While this movie came out in 1946, it was made in 1943 and the studio apparently shelved it due to a contract dispute with Miss DeHavilland. I wonder if perhaps it was also shelved because the film was a bit of a mess.
I must point out at the onset that I am not a huge fan of Hollywood bio-pics from the Golden Age. Most of this is because I am a history teacher and the studios (in particular Warner Brothers) generally played very fast and loose with the truth. In so many ways, the story is a very warped view of the truth, as the studio was much more interested in selling tickets than telling the audience about this very complex family. In many ways, the leading characters are more like cartoon characters and they behave very inconsistently--such as the curate's romance with Charlotte that just appeared out of nowhere.
Now if you ignore the distortions (and there are many) and you ignore occasionally one-dimensional writing, you are left with some decent actors wearing pretty clothes running about nice sets and it's all set to lovely music. Olivia DeHavilland was given just awful dialog and came off as a head-strong and fickle lady--too much to have been a great lady or world famous author. Arthur Kennedy was a complete rotter and that actually wasn't too far from the true character. And of all the siblings, Ida Lupino (as Emily) came off best--as a more fully developed and rational person.
Entertaining, perhaps, but the film made me long for an honest and realistic portrayal--not a jumble of confusing characters and motivations. Also, based on the way her part was written, I could understand why Miss DeHavilland sued to get out of her contract after completing this film!! Great actress--lousy part.
UPDATE: I received an email from Doylenf indicating that it is probable that the film was held due to DeHavilland's contract problems with Warner Brothers. This makes a lot of sense, as the studio was incensed when she fought in court (and eventually won) to end the studio system that forced actors to accept whatever their bosses demanded (giving them no choice in projects). Thanks Doylenf.
I must point out at the onset that I am not a huge fan of Hollywood bio-pics from the Golden Age. Most of this is because I am a history teacher and the studios (in particular Warner Brothers) generally played very fast and loose with the truth. In so many ways, the story is a very warped view of the truth, as the studio was much more interested in selling tickets than telling the audience about this very complex family. In many ways, the leading characters are more like cartoon characters and they behave very inconsistently--such as the curate's romance with Charlotte that just appeared out of nowhere.
Now if you ignore the distortions (and there are many) and you ignore occasionally one-dimensional writing, you are left with some decent actors wearing pretty clothes running about nice sets and it's all set to lovely music. Olivia DeHavilland was given just awful dialog and came off as a head-strong and fickle lady--too much to have been a great lady or world famous author. Arthur Kennedy was a complete rotter and that actually wasn't too far from the true character. And of all the siblings, Ida Lupino (as Emily) came off best--as a more fully developed and rational person.
Entertaining, perhaps, but the film made me long for an honest and realistic portrayal--not a jumble of confusing characters and motivations. Also, based on the way her part was written, I could understand why Miss DeHavilland sued to get out of her contract after completing this film!! Great actress--lousy part.
UPDATE: I received an email from Doylenf indicating that it is probable that the film was held due to DeHavilland's contract problems with Warner Brothers. This makes a lot of sense, as the studio was incensed when she fought in court (and eventually won) to end the studio system that forced actors to accept whatever their bosses demanded (giving them no choice in projects). Thanks Doylenf.