Dårskabens timer
I guess I
am a bit stupid. I read the comments on “Written on the Wind” about how this is
a subversive and clever movie, appreciated belatedly by critics some time in
the seventies, but I do not get it. “Written on the Wind” is “Dynasty” set and
made in the fifties. It is soap. Funny and witty at times, melodramatic at
others, exaggerated, trashy and flashy. To me it reminded me more than anything
about the cheap novels mass produced for women. Subversive and clever? Hmmm…
help me out here, please.
Lucy Moore
(Lauren Bacall) is working in advertisement for Hadley Oil when she is
discovered by Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack), a rich playboy who wows to give up
his lifestyle if that will win her over. Lucy is generally unimpressed, but
ends up sympathetic to Kyle and voila, they are married, much to the chagrin of
Kyle’s childhood friend and buddy Mitch (Rock Hudson), who has also taken a
liking to her.
Kyle is a
bad boy, or at least makes a show of being bad. Actually he is terribly weak
and always feel inferior to smart, controlled and handsome Mitch. All Kyle has
is his money. As son and heir of Hadley Oil that amounts to a lot of money.
Lucy is about the first real success he ever had that was not due to his money.
Marylee
Hadley (Dorothy Malone), Kyle’s sister is really badass, vicious, scheming and
not bothered by trivial things like conscience and common sense. But then again
she is also terribly childish and weak. Her viciousness is primarily a means to
get attention and out of bitterness that she cannot have Mitch. As a result she
tries to ruin everything for everybody, her father, brother, Mitch and Lucy and
she is largely successful.
Things fall
apart for Kyle when he finds out he cannot get children. Maybe a final failure
too many, maybe his life in a nutshell. Anyway, he cracks up and starts
drinking again. When Lucy then gets pregnant after all he is sure Mitch is the
father and he decides Mitch is to blame for all his failings. Actually Kyle is
the father, but he is too far out to realize that. In his raging madness he
hits Lucy into a miscarriage, estranging her and ends up shooting himself. That
is actually what we see in the opening sequence. The rest is a court drama to
see if Marylee will point a finger at Mitch or tell what really happened.
There is
not really that much to it. The rich are corrupt and the real hero is the hard
working guy who did not have the advantage of money, but instead tons of
integrity. When the family implodes he is the only one left standing. Give him
Rock Hudson’s physique and this is fast becoming very predictable.
I am
unimpressed with the story and even less impressed with the script. Especially
the first half is artificial in the extreme. Nobody speaks like that outside a telenovela,
not even in “Dynasty”. Fortunately the acting on the most part compensates for
that. Rob Stack and Dorothy Malone both put the pedal to the metal and take
rich kid lunacy to new heights. It did earn Malone an Academy Award for Supporting
Actress and it was a deserved one. Rock Hudson is just being a picture of himself,
strangely anonymous, but worst is Lauren Bacall. I had so looked forward to see
her again, but I suppose there was a good reason why her career was slumping.
Her performance is incredibly wooden and cold as if she is not really there.
She is supposed to be tough and the common sense outsider to watch the Hadleys
implode, but she appear to be the resident valium addict and almost disappears
out of the story after the initial courtship.
As you
probably have guessed soaps are not really my thing. Romances can be intriguing
and moving, but the escapades of the rich is just uninteresting and blown up as
it is here I just cannot get sold on it.
What is
worse, I cannot figure out what is that special value of the movie. What am I
missing here?
Maybe if
Lucy combined with Marylee and Mitch with Kyle we would have two characters
that were both alive and equipped with a modicum of integrity. Then they would
be almost normal.
See, I like this one. I agree that it's a soap opera (a comment I made multiple times in my own review--I even called the review "Daytime Television"). But it's a soap opera with a really good cast and filmed by the master of the melodrama in Douglas Sirk.
ReplyDeleteI love just how much of a punch in the face this is to the idle rich. That's really what I think Sirk was doing here--there's a reason the rich guy has a low sperm count, a jealousy fixation, and a fascination with guns. It's all so wonderfully tawdry.
I don't know, I still do not see what is so amazing here. I read your review and as far as I can see Sirk uses all the symbols he can get his hands on to emphasize what is already clear. Yeah, it is an exposé of the idle rich, but that is hardly new, not even in 1956. I mean My Man Godfrey was about the same theme twenty years before. there was a movie I really liked though.
DeleteSorry to be the sour one, but I guess I just do not care much for soap.
For me, the outstanding part of the Sirk melodramas is the visuals. I haven't seen Written on the Wind in awhile but I just watched the commentary to All That Heaven Allows (coming soon) and if you focus on the way he uses color and objects to convey subtext, it is really quite dazzling. The stories are admittedly trite though there is something deliciously trashy to me about Written on the Wind in particular.
ReplyDeleteThis is certainly an impressive movie on the visuals. I just get so hooked up on the the story and that just annoy me. All that Heaven Allows is indeed coming up shortly and I am expecting more of the same.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm not as enamored of Sirk as today's critics are. While I have liked a couple of his movies I've seen, Written on the Wind is not one of them.
ReplyDeleteThat probably places us on the same page here. I understand the whole symbolism thing, I just do not find it particularly impressive.
Delete