CineMaven

A "SPOILED" OBSESSION: I enjoyed the film, and agree with you Jack when you say the "plot was a bit lacking at the end." It did kind of peter out. How was Bill able to drain the acid bath? The happenstance of a --cop--...a bobby passing by and seeing the little kitty? Hmmm, I dunno. I wonder if the writers painted themselves into a corner with how they were going to get Bill out of this predicament. I imagined if Alfred Hitchcock directed this, it would play differently. I can just see Hitchcock now. He'd let Newton accidentally trip over the little dog and fall into the acid bath himself. ...Then when the cops find the hiding place, Newton's acid-washed screams having alerted the police, they'd see Bill lying on the floor, chained and half-dead..a dead husband half-eaten away by acid, and the little doggie Monty(...wasn't there a British General named Monty...Montgomery?) barking and scampering back 'n forth. (There!!! Take that Maxie!! All answers present and accounted for. Now Ophuls can learn from me). But I play the hand movies deal me, and still watched the proceedings with interest. I don't know Newton's prior or subsequent work, but I thought he was very good here...thought of everything. (He had that snobby insouciant sophistication like Rex Harrison). I've never seen this film, but I didn't expect him to crack or break. (The British, they are not like us...ha!) I liked his level-headed skill. I thought the actor who played Bill was mahvelous. I didn't have high hopes for him at first, being in a British production, facing off against the likes of the very-accomplished Robert Newton. But he was good. He had a charm about him. He seemed real American. I also liked the scenes between the husband and the lover. I enjoyed the detective very much. Very droll and unexcitable; just methodical. At one point I thought he might've been Newton's wife's ex-lover. Aaaah the imaginings and musings of a cine-maven: Imagine an ex-lover trying to find and save the life of the current lover, while trying to put the husband in jail. The wife, played by Sally Gray, was quite a little pip. Attractive, alto-voiced...and lethal as they come. Apparently a serial adulterer (why is the word adult in the word adulterer? Just wondering...) Why do I say lethal as they come? B'cuz I'm thinking any man that comes near her, and wants to possess her, would have a world of trouble with her. An English Rose? No, boys....there's a Venus Flytrap! The movie made me think of the present day movie "SAW." (I'd say these "Saw" films would not be your spot o' tea, but the writers put these folks in predicaments that baffle me about how they'll escape. Many typically have gruesome ends). Bill is chained, has a beard...is all messed up, while trying to match wits with his murderer. When Sally Gray, whose character's name is Storm (which I thought was a FANTASTIC name for her) visits Bill in the hospital in the end with cute little Monty, you just know she's traveling points South with some unsuspecting --sap--, man as traveling companion, who'll be head over heels about her. And Bill knows it too. I liked that they both know the affair is over. I was just so happy to see Monty escape his leash, run back into Bill's hospital room and jump into his arms. So so sweet. I love doggies. They know who their friends are. Storm leaves them to each other. < ( Sigh! ) > Have I ever mentioned I'm a sucker for happy endings.

Hey Helen...I'm happy you're back safe and sound...and HAPPY, from your TCM Cruise. It sounds like you had a real blast, saw celebrities, played games, saw movies and did some crushing. I hope you can share some of the pictures you took. Sound like a wonderful memory was created for EVERYone. That's how TCM rolls! And I love them. I'm so happy for you.

EVENING, QUEEN OF THE RORSCHACH TESTS - *OH the Grey.. How DID I ever get so grey?? ha. Where is my beloved white hat/black hat scenario in this story? I think I am having an identity crisis.. HA.* I am happy that you are in the grey. I am happy that you liked this film. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes those little black smudges on a white page is a dark butterfly. I am happy you liked the film.

"OBSESSION" PHIL BROWN & ROBERT NEWTON "A sensible and civilized husband doesn't object to other men admiring his wife. He can even understand her returning the admiration. But when this...mutual attraction becomes a habit, and is flaunted repeatedly under his very nose under the impudent assumption that he's being deceived, why then, the intelligence of the sensible and civilized husband is insulted. And he's reduced to the most insensible and uncivilized behavior. So you see, through you, I'm going to make my wife suffer for a long list of calculated insults. Yes, I'm going to kill you. And my wife's going to suspect I did. She may even be certain of it. But she'll never be able to prove it." This is the speech Robert Newton makes to his wife's lover in ?OBSESSION.? I haven't finished watching it, but boy am I intrigued. ...And the British are so veddy clever when they do these things.

If I had to rank these films in order of my preference, I would say: 1. "The Constant Nymph" 2. "The Earrings of Madame de..." 3. "Letter From An Unknown Woman" 4. "The Reckless Moment" 5. "Caught" 1. "THE CONSTANT NYMPH" - It truly and unexpectedly tugged at my heart strings. The idea of someone "getting" you so deeply. I liked Joan Fontaine for the first time, wholeheartedly. It helps confirm my new-found appreciation for Boyer's talents. And I deeply responded to Korngold's big brassy bombastic sweeping music. Not everyone's cuppa, but I'll have another cup of Korngold, please. 2. "THE EARRINGS OF MADAME DE..." - Falling in love. The earrings as the personification of Love. Watching someone truly being love-sick was palpable. The circuitous physical journey of the earrings boggled my mind in an O.Henry, Guy de Maupassant, Rod Serling kind of way. And Boyer, again. 3. "LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN" - As a screenwriter, the construct of The Plot is such an important element to me. (It's the first thing I look at). I want to be clever, not treacly in my writing...so the book-ends of this story blew my mind. I love the hiding in plain sight of it all. Falling in love with love; the lesson of really knowing the person you love and not just having that relationship all by yourself in your own head. Joan Fontaine and Louis Jourdan were wonderful in this film. Joanie came through for me for the second time. And here, finally, I saw Louis as more than just the pretty face he was. 4. "THE RECKLESS MOMENT" - The "bad guy" has a heart of gold. No no no! I take that back, that's such a hoary ol' cliche...let me re-phrase; I liked the idea that he fell in love with Joan Bennett. His turmoil and struggle in falling for her was soooo interesting to watch James Mason portray. The house as character. (How the hell do you get outta that maze)? Made me pay attention to set design. And he was her blackmailer... how the heck does she wind up falling for him? I liked that she did. She had a mini-vacation from marriage without 'crossing the line.' (Hmmmmm...or is it the thought that counts?) My first real introduction to the inverted world of Maxie (thanx to my mentor "R"). 5. "CAUGHT" - I did enjoy this film. Robbie was sooooo crazy, I couldn't believe it how pathetically controlling he was. It was a good mystery tale...how would Bel Geddes escape his clutches. I like cautionary tales.

ROHANAKA writes: And THAT is why ( drum roll please as I finally reveal what I THOUGHT the ending would/should be for this movie ) ha.. for a moment, at least when I FIRST watched the ENDING to this film (SPOILER ALERTS ABOUND) I thought he provoked that duel with Donati so that he (the GENERAL) would be killed and she?d be free to be w/ Donati. I know.. silly me. Ah-HAAAAAAA!. No, not silly you. I admit, I hadn't thought of that... SUICIDE by MURDER. Not too far-fetched at all, Ro. With the climax of the film being so open-endedly ambiguous by Ophuls, we don't have any empirical evidence of what truly happened to the three involved. (But we can give it our best cinematic guess). In fact, your scenario sounds very much The Romantic One; like something M-G-M might do...with Garbo, perhaps. Yeah, she'd be the crazy type to run in between these two men and wind up getting shot for her trouble. And your ending would have been a really selfless act of love on the General's part, to let her be with the one she loved. But somewhere in him, he had his pride...and had to defend his honor. Would you rather not be with the one you love (the Countess' plight) or lose the one you love (the General's plight). UGH. (PS: Miss Maven) I hate questions like this HA. But I think I am with Jackie. (REMINDER: Jack Favell writes: "...This is why I would choose the more painful experience of losing the love I had, rather than not getting the love I wanted)." It is a sobering thing to give ANYONE your heart (and let them own so much of it) There are few gifts in life that one can give to someone that hold more value. The trick is in making sure that you only give it to someone you believe is worthy of that trust. That is the best hope you can have to try and NOT be crushed. Still, sometimes you will lose, but OH me, when you don?t (and you find that the person you have given your heart to IS worthy of the gift and they treasure it because it is from YOU) it is a very good thing. Thanxx so much for your answer on that score Ro. I know it's a tough one, and hopefully not a too prying question. (I didn't ask anyone for their PIN Number). I hear you loud and clear that the key is to pick someone worthy of that trust. Whew!! Boy is that ever the key! MOVIEMAN writes: I've been married to my bride for 27 years. I could not have imagined not being with her. I would rather lose her than have never had her. The thought of being alone would have been too much. In fact that was my fear, gowing old alone. Couldn't have handled it. Thanxx '57. Sweetly answered. You still think of her as your bride after all these years... < ( Sigh! ) > ...And ButterScotch Greer. You're sooooo young, you might not have much of life's experience under your belt to choose between those two gut-wrenching choices. (Or maybe not so gut-wrenching). And I hope you never have to. But you may certainly offer up your thoughts on my question. I'll have an answer to my own question. But I'm more curious in others' answers first more than my own. I talked to my old friend and movie mentor "R" about "The Earrings of Madame de..." and I'd like to share his thoughts with you all: "Well...after this most recent viewing (at least the sixth since the Bleecker Street Cinema) of '...Madame de...', it is time to try to sort out my mixed feelings about this masterful film. ?It is admired and loved by many people whose views on movies I highly respect, from Andrew Sarris to you and the other intelligent, thoughtful, and articulate people who commented on your fine post. ? Now, why is it that in spite of my admiration for this one, there is something about it that holds me at arms length? ?Why does it not move me as deeply and remain a part of me like 'Letter from an Unknown Woman', 'The Reckless Moment', 'Le Plaisir' and 'La Ronde'? Is it Danielle Darrieux? ?I have only seen about nine or ten of her 140 movies and, though her talent and beauty are undeniable, she has never entered my crowded heart wherein reside so many wonderful women of the cinema. ?I think you and I have talked about actors being Warm types and Cool types, and she is definitely one of the latter. ?Her persona and her roles usually require her to be what I call ?over-groomed?. ?In '...Madame de...' she is most attractive to me during the last scenes when she is, relatively speaking, 'plain', apparently having discarded her deeply entrenched vanity in her pain. ?On a more mundane level, I really hated her gowns. ?They just had too much stuff on them. ?I have had this feeling from other French period films, like Rene Clair's 'Les Grandes Manoeuvres.' ?Maybe it's a French taste that I don't share, or maybe it's a particular designer. ?I thought Joan's dresses in Letter, though still appropriately "busy" for the period, were just right. So, is it the casting that keeps me from loving this movie? ?De Sica remains at some distance from us throughout. ?Do we ever feel or see his passion? ?Are we supposed to? ?The one flawless characterization for me is Boyer's. ?In a story of this sort, the husband is a thankless part, easily forgotten among the emotional tumult. ?Can you even remember the face of Joan's husband? ?In spite of the General's emotional restraint, I am more engaged by his feelings than by those of the other two. ?Obviously, Max had a lot to do with this, but credit must also be given to Monsieur Charles. Well, this has gone on long enough, and I've only talked about the casting. ?Maybe that's it. ?I think it's time to revisit my other Ophuls films. ?Thanks...for getting me onto this."

Best reason ever for liking a movie, '57. Now, let me ask you what I asked the others (whether you've seen "The Earrings of Madame de..." or not, doesn't matter): Would you rather not be with the one you love or lose the one you love?

Would you rather not be with the one you love *(the Countess' plight)* or lose the one you love *(the General's plight).* *I'm of the school of losing something is much more painful than never having. I can love someone and never be with them. But if you are lucky enough to be with the one you love, only to have them leave you, that's a killer.* So am I understanding this properly...you would rather be in the Countess' position: not be with the one you love. *Like and love... there's a vast world of difference.* Yes. As vast as the Grand Canyon.

Well...you've got some towering classics there, Movieman. But what's "Vivacious Lady" doing with that bunch?

Now before I dash for a few hours let me leave with this: What you've written could apply to the entire movie-going experience. What WE, as viewers, bring to the film's story, which might have nothing to do with the film...but how we filter it. A few minutes after I posted it I had a premonition you were going to say that! Crikey!!! I?ve got to get new material! Shall I call you CASSANDRA?? I think that's true of every movie yes. However, to me, Ophuls is the master of subjective, ephemeral feeling. Sometimes, we don't even know how we feel about his characters at any given time, because they are in the act of changing as we watch. He has the gift of showing us someone looking, or seeing for the first time. I think he incorporates emotions that are nostalgic, romantic, laden with more than one viewpoint, and I honestly don't have a clue how he does this. Remembrance and love are among the most personal internal feelings we have, and because his characters basically think out loud to us (even without talking), we are in communication with them all the time during his films. I don't necessarily get that communication when watching something like Out of the Past, for instance. What a beautifully constructed thought. One I wouldn't begin to know how to put into words. But I know exactly what you mean. No..."OUT OF THE PAST" does not elicit the same response. It does not pull at the same heartstrings that Ophuls masters at plucking. (Yo! Why you gotta pick "Out of the Past"? Why couldn't you say "The Big Country" or "The Man With the Grey Flannel Suit")? The General was prodded because she was doing exactly what he had been doing for years... I guess you are right, I should not say his love was any less for her before he found out about the Baron, but he suddenly came to realize that he cared for her far more than he showed. Only when the Baron entered the picture, did he wake up, and realize his love. I see, Jack. There were probably meek pretenders to the throne, but the Baron stepped up to the plate and really tried to storm the Bastille. Or woo it. ...This is why I would choose the more painful experience of losing the love I had, rather than not getting the love I wanted. Thank you. Thank you for looking in your life and sharing.

I've made a decision that before I answer your provocative questions and reply to your post, CineMadame, I'm going to watch Earrings... once more. I won't have time tonight but will try tomorrow evening. Sure thing. Hey... CineMadame. Hmmm...I like the sound of that. Yeah, I do. So much of interest has been written already that I want to see if my impressions change and I also want to make an effort to watch the movie without the previous factors influencing me last time I watched. I was feeling physically sick AND filled with enormous anxiety and worries (and it was around 3 o'clock in the morning...no one is lucid at that hour except Dracula!). When I saw this vain, spoiled woman without a care throwing away what I would have given two arms and two legs (defeating the purpose, I know) for, it really bothered me and prejudiced me unfairly. No one should watch a movie when they?re sick. And 3am sounds just about normal to me, since I keep Draculean hours as a retiree. I'm sorry to read that you were sick. Keep all your limbs (you'd be no good without 'em, and besides, most men want some limbs on their lady). Watch the film again when you're feeling up to par. My views were also colored by some brief experiences in social circles similar to those in the movie, if not so exalted or elegant as they were then. Real love seemed preciously in short supply though passionate affairs labeled "love" abounded because the settings were conducive to romance and the people perpetually in search of stimulation. This made me think I knew where the countess and the Baron were coming from, what value to place on their romance. That is probably unfair and presumptuous, though.... I see. Does this make sense: your phrasing is delicately piquant. You've such a great way of phrasing things. ...(After all, the poor just shot/stabbed/throttled the offending party with no dainty preamble. ) HA! Aaaaaah, the rich. They are not like us. ...I do wonder how much Ophuls wants us to take for granted about the setting he chose... It could be he chose the upper class settings because they are simply more romantic, escapist and their formalities provide a wonderful set of chess moves where manners, customs and lifestyle becomes metaphor for human emotion and behavior. That sounds about right, Miss G. And nicely stated too. "Write (direct) what you know." I may never know the answer. How will knowing the answer help you with the film? By the way, have you seen my earrings? I had them in those long black gloves of ButterScotch Greer's.

*JackaaAaay, Miss Goddess and Ro-Ro*... Thank you so much for the compliments! (I'm quietly beaming). Would you ladies ponder this last question from me and please let me what you think (...and why?): Would you rather not be with the one you love *(the Countess' plight)* or lose the one you love *(the General's plight).* Yes, there are "extenuating circumstances" and the "it-all-depends-on..." situations and yada-yada-yada. But without all that mish-a-gosh that can cloud up my baby booming brain and my clear understanding of what you think, which one would you choose? Hobson's Choice perhaps, but I am very curious to see where your thoughts lie and why they lie where they lay. (Huh? You know what I mean). Okay okay, let me ask it like this if you think I'm being unfair: which is the harder burden to bear? Oh...and Grimesy, there's no escape for you on that question either. You did such a grand job in initiating this conversation, I feel kind of emboldened to "prod" you a little more. I'm sure your male perspective will be quite enlightening.

QUEEN SOLOMON - HOW 'RE YA DOIN'? What a wonderful post you wrote. Ladies, I can distinctly hear all your voices in what you write, especially when you write as expansively as you did on a film that has so much to offer. I know there are different time constraints on all of you, so I've got to say I'm happy when you make the time for a full discussion. I love reading your posts. JackaaAaay, I kiddingly call you Queen Solomon for how fair and egalitarian and non-partisan your post is. It made me chuckle slightly when I thought of Robert Mitchum mailing off an incriminating package (in "OUT OF THE PAST") and telling the guy to forget he was ever there, and the guy saying: "I say everybody's right!" What you've written could apply to the entire movie-going experience. What WE, as viewers, bring to the film's story, which might have nothing to do with the film...but how we filter it. I liked how you described Ophuls as Cinema's Botanist: ( "Ophuls makes flowers out of film, with petals within petals of delicate truths." ) I tend to agree that the General is the character who has the most depth, and that the Baron is shallower than he first appears. I thought it wonderful that Ophuls made the main character such a cipher in some ways. I liked Darrieux 's bland, almost vapid, girlish performance. I think Vivien would have given so much weight to it and we would have identified with her so much that the delicate balancing act of good and bad might have been skewed, though I love the idea of it. But perhaps it would have been even more deep with her in the role. Mmmmmmm. Casting...such a delicate art. The scale can be tripped and the director's message may be lost in the balance. I am not sure either man wanted Madame as much as he did once she was desired by another - which everyone here has touched on already. I don't know about that now. Looks like the General and Baron gave a very good showing of wanting Madame (though the Baron was more demonstrative than the General. Poor guy. Remember when he started to waltz with her and just when the song was ending? Can he not catch a break or what!) And Madame did not want the things she had, she wanted the one thing she could not have. What a sad idea of humanity, but I think it's true. We are deluded at best. She really was "the earrings" , only dear when invested with something "other". Oh, SHE's the earrings now. Koo-koo-ka-choo. That's a twist I didn't see coming. Interesting. This movie is all about appearances, as opposed to the reality of things. And appearances are ephemeral. The truth is, as long as the status quo was kept up, between the General and Madame de.... life was pretty good and they had some semblance of happiness. It seemed stifling at first, but when looking back seems better than it was at the beginning. How tragic that that small happiness was thrown away for what was presumed to be a large happiness, one which faded as soon as it was tested. How does Ophuls makes such a grand love turn small? Fascinating. Such deep thoughts should not be allowed in the movies. Devastating summation.

GODDESS ON THE MOUNTAINTOP, HELLOOOO UP THERE - *...I was thinking the countess reminded me a little of Scarlett, too, and her misguidedness, her vanity. That the Baron shook her off when he learned of her failings, while the General loved her all those years knowing how she was, makes you wonder if he (the Baron) could really have loved her at all. Or if, as Ro put it, he was caught up in passion's thrall, not the steady kind of love that lasts.* You know, you've really given me food for thought there and I thought I already had all the answers. The General did stick with her through all her little coquettish games, didn't he? And based on what you and Ro have written, looks like the General really got the short end of the sabre b'cuz he didn't get Louise's love...nor did he get her passion. ...And if I'm thinking of Scarlett just like you're thinking of her, I'm going to pat myself on the back for still having some life in this old gray matter of mine. *I especially like what you say about the earrings' being the physical representation of love. That is excellent. And so do you think Ophuls therefore saw that they ended up where they would do the most good?* Thank you. I'm actually of two minds with that. If the earrings ARE Love...if they Represent Love, then being in the church is a good and great thing. But perhaps Ophuls also shows us if Love is not handled in a kind and loving way, well...perhaps Love can do harm to those who don’t love Love in a kind and giving way. I’d like to comment on a few things you wrote in your replies to Edwina Rohanaka, if I may: *What you say about the countess is how I feel, too: that even in love, she did not cease to be self-centered, and this did keep me at arms length from her. You wrote that she and Baron thought only of their (immediate) happiness no matter what it cost others. I do agree.* It's interesting you found her self-centered. I think she was struggling to sort out her feelings. I was very interested in watching the struggle of a woman who seems not to have a care in the world (other than should she wear mink, sable or ermine wrap to the ball) to feeling this intense emotional attachment to another human, the Baron. It's natural to think of your happiness first and then work your way outward to see how it affects others. Who doesn't think of themselves first, and then (sorry, world) everyone second. (Even a flight attendant tells you to put on your oxygen mask first so you can help your children). The world second might come a nanosecond after you decide how you're conducting yourself, but Self comes first. Who knows how the story would have played out after these two crazy nineteenth century kids established that they love each other and want to be together, how they were to face the General and work out HOW she would legally extricate herself from him without scandal or loss of face for him, so she go on to have a happy life with the Baron. (I know that sentence was unwieldly, but can you break it down to see what I mean?) I didn't see the Countess as self-centered. Yes, maybe at first...but not after she got those durned earrings back. (Blessing or curse?) She is exploring what to do with what she feels. We never got out of the first stage of this story: the discovery of being in love...and being discovered to be in love. *I think the countess went even a step further, I feel that like CineMaven intimated, she was dying from lack of love, or as I see it, from not getting things her way. I can't help believing that love makes you more aware of life, and her own new found love should have made her more sensitive to what she was doing to her husband, if it was something more than passion that is.* "...Not getting her way." Hmmmm. I didn't see her rush into the Baron's arms and bed as passion would dictate. She struggled with those feelings; didn't act on them immediately. Her actions felt like more than just that of a petulant child 'not getting her way.' She had a drastic reaction to this "love" thing. *If part of this misery had been self-awareness of what she did to the General and their marriage, I might have felt worse for her. Or if she seemed more an ignorant, childish creature, I could also feel more sympathy. But she seemed simply very much a one-idea-at-a-time lady, and that one idea being her own heart or, before she fell in love, her own vanity.* SELF-AWARENESS & ONE IDEA AT A TIME: I can concede that maybe she should have thrown the General a bone of human kindness. A, going-to-him-and-saying-she's-sorry for-how-this-all-turned-out, and how-she's-hurt-him. That wasn't a pre-requisite I needed in order to feel sorry for her. I saw and sympathized with her twisted struggle, but I hear ya, it might've added another dimension for Louise's character (as opposed to 'the Louise Character') had she had some self-awareness and I can see how that would put you off. Perhaps the lesson IS this is what happens to people who are not self-aware. It takes courage to look into the mirror and REALLY see yourself. *Who's that selfish old crone in my mir...Mon Dieu. C'est MOI!!!!"* *(I will also say that had a more expressive actress played her, I might have been much more taken with the character. I did keep thinking of Vivien Leigh, and how I would have really gotten under the skin of Madame has she played her).* Uh-oh. Danger Will Robinson. Danger. *The Baron comes off a little lacking to me. He is charming and handsome but I was never quite sure of this "great love" on his part. Being played by Vittorio De Sica may be part of it. Again, the performers here really seemed to influence my view of their characters. To me, De Sica is always the charming Italian rogue. Smiling, adorable, adoring, but fickle and possibly treacherous. Incapable of being lastingly in love with any one woman. He is perhaps the countess' male counterpart, though less vulnerable. In the end, he was able to switch off his feelings for her when he learned of her lie, and his dropping her did not surprise me. Nor do I blame him, it must have been quite a blow to find a woman as deceptive as he, and since he was not likely to change, he could not believe she had.* I know I've said I was a little gunshy of Boyer, but I'm half-way being facetious with that. He was very believable in "Gaslight" and just as believably loving and hurt in "Madame de...." "The Baron" and "Louise" get a free pass from me in this one respect (relative to what you wrote). Understand, I am not saying I excuse their behavior of the hurt they caused. I'm not speaking of that in this instance. But relative to what you wrote, I do not blame Louise and Baron Donati for their portrayers' thespian abilities or the previous roles the actors portrayed. There is a danger in mixing up these two things. There is a danger in condemning a plot's characters based on nothing that character's done within the confines of a story. You write: *"To me, De Sica is always the charming Italian rogue. Smiling, adorable, adoring, but fickle and possibly treacherous. Incapable of being lastingly in love with any one woman."* Cool. Now what does this have to do with Baron Donati? Did we see Donati callously fling other women aside? Was there a back room strewn with broken love affairs and torn bustles? Were there cameos and frou frou baroque-y type trinkets swept under the bed? What information presented within this story, supports this belief from you about Baron Donati? We've got to give a movie's characters a break and play with the hand we're dealt. As Baron Donati's persona unfolded I believed he was a man in love. I believed Baron Donati fell for a woman without having all the true facts about her. He is guilty of not having all the facts. He is not guilty of finding a woman as deceptive as he. Not having ALL the facts about someone will most likely wind up being a cruel surprise for the other person. For my viewing and my understanding of the plot, as it played out, I was surprised that that "little white lie" is what tripped him up and made his house of cards crumble. (Sometimes it's the small things that trip us up, not the big things; i.e. do you remember just how Sam Jaffe's character got busted by the police in *"THE ASPHALT JUNGLE"* after plotting and planning and masterminding such an intricate caper? HOW did he get caught? And what if I piled this on: "Poor Doc Riedenschneider. He's going to prison. And he was so noble as Gunga Din. Where did he go wrong?") So I want to be careful about blaming Donati for behavior exhibited by Major Alessandro Rinaldi. It's not fair. Samething with Darrieux/Madame de... Yes, Vivling could have probably rocked the he...heck out of that role. I've no doubt. But I have a clean slate and no preconceived notions about Louise b'cuz I'm not familiar with Darrieux as an actress. So what she brought to the role of Louise...the way she carried herself as Louise...the way she reacted to events as Louise, I believed, was Louise. And yes, Louise was a vacuous girl, at first. *As to the ending, I will have to watch it again, but my first impression is that the countess probably did die, and that the General "won" the duel. This scenario almost mirrors Letter From an Unknown Woman, and it seems to indicate that indeed, the husband vanquishes the lover. Perhaps by not telling us the outcome, Ophuls is saying it does not matter, these people have already "killed" what matters most to each.* I agree with you on the fate of the Baron and Louise. And I loved how you phrased your last sentence. You've given me lots of food for thought re: how what tripped the Baron, was a mere path of understanding and acceptance for the General. One man's meat is another man's poison.

QUEEN OF THE HATPINS & PEACEMAKER GALORE, HELLO - *OH good gravy.. ha. This is going to crack you up (because it cracked ME up when I realized it.. ha..) you and I BOTH thought the same thing.. but at OPPOSITE ends of the movie. HA. I saw him the way YOU came to see him.. at the beginning. And then (maybe if only for a little while) I came to fear him.. and what he was going to do to her as the film went along. But my fears for her safety soon faded.. at least her safety from him.. because despite all the things I will be saying about him (sometime soon, I hope, but not tonight) I do think he did love her.. far more than even he realized (at least more than he realized at the beginning... but more on all that later)* Whoa...that's interesting Ro. I feared him and then I felt his love. You liked him and then feared what he might do. I had a tense moment when he asked her for the earrings back. But my tenseness subsided when I surmised he was just trying to take control back. He had let her be in control so long. I realized he was just getting a handle of a situation that ( maybe ) he felt he let get out of control by allowing her have her head. A turning point came when the Countess told the General that she wanted to have the earrings, what would it matter to him since the Baron doesn’t love her anymore. That made a strong statement to me. Li*ARS* and Li*EES*...ah-ha! I do get your meaning, Ro. During their waltz, the Baron saw how other men reacted to her; remember the one man in particular who (cutely) kept saying "hello" to her during their waltz. (She paid him no mind; she was with the one she wanted). The man got on the Baron's nerves. The Baron's mistake was probably to believe: "She can be uncaring about these other poor salivating slobs, but not with me. Luckily I'm not one of them. She really likes me. She wouldn't treat me like she treats them. I'm different." Uhmmm...au contrairie, mon petit buddy! He finds out she lied to him as she's lied to others. She played the coquette with him as well. *But again, I did not find much sympathy for him at that point.. because again.. that was the path he clearly chose for himself. Romantic love (or at least the idealization of it) can often be a HUGE swaying factor in why some folks go down one road or another in life, but let's face it.. whether we agree with their choices or not.. all three of these characters chose the path they eventually ended up taking for themselves. So the consequences they ended up w/ really were just a result of their own choices (and not so much the hand of fate)* When the Baron flipped the switch and turned off, I had to now focus on how this would effect Louise & the General. How much of fate is fate and how much of fate is us. I agree with you, much of our "fate" IS, indeed, in our own hands. If we make our bed (our choice) we must lie in it (consequence). But then again Ro, in life, some things are out of our hands. If you're Mario Andretti and get crippled in an Indy 500 car crash, that's on Mario. But if Mario is running for the cross town bus and is hit by a car that goes through the red light...how am I blaming Mario for "getting what he deserved!"? *Marital infidelity.. whether they are real acts of adultery.. or even just desired and wished for ones... are not something that will ever end in happiness for anyone. No matter how "happy" a person THINKS they have made themself (by the choice they are making) there is always a price to pay (for someone) for what they have chosen.* I think a lot can be avoided if the unhappy person sits down with his or her spouse and honestly tells them, "Honey, I am not happy." Yes, a fight will ensue...pots, pans and rolling pins will be thrown. But there should be a calm after the storm where discussion can take place about just what's going on. But in the movies, if someone unhappy sits down and says to his or her spouse, "Honey, I am not happy." The movie will end about 90 minutes too soon. But gee I hope the Thought Police never comes to fruition (a la *"1984"*) and punish us for our thoughts & musings on others outside our relationship. Thoughts are fine if you don't act on them. *I think it goes back to something I know I have said on here before.. I think a lot of times.. folks confuse love with "passion". They are not the same. It could have been possible that Louise and Donati were in love.. but it depends on how one wants to define that term. because I maintain it was not a type of love that was going to bring them any sort of happiness because its foundation was based on each person wanting their own happiness above the happiness of anyone else.. and that is never a good recipe for a happy life.. or for "love".* One's definition of "Love" will color the film's story. I just accepted that they were in love. I accepted that premise at face value so I could continue to go on with the story. I think *IF* the Baron and Madame de... were merely "passionate" about each other, they certainly showed a certain amount of restraint. If it were just passion, they could have met in a fancy schmancy French chalet's wood shed and expressed that passion. Passion is hot...heat...quick. Theirs was a simmering thing. She took off three months. They didn't jump each other's bones immediately. They kissed for the first time after she came back from her soul-searching, three-month train trip. I think they wanted to be with each other and make each other happy. I think these two crazy kids did fall in love. Someone's going to get hurt, and I'm afraid the General was the odd man out. The General loved his wife, but that was a one-way street. The two-way street flowed between Donati and Louise. The two-way street of love (...or passion) flowed between those two. That's where the two-way street was paved, even if a little white lie was the speed bump in that road. *Whew.. I am happy to be in such good company up here on the mountain.. ha. Let's have a campfire and tell ghost stories!! I'll make some S'MORES!!* < Sniff! > < Sniff! > I smell smoke. I hope you two aren't breaking "The Law" and roasting Grimes S'Mores, without a permit. *But then again..(going back to her "one idea" being her vanity) did you notice how when she went to see him and ask him not to fight the duel, along w/ her pleading for HIS safety.. she throws out the little hint.. "I'm not even pretty any more.. am I??" Or something like that.. Still about her.. even when she wanted it to be about him. She was just too emotionally handicapped (or is the more "PC" term "emotionally challenged, ha) by her lack of understanding on how to care for anyone more than she cared for herself.* Awww I remember that scene. Yes I remember "I'm not even pretty..." I thought it was cute when she did that. Why? Because she acknowledged how incorrigible she was to fish for the compliment. It felt to me: "Will you still love me even though I'm incorrigible?" That's how I took it. And I liked the way he said she still was. Check it out. That was a nod to her self-awareness. I think that any man who deals (dealt) with 19th century woman would find a little Skeffington in her. What ELSE did women have to be praised for other than her home and her appearance? Her career? Secretary, Office Manager, Restauranteur, Chef? Military gal? Fashion Designer, Magazine Editor? Other than teacher, nurse or nun...what were her options of a skillset to be lauded? On being played by Vivien Leigh, you write to Miss G.: *Hmmm... now that would have been an interesting choice. Personally.. I think she was well played. She was sort of "bland and blah" to be so beautiful.. but I think that FIT her. (because beyond her beauty.. there just wasn't too much IN her to stand out)* I'm with you on that score, Edwina.

EARRINGS: LOVE'S TALISMAN "I answered all your letters, my love. But I never had the courage to mail my replies." - Madame de... PIERCED OR CLIP-ON, THESE EARRINGS ARE ABSOLUTELY SPOILED: Max Ophuls, I love you. And for you I agreed to allow myself to be --entombed-- cocooned in the world of the Baroque; the frou frou world of fussbudgetry filled with ornate surroundings and bustles, top hats and horse & carriages. So I had to make sure I settled in quick with that b'cuz I was going to spend some time there. Ophuls shows us a life teeming with the hustle and bustle of activity what with maids and butlers scurrying amidst the high society set. It looked like a cast of millions with the activity of a Grand Central Station at five o'clock, quittin' time. There are fancy dress balls, government settings, railway stations and military field work with lots of folks milling about, engulfing these three tragic people. Even at the niece's house later on in the movie, there were a bunch of people hanging around. MIRROR, MIRROR... DANIELLE DARRIEUX: As The Wife, Madame Louise de..., she's kind of like a Gallic Scarlet O'Hara. No no, she doesn't have nearly as much of Scarlett's strength and fortitude, but she fiddle dee dees her way through life. Madame de... is the belle of the ball. All the men swoon over her. All the men want her. She's got closets and drawers of things; oodles and oodles of furs and jewelry and...things. (Zomeone has been taking very good care of Madame). She's vacuous, walks through life like a zombie. Is she even aware she is flirting? Poor gal's not even really in touch with her own feelings. She thinks in the moment. And in this moment...she must pawn some earrings to get some cash. In another moment, she'll fall in love. CHARLES BOYER: As General Andre de..., The Husband. I must admit, I'm still a little gunshy when it comes to Boyer, what with the way he treated Ingrid Bergman in "GASLIGHT" but I can hear you all loudly say "Get over yourself, M'Ava!" Alright, alright...I'll let that go. (Sheesh!) When the General's told her earrings are missing, his search for them made me increasingly uncomfortable. Ophuls took a good five minutes of screen time to follow him search for these baubles. Five-minutes is a long time. It made me think of Hitchcock having us watch Norman Bates clean up that motel bathroom his mother went berserk in. So the length of time we spent watching him was uncomfortable. And, not only was I fearful that Madame de... would be caught in a lie (oooh, she was a practiced little Method Actress of a liar, as "Marnie's" Mark Rutland might say), but I felt the General was the possessive/obsessive-type. The diligence and detail of his search brought to mind Inspector Javert in "Les Miserables" or Lt. Gerard in "The Fugitive." (Madame, he's going to do to you what he did to Ingrid Bergman, look out girl!!) I would come to see how devoted and in love he was with her. VITTORIO DE SICA: As diplomat Baron Donati, The Lover. He was so elegant, so dashing, so handsome...so courtly. I must correct myself. I earlier wrote that it took one moment for Madame de...to fall in love. That's not quite right. 'Twas The Baron who fell in love instantly when he saw her at the railway station's Customs section. I think Madame de...was intrigued by his attention at that point. Attention was her "key light." Fate went the Baron's way, when their carriage wheels entangle. They meet yet again at a ball and here is where love begins in earnest. GOOD GOLLY! WHAT WAS IN THAT WALTZ? The dance. It really was a dance of love wasn't it. "They share a dance, that leads to a night of dances, which leads to nights of dances." Very lyrically expressed by you, Grimesy. During the dance we can see Madame de... fall in love. Not with some MTV heavily edited montage. Simply, through one waltz...fall in love. FALLING IN LOVE We're watching it before our very eyes. And we spend a full five-minutes during that dance scene focused just on them. I wonder how long it took Ophuls to film that scene; a couple of weeks no doubt. The days between them meeting again on the dance floor shortened (from four days to two days, down to one day) and the passage of time was shown in an expeditious way as they stayed in one location. Or maybe time was standing still. Who knows, < sigh > when one is in love. But this is not all tragic romantic romance. Ophuls manages to stick in a couple of bits of comic business that were just plain cute: * the Pawnbroker/Jeweler's son sent up and down the spiral staircase with last minute requests from his father * the opening and closing of the box seats doors at the Opera as the General looks for the earrings * the General repeatedly opening the door ajar as he tries to usher the Jeweler quickly out of his office * Even the son asks about her (oooh, that was sooooo cute) But the main thrust of the story was the romance of it, and the choices that all three people make. These three Represent their Type. Somehow my mind wanders over to "A Place in the Sun" and The Ideal represented. The Baron is the fly in the ointment. He's the one who stirs up the pot. Many men wanted Madame de...'s attention but it was the Baron who got it. It didn't feel impetuous to me (but perhaps it was) when he spots Madame de... and instantly falls for her. Sometimes love happens like that. He falls like a ton of bricks. At least he'd have more of a fighting chance with her since she would reciprocate his love, unlike with the General. The Baron pursues her, he woos her on the dance floor. Girls, he must be some dancer. And he waits for her. He doesn't rush things or pressure her. It's all very polite. Yes, there is a case to be made that she was another man's wife, and he should have moved on. I'm not making that case. I always think that case has to be made by the person who is married. She's the one who is married...she's the one who must send him away. I think she does give him one eensy teensy bit of warning when she says: "I'd hate to see you caught up in my game." I'm not arguing the point of what he should or shouldn't have done. I thought he was so romantic (did I mention dashing, handsome and courtly?? Or was that Donner and Blixen)? He attends a conference but fondles a flower she sent him that he has pressed inside his portfolio. He has gentlemen outside his office door clamoring to see him about big political matters of the day. Yet he sits in his office, writing letters to her and trying to find...just...the...right...words to say (with the help of a dictionary). He let affairs of state lapse a little, to take care of his own affairs. Wreckless? Unserious? Immoral? Others can make those judgments. To me...aaaah, he's a man in love. The most astonishing thing to me was how those earrings were not only a "symbol" of their love but felt like they were love. Love, ITSELF. I felt I was actually looking at Love in its tangible form. (Remember Tom Hanks and "Wilson" in "Cast Away"? I sobbed when...well, I won't spoil it). How did that happen to me? How did I cross the anthropomorphic threshold? I give all praise to Danielle Darrieux's acting for imbuing those earrings with Love. Madame de..., poor poor Madame de.... I felt sorry for her. She fell in love probably for the first time in her life and didn't know WHAT hit her. She probably never had a self-reflexive thought in her pretty little French head. I don't think she disliked the General. I don't know that it was a marriage of convenience. I don't know that we've been given enough evidence to speculate WHAT her marriage was based on. Judging by the Grand Canyon distance of their beds...you can draw your own conclusions about what their marriage has become.. I think she did try her best to run away from this Love and the Baron. Yet she did keep those earrings close to her. I think she took it as a sign when she got her earrings back. She was a conniving little thing. She came up with little lies and excuses at the drop of a hankie. But I believed she was in love. I don't think I've ever seen a character as lovesick as Madame de.... Love _sick. Laying in bed, pale, listless, uncajoled by her husband; not eating breakfast. She literally was sick from Love (or its lack thereof). I felt sorry for her. She was as sick from Love as Camille was from tuberculosis. Her taking that train journey (...she was away for three months) was an attempt to clear her head. And I think she gave it the good old college try. When she tore up the letters she wrote the Baron, and let those tattered bits of paper blow with the wind, that visual was stunning to me. All those bits of blowing paper turned into falling snow. (As a filmmaker, whew!!) Was that how expansive her love was? Did her love cover the Baron's landscape? Her walk along the beach was the first time we see her in very wide open spaces. And alone. Let the girl breathe, for Pete's sake. (Heck, I was able to breathe). She could think without the Baroque clutter engulfing her. Again I just felt so bad for her...for her heart ache; for wanting her love and possibly realizing what she'd have to give up to get it. Did she even think that far? Okay, ohhhkay... probably not. But it didn't hurt her any less. Vacuous girls have feelings too! And maybe she did try to have it both ways. "If I can't have him, let me at least have the earrings...the memory." This is my second time watching this film. And I played closer attention to Boyer's character, this time around. Usually in movies I'm oblivious to the person who's trying to keep the movies' young lovers apart. I want them dispatched and outta the way so love can bloom. (Yeah, I wanted to throw Shelley Winters over board myself so Monty & Liz could have their Love). But I didn't do that this time. And that was probably a testimony to Boyer. His acting was impeccably on the right note. He was restrained. He played a man restrained, holding his tongue, biding his time to get his wife back. He faced her "condition" as if her Love was a malady. When she lies in bed, prostrate with lovesickness, he decides NOT to go out but help her conquer this...this infatuation or whatEVER she thought this was. He was tolerant of her. Very unusual. Remember when he was drawing the curtains on the windows? It felt to me like "The Heiress"...that he was going to keep Love out; she needed to be quarantined to protect HIS love. The girl was lovesick. With the last curtain he closed he quietly said he loved her. That wasn't so much for her, but for you and I to hear; he loved her. I think of those men who marry the prettiest, most popular girl in town. They've got the girl everybody wants. (I'm not necessarily saying he goes after her because she is the prettiest, most popular girl in town). He must look like the big man on campus in the locker room. The ego boost must be tremendous to have the woman all the men want. I harken back to DiMaggio, or Sinatra, or Burton who had three of the most desirable women on earth. How did they deal with the clamoring of their attention? Was the reward of actually being the one to "have" her worth beating off all the attention she garnered? (I think of Mr. Rhett Butler too, though he's equally matched with Scarlett in the pheromones department). The General was pretty tolerant (...up to a point). He didn't mind her dance card being filled by other men. He probably kept a watchful distant eye on goings-on. Whenever he was ready to leave the ball, all he had to do was let her know...and they'd be gone. All nice and polite in High Society. Did he trust her? Did he own her? Did he make her over? (...And then there was the Mad Carlotta. Ha!) I don't know. He had position, power, wealth...three very tantalizing attributes for the likes of her. I can't help but think he treated her with the utmost respect. Yes, he had a mistress, not b'cuz man does not live by bread alone, but most likely the affair developed over time, after numerous "polite" coquettish marital rejections. I also strongly suspect that if Louise had crooked her little finger with true affection...he would have dropped on his sword, to his knees for her. What looked at first like a man who was going to get to the bottom of these missing earrings in his search at the Opera House, came to look (to me) like a little puppy who wanted to please his Master. "Shall we have a serious conversation? I know neither of us are in the habit but I trust we?ll muddle through." When he finally talks with her, it hurt to see how much a slave he'd been. We learn the depth of his feeling: "You're trying to turn remorse into memories. Up until now, though I didn't play a large part in your life, I was the only one. There was camaraderie, even gaiety between us. You know Louise, I've never particularly liked the role you gave me to play. But I played along to avoid displeasing you. It's not what I would have chosen." He should have left. That was his choice to stay, you scream, you shout, you protest...you say. But he had to stay. He was in love with her. My throat closed up, burned with suppressed tears when the General took Madame de... to the railway station for her "Assessment Journey." In that close little train compartment their silence was deafening. Their chasm was as claustrophobic as that compartment. He left words unspoken...not daring to speak, 'less it tip the delicate balance against him. That was the most poignant scene to me. I felt the sorriest for him. He had to let her go, and that killed me. Who hasn't been there. Have a party shutdown around you when you're the only two left because you don't want to say goodbye; saying goodbye when you're dying to say ANYTHING but. Poor poor general. Madam de... comes back from her soul-searching journey (seven towns in five weeks) she can hold --out-- back no longer. I guess she's made the decision to be with the Baron, and their carriages meet in the woods and they finally can become one. Yay...love conquers all. CAN THE GENERAL SUE THE PAWN BROKER FOR GETTING IN BETWEEN HIS MARRIAGE? When those dadblasted earrings turn up again, truly knowing what they Represent, the Baron can take no more. If he can't end the affair with her, he'll end it through the Baron. And it was her very slight petulant arrogance at the end that did her in. She "cleverly finds" the earrings in her glove (after putting them there), wears them to the ball like Judy absent-mindedly putting on Madeleine Elster's necklace. She hides the incriminating evidence in plain sight on her ears for the last time. ...She lies to the Baron about who gave her the earrings. Was he looking for a reason to dump her? Was she a liability to his career? He was polite about stealing the affections of another man's wife and he wasn't intimidated by the General. He's confronted by the General that it was indeed HE who gave her the earrings as a wedding gift. Like a good lawyer, you never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. The Baron asks her who gave her the earrings? It's Madame de...'s last little white lie that sinks her. Her cousin...her mother... WHATEVER. But did you see the Baron's body language change as she babbled on? I did. He couldn't keep up with her stories. She finally admits the truth, but it is too late. And in just that one < poof > of a moment the spell was broken...in him. He is no longer with her. The one time she probably really felt something for another human being, she loses it. The other book end is put up on the mantle of this movie. She doesn't breeze into church this time like she did in the beginning of the movie, for a quick prayer on how she may gain something. There's going to be a duel, a duel she's responsible for and her prayers hold more gravitas. A MAN'S GOT TO DO WHAT A MAN'S GOT TO DUEL The journey of those earrings still has me reeling. Some might cynically say they come back like a bad penny. These eponymous earrings traveled with the irony of a Guy de Maupassant short story. Ilove the way Ophuls inverts everything. What are the serendipitous chances of all this happening in real life. I can only hope. The way these earrings...this Love, if you will, went back and forth speaks to: "if something is meant for you, it's for you." At times when the earrings show up, it is hauntingly romantic; other times it was kind of comical. I thought I caught some sardonic glances from the general. What is this, the twilight zone? The earrings were just as much the star of the picture as our three human leads, and at the end of the day, the earrings of Madame de... probably wound up in a place where they could do the most good...or the least harm. Max Ophuls is a fantastic director. I'm going to really seek him out and have a mini-film festival here at home. He has emotion and camera movement and irony and thought and depth to his films. Max Ophuls...I don't love you.

Hahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Ya got me, S.F.

.

...EARRINGS: LOVE'S TALISMAN And then sometimes, movies make Love seem like the most tragic thing a person can experience. Dagnabit, I've been Ophul'd again. Now believe me, I go into ev'ry movie with the good common sense my parents (and film school instructors) gave me: * I want the story to make sense * I want the plot to intrigue me * I want the acting to be top-notch, or at best, believable. I very much enjoyed "THE EARRINGS OF MADAME DE..." This ironic tale and Ophuls' dizzying camera work sweeps me up in the tide of emotion and carries me inside this sad love story. I sought no escape. A little white lie metastasizes into love...a love triangle. I've seen love triangles before. We all have. But I can't remember ever feeling sorry for all three points of the triangle; Danielle Darrieux, Charles Boyer and Vittorio De Sica perfectly depict the role of The Wife, The Husband and The Lover. Book ends indeed. A little white lie will be Madame de...'s downfall.

No, I didn't know you had a weak heart...but I will find out. *Black hearts can be weak, right?* ...You like this film. How black CAN your heart be. *Edited by: CineMaven on Dec 6, 2011 6:33 AM - So sleepy last night, I didn't correct my typo-should read: "find out.."*

The Prodding Of Monsieur G... Merci Monsieur. Thank you very much for picking up my handkerchief.

Tell me SueSue...were you a Vogue reporter in a previous life? Your commentary is very astute. Hmmm...I hope TCM gives you a call for next year's festival. You know your stuff!

"The Petrified Forest"......a captive film. "Each Dawn I Die"...........a prison film.

Whether it was to strengthen your position or change your mind, it was very fair-minded of you Grimesy, to go back to the movie and review, re-visit and recant. Thank you.

I am liking Irene better and better. You do have to watch Life with Father, just to see what a really good actress Dunne is - she plays totally against type there. Now I find Irene remote, and Loy completely warm and accessible. "LOY & DUNNETHE TOPSY TURVY WORLD OF REMOTE ACCESSIBILITY" by CineMaven. Wha?! HA! Okay, okay. I hear ya. And okay, I will watch "Life With Father." Fuhgeddabout the actor(s) stretching. It's more 'n likely I need to be the one who stretches. Yep, more than likely. MovieMan1957 writes: Since you mentioned The Awful Truth I took the leap for Theodora. (It is an unusual film.) One of my favorite roles for Irene is in I Remember Mama. She's a grand lady in that one. I totally believed her as the Norwegian matriarch and not once did she give a false step. I respect "...Mama" as a good solid classic. Homespum movies like that are, in general, kind of like my eating peas. I know it's good for me, but I'm not crazy about 'em. Do you have a top five favorites from the 1930's? How 'bout you JackaaAaay? Tippy-top, top FIVE favorites from that era? You're the 30's girl 'round these tortured parts. Oh, and speaking of Tippy ('Tippi')....Martin Balsam...another great character actor. I know, I know. I'm all over the map here. Ciao!