Evelyn Prentice (1934)

The union of marriage is one that is cherished and celebrated by virtually all societies. It represents love, companionship, and most of all trust between two individuals with presumable a deeply shared connection. A great deal of responsibility, compromising, and openness must be mutual between both parties in cultivating an increasingly grounded and resonant amalgamation, especially with children present. It is when mistrust and dishonesty begin budding that this growing, anchored foundation may become windswept. It is history and sincerity that then drives the path towards dissolution or resolution. “Evelyn Prentice” is a 1934 drama directed by William K. Howard starring the dynamic duo of William Powell and Myrna Loy exploring this very issue with a very unique, unusual, and devastating secret at its core.

John Prentice (William Powell) is a confident and flirtatious defence lawyer who has the reputation of winning all of his cases. Nancy Harrison (Rosalind Russell) is his latest client who he acquitted who is obviously very grateful for his services, but wants to continue a very different kind of service with him behind closed doors. John’s marriage to Evelyn (Myrna Loy) is deemed to be quite peachy to others, but his physical and mental absence related to work poses great discomfort with Evelyn. She catches the eye of master money manipulator Lawrence Kennard (Harvey Stephens), and they begin written correspondence. Various events lead to Evelyn asking Lawrence to end their communication, but he threatens her with blackmail. A gunshot is then heard with Evelyn running out of the apartment, and speculations subsequently run wild.

This particular project is obviously quite different from Loy and Powell’s other well-known pairings for two obvious reasons that come to mind. It is definitely NOT a comedy, and the gumshoeing as per the Thin Man movies is not collaborative at all. In fact, there is a high amount of secrecy and concealment on Evelyn’s part. Despite the differences and intermittent datedness of some core messages in the film, it still displays the timeless ample tension, doubt, and fear that accompany a team in distress. Loy and Powell demonstrate their chemistry and charisma in this dramatic and problematic atmosphere that would only grow with further pairings, helping to create the iconic partnership forever embedded in cinema.

I do not own the above photo. Also, this post is part of the Bill and Myrna’s New Year’s Blogathon hosted by The Flapper Dame and Phyllis Loves Classic Movies! Please check out the other posts!

Stella Dallas (1937)

Heroism is often equated with courageous and selfless acts benefitting the health and well-being of other individuals. We often see those deemed as heroes to be role models, subsequently emulating their acts so that we can feel a sense of pride and accomplishment in our own lives. Society often thinks of historical figures who risked their own safety for the welfare of others on a massive scale. However, we model our behaviour very often from those we presume to be highly influential and important in our personal lives whether it be parents, friends, or an authority figure. It is often they who demonstrate the greatest heroism of all. “Stella Dallas” is a heart-wrenching 1937 drama directed by King Vidor exploring this very idea.

The always versatile and wonderful Barbara Stanwyck plays Stella Martin, a woman from humble, working class roots who falls for Stephen Dallas Jr. (John Boles), the advertising manager at the town mill from a background of high society. They fall in love quickly, marry, and have a daughter named Laurel. Initially, it appears as if Stella has also selfishly fallen in love with luxury. As well, her brash personality and past upbringing often excludes her from opulent circles. Despite superficial appearances and a crumbling marriage, the motivation behind Stella’s actions is always with good intentions. Laurel is highly appreciative of her mother’s efforts and fiercely loyal towards her. Mutual devotion, embarrassment, anger, and sadness are experienced in one pivotal scene  manifesting into Stella making the most selfless and heartbreaking decision of parenthood.

Parenthood itself is probably one of the most altruistic roles in society. So much energy, resources, and love are directed towards moulding and ensuring that a child will be productive and prepared for the challenges of adulthood. It often does “take a village to raise a child”, but it can be increasingly difficult in the case of single parenting and co-parenting. Co-ordination and compromise are essential to ensure that the child does not feel blame and continues to feel loved. This was especially the case in Laurel’s upbringing in spite of Mr. and Mrs. Dallas’ sometimes icy disdain for one another. Overall, I feel that the bravery and altruism of parents continuously expressed embodies the definition of a hero.

I do not own the above image.

This post is part of the Inspirational Heroes Blogathon hosted by The Midnite Drive-In and Hamlette’s Soliloquy! Please click on the link to check out other great posts about inspirational film heroes!

The Phantom Carriage (1921)

New Year’s Eve is deemed as the one poignant day upon which humankind bestows great introspection and reflection on the past year in perspective of their life thus far. “What have I accomplished?” “How have I changed?” “Am I truly ‘one year older and wiser’?” “What does my future hold?” These are a small sample of the questions we may ponder on this day. Many celebrate the fresh hope and opportunity that arise from self-analysis, while others may unfortunately be left feeling despondent. “The Phantom Carriage” is a 1921 Swedish silent film directed by Victor Sjostrom displaying the extreme ends of this pendulum of thought taking place near the midnight hour of this very fateful day of contemplation.

Sister Edit (Astrid Holm) is a highly benevolent yet naive worker of the Salvation Army who is sadly near death due to tuberculosis. During the greatest depths of her illness on New Year’s Eve, she asks her mother (Concordia Selander) and dear friend Sister Maria (Lisa Lundholm) for a man named David Holm (Victor Sjostrom) to visit her. Before meeting this character, a sentiment of disdain and anger has already cultivated towards him. Upon meeting him, the contempt harboured towards him seems quite justified. He is also completely ignorant to the cautionary tale his friend Georges (Tore Svennberg) had told him about “The Phantom Carriage”. The very last person who dies on New Year’s Eve must drive the carriage, and they must also be at all costs obedient to Death itself. Little did Mr. Holm know that he would meet that fate and be greeted by a dear friend who, as in similar fashion to Jacob Marley, prompts ample pause for the “maturity of the soul” through past events, behaviours, and untimely consequences.

I would be amiss if I did not discuss the technical brilliance of this film. I cannot imagine that double exposure techniques were frequently developed in film at the time. This is absolutely central in increasing the effectiveness of telling this particular story. Furthermore, I found the tones of the images were interesting with brown being representative of indoor settings and blue of outdoors. Neither colour is particularly warm, potentially symbolizing the false sense of shelter in which Holm has enveloped himself. Furthermore, several images in this film have been highly influential in shaping the structure of “The Seventh Seal” and “The Shining”, two of the most iconic films in cinematic history in my opinion.

“The Phantom Carriage” itself is a burden to the lost spirits who have to carry its weight for a full year. However, it is also a symbol for the spiritual and emotional strain that many drag with them on a daily basis. Many of our actions and thoughts are resultant of fear, contempt, and anger. In other words, they are reactionary to the lack of core vitality and humanity necessary to achieving wholeness and true presence. Decency, kindness, and compassion embody the true human condition. Overall, this film does an exemplary job in reminding viewers of the importance of responsibility, love, and respect as integral aspects of our functioning. Grief for former possibilities can be devastating upon the realization of their potential.

I do not own any of the above images.

This post is part of the Happy New Year Blogathon hosted by Movie Movie Blog Blog! Please click on the link to check out other posts discussing films which take place on New Year’s Eve!

 

Trouble in Paradise (1932)

The concealment of deceit has been a longstanding tradition in society. The maintenance of facades grants this continued perception while allowing one to experiment and examine various interests outside of these so-called constraints. This exploration may allow one to transition into another chapter in their life, such as a career. However, traversing this course in the realm of any kind of relationship can create confusion, hurt, and future mistrust branching into subsequent bond formation. These taxing situations have nonetheless been highly mimicked and lauded in film, generating suspense, concern, and sometimes comedy depending on the plot. The concept of relationship deceit is one such theme that produces a lot of “trouble in paradise”. The master of subtleness Ernst Lubitsch directed the delightful 1932 Pre-Code romantic comedy with the title of the aforementioned quoted phrase, crisply navigating the previously discussed theme with great wit and intelligence.

The film begins with thief extraordinaire Gaston Monescu (Herbert Marshall) putting forth multiple illusions of himself. One is as a doctor, robbing the wealthy Francois Filiba (1930s screwball staple Edward Everett Horton). The other is as a wealthy baron in the city of Venice. He meets with Lily Vautier (Miriam Hopkins), who is impossibly the most social socialite among royalty. Unbeknownst to them both, they are highly professional thieves. This discovery launches a seeming whirlwind of fraudulence and dishonesty. After Monescu robbed a peace conference and “took everything except the peace”, we are introduced to the wealthy Parisian cosmetics maven Madame Mariette Colet (Kay Francis). Through a myriad of circumstance, the two crooks begin working for Colet with Monescu turned Gaston Lavalle at the helm of her finances! Multiple love triangles, derailed plans, clever lines, glamour, possession, jealousy, and most of all sexual tension blend together to develop an utterly and daringly original film.

Lubitsch employed many innovative techniques in the film’s portrayal of sexuality. The Hays Code was definitely impending on Hollywood at the time that this film was created, as much nudity and seduction were increasingly prevalent in studio pictures. While many films were amplifying overt sexuality, Lubitsch slyly inserted multiple ploys to scandalously include sexual encounters between unmarried individuals. A wine bottle, shadows on a mattress, a clock, innuendo, and yet sometimes complete silence are some examples allowing the audience to make insinuations and draw conclusions. The light atmosphere and comedy help to mask this film as a nearly innocent, oxymoronic portrayal of layered deception. While the film was not reissued during the Code era, the act and craft of masquerading ultimately lends the film itself added charm, depth, timelessness, and a rewarding stamp in cinema.

I do not own the photos in this post. As well, this is part of the SEX! (now that I have your attention) Blogathon hosted by Movie Movie Blog Blog! Please have a look at the other great entries over this weekend contributing to this blogathon discussing sexuality and film.

 

 

Libeled Lady (1936)

All individuals find themselves in precarious situations from time to time. These embarrassing events may be completely unexpected, but more often than not there were precipitating instances leading to this specific moment in time. One’s wit, pride, righteousness, as well as their negotiation skills and shrewdness with other players shapes further twists and turns in this scenario, especially the outcome and potential lessons learned. Screwball comedies embody this overall comedy of errors, and the 1936 screwball Libeled Lady directed by Jack Conway with an all-star cast does this splendidly.

Warren Haggerty (Spencer Tracy) is the managing editor of the New York Evening Star, a frenetic newspaper trying to obtain the latest scoop like all of the other competitors. Both he and his lovely fiancee Gladys Benton (Jean Harlow – my absolute favourite actress) are getting dressed for the wedding and are heading to the church. On that same day, a false story is posted about a wealthy socialite’s role in dissolving a marriage. Connie Allenbury (Myrna Loy) becomes the “libeled lady”, suing the paper a whopping five million dollars for libel! At this moment, Haggerty makes a beeline to the newspaper, leaving Benton extremely angry and hurt over his decision yet again to prioritize his work over her needs.

So, Haggerty has made his decision to deal with the needs of the newspaper. He feels as if he has to quickly use his noggin to persuade Allenbury to drop the suit. His old colleague and foe, the ever so suave and single Bill Chandler (William Powell), becomes involved in this cantankerous scheme at the pleading of Haggerty. Chandler’s role is to convince Allenbury to fall in love with him but to be caught scandalously with her by his wife. Who becomes his wife, you ask? None other than Benton! She obliges at the cajoling of her beloved fiance so that he can save face. As Haggerty says, “she may be his wife but she’s engaged to me!” As you may guess, much humour and tomfoolery ensues!

This film has so many twists and turns throughout the plot’s plethora of deceptive arrangements, shifting attractions, and discontentments. It ensues to reach an emotionally intense yet hilarious finale. As with all screwballs, sharp repartee, a grand battle of the sexes, and memorable scenes (especially the greatest fishing scene in the history of cinema) are weaved throughout the film.

The electric cast and star power amplifies the film’s wit, storyline, and chemistry. All of the stars had contracts with Metro Goldwyn Mayer during the studio system era, and it was therefore much easier to create a vehicle with this star power fuelling the engine. It was Myrna Loy and William Powell’s fifth film together out of fourteen collaborations throughout their careers. While it was no secret that Powell and Harlow were a couple at the time, the studio pushed for another coupling of Loy and Powell secondary to their box office success. Either way, the winning screwball formula of this film created the impetus for a Best Picture nomination at the 1937 Academy Awards.

It is no doubt that screwball comedies are a true joy to inhabit and experience as a viewer. However, I feel as if this film and many other screwballs convey themes and messages that grapple with struggles at the core of humanity. Relationships are constantly tested in this genre of film, which is a fear yet reality of the human experience. As well, the division between social classes is a common theme. In this film, a man of the working class tries to undermine rich elitists. Variations of this plot device are present in many screwballs, which was quite reflective and contemporary to many in the Great Depression era. Therefore, I believe that great comedy can touch audience’s lives not just through humour but with a high degree of familiarity to our struggles and also our greatest delights.

I do not own any of the photos in this post. As well, this post is part of the “Addicted to Screwball Blogathon” hosted by Pfeiffer Pfilms and Meg Movies! Please check out the other posts over the next day related to other fabulous screwball comedies!

 

Five Stars Blogathon – My Five Favourite Movie Stars!

I am extremely excited to be partaking in this blogathon celebrating iconic and talented stars of the silver screen on National Classic Movie Day (May 16). This was a very difficult decision to make, but I have narrowed down the list to five. I simply cannot rank them in any order! Please let me know what your thoughts are, and head over to Classic Film and TV Cafe for the Five Stars Blogathon to read other wonderful posts!

Jean Harlow

Although she passed away at the very young age of 26, Harlean Carpenter left such a strong legacy in the world of classic cinema. She was impeccably glamorous, and is the original “blonde bombshell”. However, her comedic timing, fiery personality, and electric chemistry with her co-stars cemented her talent in Hollywood and her important contribution to the screwball comedy. Libeled Lady is my favourite classic film, and that is in a large part due to Jean’s effervescence, style, and wit.

Jack Lemmon

Yet another master of comedy enters my list! Born in an elevator in a Massachusetts hospital, Lemmon’s acting bug bit him at a very young age. He was a frequent collaborator with one of the master directors of cinema, Billy Wilder. Jack’s versatility was quite apparent when accounting for his breadth of filmography. Mister Roberts, Some Like it Hot, The Odd Couple, and The Apartment are just some of the classics in which Lemmon’s star shone brightly yet very humbly. He had a down-to-earth quality which made him very relatable, and I feel that this accounts to his longevity.

Jimmy Stewart

On to another legend with a great sense of modesty and down-to-earth personality. If Tom Hanks could be transported back in time, I think he would be best buds with this class act! In most of Stewart’s roles if not all (at least the ones I have seen), the audience is rooting for his character to overcome unthinkable obstacles. It’s A Wonderful Life, Vertigo, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and especially Mr. Smith Goes to Washington are some prime examples. As with Mr. Lemmon, his range and versatility were apparent through his body of work. Jimmy Stewart also heavily reminds me of my late maternal grandfather, to whom I was extremely close. I think my connection with my grandfather has transferred on to my great admiration for this star.

Barbara Stanwyck

Ruby Stevens had an extremely difficult childhood, living in multiple foster homes and losing her mother at a very young age. She escaped into the world of film, and eventually transformed into the classic star we know as Barbara Stanwyck. Again, her roles demonstrated her wide range from slang spewing comedic nightclub performer to devoted mother to ruthless femme fatale and then some. However, I feel that all of her performances demonstrate a level of grit and conviction that can only be drawn upon from life-altering and life-changing experiences. It is still unfathomable that she did not win any Academy Awards for specific roles. However, classic film lovers greatly recognize her depiction of strong females and the ultimate impact that would have on women’s representation in society.

And last but certainly not least…

Marlene Dietrich

Hailing from Germany, Dietrich got her start playing violin, acting on the stage, and eventually started acting in silent film. Her breakthrough role was The Blue Angel, attracting attention from Hollywood executives. Her charisma, seductiveness, and commanding presence created classics such as Morocco, Shanghai Express, . and Destry Rides Again. However, her most impressive work was her dedication towards and support for troops fighting in WWII. Her conviction and bravery was reward, as she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1947. The longevity of her career, fearlessness, and allure blend together to create a unique and provocative icon of the silver screen.

Honorable Mentions: Bette Davis, Cary Grant, Giulietta Masina, Liv Ullmann, Toshiro Mifune, Fred Astaire & Ginger Rogers (they were a TEAM!!), and Ingrid Bergman.

I do not own any of the pictures in this post.

 

Random Harvest (1942)

Memories based on everyday and momentous experiences form the basis of human development and identity. Their formation and foundation can create an environment of empowerment and growth of knowledge. Conversely, their presence can sometimes traumatize and significantly regress one’s path to self-actualization. The wish to eradicate some painful memories has been held by all at some instance. However, I could not fathom anyone yearning to erase joyful recollections imprinted for years in their brains. Some individuals living with neurocognitive disorders, such as Alzheimer’s Disease, are robbed of the grandest and most beautiful memories with no mercy. Random Harvest is a 1942 drama-romance film directed by Mervyn LeRoy which explores the potentially devastating effects of memory loss on individual identity and surrounding relationships.

“John Smith” (Ronald Colman) has been hospitalized at Melbridge County Asylum for over a year following his harrowing experiences on the battlefield of WWI. His diagnosis would fit with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but he has dissociated from the raw emotions of his experiences to the point where he cannot remember his own identity. While wandering away from the psychiatric facility on the night of WWI’s end, he meets Paula Ridgeway (Greer Garson) in the town of Melbridge. She is a local actress and dancer who empathizes with “Smithy” to the point of finding a home in the countryside to escape authorities and unwitting family members. As in many classic films, the two rapidly fall in love and marry. Smithy’s newly discovered writing talent blossoms into a job proposal, but a head injury inflicted via automobile accident allows Smithy to remember and slide into his previous life as the wealthy Charles Rainier. Paula is inevitably obliterated from his memory with few reminders of her once great impact. Themes of abandonment, jealousy, anger, detachment, frustration, and never-ending hope engross the remaining intertwining journey of our lead characters. This leads to an ultimate tear-jerking finale which will melt even the coldest, steel-engulfed hearts.

“Random Harvest” is an interesting and multi-faceted title for this film. Paula and Smithy meet during the typical harvest season (Autumn) randomly it seems in a tobacco shop. The estate to which Charles Rainier and his siblings are entitled is called “Random Hall”. Separately, these words and their place in the film could definitely account for its title. However, the definition of the word “harvest” lends to growth and cultivation, which is what led to Paula and Smithy’s glorious bond and millions of other relationships. As well, the two were randomly brought together, and their relationship was randomly taken away. Hence, their growing interconnected maturation was inadvertently interrupted for varying reasons. Others may beg to differ, citing that no event or association is truly random. Regardless, the atrocity of the events occurring in these characters’ lives is incomprehensible, and we greatly empathize with them.

These drastic impediments yet intermittent delights in the film create a harrowing atmosphere leading viewers to the edge of their seats, fabricating major peaks and valleys of emotion. Our own fears and relatedness to memory heightens the concern and sentimentality in the film. We feel overwhelmed, frightened yet optimistic for the characters’ resolutions. Overall, I feel that “tear-jerker” is an understatement for this beautiful film.

I do not own the photos in this post. As well, this post is a part of the “No, YOU’RE Crying” Blogathon hosted by Moon In Gemini! Please check out the other posts related to tear-jerker films over the coming days!

 

 

Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948)

The pursuit of the perception of greater prestige is one that encompasses Western society’s identity. The quest, attainment, and dissolution of achievement creates an inner restlessness to strive towards higher prosperity without appreciating and smelling the roses. This eventual dissatisfaction inevitably leads to risk-taking, with disastrous and/or meaningful results.  In H.C. Potter’s 1948 classic screwball “Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House”, the commonplace and relatable journey from leasing to owning and then renovating a home is the focus. Disillusionment of the idyllic country life is eye-opening to the tired yet wide-eyed urban dwellers in the film.

Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) is an advertising executive and family man who has just been assigned to the doomed ham/WHAM campaign, much to his displeasure. He is also frustrated with the tiny square footage and lack of closet space in the New York apartment which he shares with his wife Muriel (Myrna Loy) and daughters (Connie Marshall and Sharyn Moffett). Much to the dismay of his lawyer “best friend” Bill Cole (Melvyn Douglas), the Blandings are deceptively swindled and decide to buy a somewhat dilapidated home that has been erect since the Revolutionary War. This purchase obviously and inevitably does not come without challenges. The multitude of foundational issues with the “new home”, the Blandings’ sometimes varying opinions on construction and blue printing, writer’s block regarding the ham-like WHAM, as well as finance and jealousy all collide to create calamity in classic screwball style.

Becoming a home owner has become a pinnacle of success in our current landscape. It signifies that an individual or family appears to be financially stable and at ease in their lives, prepared to take on this rewarding challenge. Owning a home also signifies autonomy and independence, and undertaking renovations can be an extension of one’s creativity. If the owners are in a relationship, this whole process can also be a test of strength, endurance, and compromise in their unity. It is the hope of all involved that the “ultimate dream home” helps to create actualization and a future of stability and fulfillment.

 

I do not own any of the photos in this post. As well, this post is part of the Favourite Film and TV Homes Blogathon hosted by Phyllis Loves Classic Movies and Love Letters to Old Hollywood! Please visit their sites between May 5 – 7, 2017 to check out many great posts regarding this wonderful topic!

Dangerous (1935)

The course of one’s life can be tumultuous, rollercoasting through peaks and valleys. The highs can be intoxicating, while the lows can be crushing to one’s soul and spirit. These extremes of success and emotion are not a product of their own presence. Multiple factors mesh together to forge varying experiences. For example, the peaks can be a product of many years of tireless work or extensive spiritual clarity.  The valleys may derive from economic downturn. “Dangerous” is a 1935 film directed by Alfred E. Green starring Bette Davis and Franchot Tone which examines these concepts from its onset.

Joyce Heath (played by the always formidable and outspoken Bette Davis) was once a prominent actress in the theatre world. However, she is now considered a “jinx”. A catastrophic correlation between Joyce’s love and men’s demises via devastating means led to sequestration from the theatre, poverty, and alcoholism. Don Bellows (played by the suave and charming Franchot Tone) was so greatly inspired by one of Joyce’s performances that it altered the course of his life to pursue architecture instead of business. Still, he is swept up in a world of social elitism propelled even further by his sweet yet spoiled fiancee Gail Armitage (Margaret Lindsay). One night, he crosses paths with Joyce who is inebriated at a local cafe. He feels as if he owes a great debt of gratitude to her, and cares for her at his country home for a period of time much to the dismay of his housekeeper, Mrs. Williams (Alison Skipworth). The juicy events unfolding from this supposed rehabilitation engrosses themes of jealousy, trust, lust, gullibility, failure, rejection, and masquerading.

Many would argue that Ms. Davis should not have won her first Oscar for this role. Some feel as if it was a consolation prize for not winning or even being nominated for her larger-than-life and magnetic performance in “Of Human Bondage” the year prior. I feel that this award was well-deserved. She displayed all the complexities of a woman who had lost in love and life through a magnificent screenplay. Her performance was complemented immensely by the on- and offscreen chemistry with Franchot Tone. His calm, unassuming, and naive character contrasted with the forlorn and tormented Joyce tremendously.

The spunky and devoted Mrs. Williams is intuitive and wise in many ways. On the one hand, she informs the earnest and conflicted Don that “turnips will make your chest hair grow”. Within the same breadth, she refers to Joyce Heath as “dangerous” due to her past and seeming hostility. Some individuals make less than ideal choices by society’s standards more often than others due to the sociopolitical and economic climate. Others are quite manipulative, outwardly infallible to the effects of their decisions on others’ journeys. As well, the existence, events, and uncertainty of life always creates an aura of potential danger. Our navigation and judgment throughout each day is impacted by many risks, benefits, opportunities, and challenges. One may characterize life itself as being “dangerous” due to various obstacles. However, these trials and tribulations shape our character and our ability to gain resiliency and coping mechanisms in the face of adversity.

I do not own the images in this post. As well, this post is part of the Franchot Tone Blogathon hosted by Finding Franchot! Please head over and have a look at other wonderful posts dedicated to this underrated leading man!

All About Eve (1950)

“Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night”. It is one of the most commonly quoted (and misquoted) lines in the history of film. In addition, it is delivered by the incomparable and legendary Bette Davis in “All About Eve”, a juicy drama from 1950 directed and written by Joseph Mankiewicz. This quote in embedded in modern-day lexicon, embodying the aura of uneasiness of the unknown and predicting the sense that unpredictable yet stirring events are about to unfold. In the film, this quote is impeccably placed. It signals the deception, criticism, loss, and turmoil set to unfold in the lives of deep-rooted and also budding theatrical folk in this flawless film.

Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter) is a starry-eyed fan of the theatre world claiming to have seen every performance of “Aged in Wood”, a play in which theatre veteran Margo Channing (Bette Davis) plays the lead role. After one performance on a rainy evening, Margo’s best friend Karen Richards (Celeste Holm) invites the impressionable Eve to the star’s dressing room, where she meets Margo and a number of people in her inner circle. Margo and director boyfriend Bill Sampson (Gary Merrill, who later married Ms. Davis in real life) grow to quickly trust and wrap Eve under their wings, as Eve becomes Margo’s secretary, second hand, and second brain. However, longtime maid and friend Birdie Coonan (Thelma Ritter) is suspicious of Eve’s infatuated motives, alerting Margo to this potential mistrust. After the aforementioned quote is spoken at a party for Bill (which Eve set into motion, unsurprisingly), an elaborate web of issues associated with ageism, vulnerability, deceit, manipulation, blackmail, dishonesty, disdain, female competition, and tainted success unfolds between these fascinating and colourful characters.

This film is such a classic in every sense of the word. The script is absolutely brilliant, encapsulating the necessary and important character development and flaws of all involved in the film’s universe of New York theatre. The acting is outstanding to say the least. George Sanders won Best Supporting Actor for his role as intelligently scheming theatrical critic, Addison DeWitt. Davis, Holm, Baxter, and Ritter were also deservingly nominated for their roles. A total of fourteen Oscar nominations were bestowed upon this film, with six wins including Best Picture and Best Director. “Titanic” and “La La Land” have only been able to match this mountainous feat of nominations. I feel that this is one of the most superb films ever constructed. Some of the characters in this film can definitely be thought of as the original “mean girls”!

Eve Harrington is certainly one of the most contested and engrossing characters in cinematic history. Her ascent to stardom is certainly marked by malice and corruption. Her transformation within the film from lamb to wolf, so to speak, is startling. It stirs the most unsettling emotions in viewers. Fellow characters and viewers mark a wide range of curiosity to contention surrounding Eve. Hence, the core of the film is “all about Eve”. However, her actions have created an extreme ripple effect amongst those in her own inner circle. This film is a stark reminder of how each of our decisions and motives influence others in our lives to either their or our detriment or benefit. Integrity and truth must therefore be key components of our actions in daily life. Manipulation will either immediately or eventually serve to hurt those who fuel and/or receive impending emotional damage.

I do not own the pictures in this post.

This post is part of the Classic Quotes Blogathon, hosted by The Flapper Dame. Please check out more wonderful posts over the next few days pertaining to classic films with classic quotes!