister, Meg. Yet, her performance made it easy for me to regard her character as older and more emotionally mature than Allyson's Jo. I thought she gave a well done, yet delicate performance as the one sister who seemed to bear the strongest resemblance to the sisters' mother. Elizabeth Taylor was very entertaining as the extroverted, yet shallow Amy. Actually, I have to commend Taylor for maintaining a balancing act between Amy's shallow personality and ability to be kind. The movie also featured solid performances from supporting cast members like Mary Astory (who portrayed the warm, yet steely Mrs. March), the very charming Rossano Brazzi, Richard Stapley, Lucile Watson, Leon Ames, Harry Davenport, and the always dependable C. Aubrey Smith, who died not long after the film's production.

Overall, "LITTLE WOMEN" is a charming, yet colorful adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's novel. I thought Mervyn LeRoy did an excellent job in infusing energy into a movie that could have easily sink to sheer boredom for me. And he was enabled by a first-rate cast led by June Allyson and Peter Lawford. Overall, "LITTLE WOMEN" managed to rise above my usual apathy toward Alcott's novel.

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1949) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "LITTLE WOMEN", the 1949 adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's 1868-69 novel. Directed by Mervyn LeRoy, the movie starred June Allyson, Janet Leigh, Margaret O'Brien, Elizabeth Taylor and Peter Lawford: 


"LITTLE WOMEN" (1949) Photo Gallery