This story is very loosely based on the life of the painter, Gauguin. Both are amazingly selfish and nasty fellows, though there are a few differences. Sanders' character (Charles Strickland) is British instead and in the end he is stricken with leprosy--not syphilis (which they weren't even allowed to mention in films in the US in 1942). Otherwise, the tone of the character's life is similar to Gauguin--though Gauguin also had a penchant for violence that you also don't see in this film. Either way, you'd probably NOT want either guy to be your husband or best friend! The film is told from the viewpoint of an acquaintance of Strickland--played by Herbert Marshall. Through much of the film, this friend disdains the life Strickland is leading but, oddly, continues to associate with a man he didn't like. This really made little sense. Regardless, the main thrust of the film is to show what a major jerk Strickland is as well as how gifted he was as well. An odd sort of dichotomy, I know.
Overall, this was only a fair movie to watch. Part of this is because the film was awfully sanitized. Part of it was because you can't like his character in any way, so when he dies you are left not caring in the least. But for me the biggest problem is that Sanders later played the same sort of guy in "Death of a Scoundrel"--and this latter film was much, much more interesting and florid! An okay time passer, I suggest you see this other film instead--it's a doozy!
Overall, this was only a fair movie to watch. Part of this is because the film was awfully sanitized. Part of it was because you can't like his character in any way, so when he dies you are left not caring in the least. But for me the biggest problem is that Sanders later played the same sort of guy in "Death of a Scoundrel"--and this latter film was much, much more interesting and florid! An okay time passer, I suggest you see this other film instead--it's a doozy!