User Reviews

Wow. This was one odd little Joan Crawford flick! Joan is a self-centered spoiled rich lady. And then suddenly, she has a religious conversion and she spends all her energy on God. The problem is, that is soon becomes apparent that the self-centered and histrionic lady is actually the SAME person she always was--she just annoys everyone around her in a new way by talking about God. At times, she talks as if she has somehow found a direct link to God and has "inside information". Her conceit is incredible. And, by the end of the film, this dizzy and shallow dame is on to her next obsession.

Overall, this isn't a great film--especially since Joan's character is awfully broad and difficult to believe. But it is entertaining and strange enough to merit a look.

This is obviously not one of Joan Crawford's high points in her career but it no slouch of a film. It really does have some good points.

This is one of those films I sat on for a long time. It just didn't seem like "A Woman's Face" type of film. I decided to give it a go and what a nice little surprise. Joan Crawford plays the over the top part of a married lady returning from a trip abroad. During this trip she finds new religion and decides she wants to spread her new found wisdom on her friends and family at home.

Most of the way through the film she is over the top in the spreading of her new found religion. She never stops telling her friends what she thinks they need to do to improve their lives. She thinks that if they all just come to the point....tell the truth...everything will be all right. Turns out though, she only sees others lives with problems. She can't...or as we see until the end....see her own marital issues. She conveniently leaves those out. It's pretty easy to see she finds this religion as a substitute for dealing with her personal problems at home.

Joan Crawford does a pretty good job with this one. I really don't like films with preachy type of content but with this film it's just the backdrop. You would think with a title like "Susan and God" your in for a church type of film but it's really just a title. Frederic March plays a husband who finally gets tired of his wife's ways and decides to put his foot down in the end. With this we find out what their marriage can handle.

This one is a really fun and interesting watch. I didn't expect much going into it but came out with a nice treat. I enjoyed this one thoroughly. Try this one and see what I saw...a film worth a look.

Helmed by the famous "women's director" George Cukor, who won an academy award for his brilliant work on My Fair Lady, and with a starry cast including Joan Crawford, Fredric March, Ruth Hussey, Rita Hayworth and Nigel Bruce, the elements would appear to be lined up for a classic film but sadly, such is not the case. Firstly, it's a game of two halfs in that we are introduced to a society set in Act 1, most of whom we don't see again when the action changes in Act 2. The plot, in brief features Crawford as the titular Susan who comes back from her travels having discovered religion. She proceeds to inflict this new found faith on her friends, in an over zealous manner creating havoc in her wake. But she seems estranged from her husband (March) , who has turned to alcoholism and matters are further complicated by the fact they have a teenage daughter. The problem with Crawford in this film is that it is very difficult to side with her as her character is such a self absorbed and affected one and when you add the religious zealotry to the package, plain irritating! She does go on a journey of self discovery but it feels too little too late. March, as her husband is irritating in another way, having given himself up to self pitying dipsomania. I imagine you are supposed to be rooting for them as a couple you want to see back together, but it feels like a toxic relationship and you ultimately feel disappointed that March doesn't end up with Ruth Hussey's character who has unselfishly loved him and held a torch for him for years. Hussey is one of the good things about this movie and so too is Nigel Bruce's jealous older husband to a much younger wife (a glamorous turn from Rita Hayworth). Bruce Cabot also adds a memorably masculine performance. When the action is transported to Crawford and March's summer House in the second half of the film, Aldrich Bowker and Marjorie Main are lovely to watch as a sweet and sour, respectively, married couple who serve as housekeepers. The comic mileage the latter gets out of simply using the name Susan, is impressive. Some good moments but an ultimately disappointing whole.

Truer words were never spoken as a dizzy New York socialite (Joan Crawford) talks everybody in her social circle to death over her new found spirituality which threatens to make her loose friends, in addition to her troubled husband (Fredric March). Crawford has just come home from England and hides from March at a Long Island estate while he searches in desperation for her after she fails to disembark from her ship. Crawford is too concerned with converting all her friends to this new found light in her life, totally oblivious to the fact that they are all annoyed by her constant chirping of "tell the truth". Her new found religious beliefs show her to be a total hypocrite, trying to fix everybody else when in fact, she's the one who needs the fixing.

In a role that might have suited Norma Shearer more than Crawford (a surprising revelation for me since I much prefer Crawford as an actress), Joan tries too hard to be flighty, but her cat-like qualities are too strong for her to successfully play a ditz. She was extremely funny as the bitchy Crystal in "The Women", but here, she fails to convince. You can't help but admire her for trying for a different type of role after years of long-suffering socialites who bared claws when necessary but cried in private.

The stage-trained March seems more at ease as the befuddled husband, punch-drunk from missing his wife and occasionally literally drunk from his anger at her, he becomes even more perplexed with her sudden change in attitude upon her return. The young Rita Quigley is given a plain demeanor as Crawford and March's only child to show Crawford's materialistic nature hasn't changed her one dimensional spirituality as she verbally attacks her own daughter for wearing dowdy outfits and doing nothing to make herself more attractive.

Amongst the social set are Nigel Bruce as a snobby cynic, Rita Hayworth as his much younger wife who is secretly in love with another man, and Ruth Hussey as the one realistic member of the social set who makes the comment about "divine silence" and admits to not being religious but finding Crawford's attitude too irreverent for what beliefs she obviously does have and wisely just keeps to herself. Marjorie Main is one of the household servants, and the very regal Constance Collier plays the English lady who influenced Crawford's spirituality change in the first place. A very young Gloria de Haven is seen briefly as one of Quigley's school chums.

While certainly a dated play in regards to the social scene of a Long Island estate, it does make some wise observations about the dangers of home-made religions and tossing spiritual beliefs down other's throats that ultimately offends them. Today, churches of practically every belief seem to pop up on practically every street corner (remember the "Rhythm of Life" church in "Sweet Charity"?) and obviously cause more confusion than good. Obviously, the writer's intention here was to parody this fact and to wisen the viewer to utilize their own good judgement in finding an individual relationship with God rather than to rely on man-made beliefs and creeds.

Another obvious point the writer was trying to make is that spirituality is an individual choice that shouldn't be influenced by political or personal agendas, and that even Susan, as messed up as she was, needed to find her own identity with God rather than to become subject to something that wasn't really anything more than a high-society cult. Without this wisdom, we'd all be subject to constant judgments from all the Susans of the world, or even an "Aunt Esther" (Fred Sanford's bible- thumping sister-in-law on TV's "Sanford and Son") or all the street preachers tossing their philosophies at us on the crowded subways and street corners.

Can you imagine Nigel Bruce of the Sherlock Holmes films married to Rita Hayworth in this 1940 film? Ridiculous, but that describes this film exactly.

Joan Crawford gave an over-the-top performance here as Susan, a wealthy woman, who neglects her husband and daughter Blossom. Blossom. What a name for the child. She is hardly blossoming with those horn-rimmed glasses. Crawford tries to emulate a mix between a Katharine Hepburn and Billie Burke. It just doesn't come off.

The plot is thin at best. A woman who has neglected her family and been off to Europe discovers religion and upon turning home, she wants a divorce but she also wants to teach everyone about her religious awakening.

The film is just another replica of life among the idled, bored rich with so little to do in life.

What the h--- is this????? I couldn't even figure out if it was a comedy (although I guess it was just Joan Crawford's buffoonish acting that made it seem funny), or a drama (at least Frederick March was being dramatic), or a satire. I still don't know, and I highly recommend this movie...to be ignored, by you the viewer.

A society woman who has neglected her husband and daughter has suddenly found God. And what a disgusting God it is that she has found.

There are a couple of redeeming aspects to the film. Let's face it, Frederick March is a superb actor...even in dreadful material. He has a dignity that shines through practically every film he ever made, and in this case, that dignity manages to struggle above the sea of mediocrity this film is drowning in.

Ruth Hussey is quite good here as a socialite friend, as is Rita Hayworth and Gloria DeHaven. It's very nice to see Nigel Bruce in a role that transcends his usual casting as a buffoon. Rita Quigley has an odd role -- too odd -- as the daughter. And, it's always fun to see Marjorie Main...here as a housekeeper. The rest of the cast...the director (George Cukor, who never had sunk so low) should have tossed them out and started over.

I will admit that while the first half of this film is trash, the further you get into the second half of the film, the more improvement you see.

Nevertheless, this is one old flick I never want to watch again.

This is basically a satire on the desire of laymen to act as missionaries for Christian sects, especially 'born again-oriented ones, which is what Susan is so enthusiastic about instilling in her friends, with mostly negative responses. We get the impression that Susan is using her new-found religious doctrine to bolster her natural tendency to be a 'busy body'.

I didn't get the sense from other reviews that this is almost like two minifilms stitched together. The first ends at the 49 min mark, and is generally interesting. Then, estranged alcoholic husband Barie(Frederick March) makes a proposition to estranged wife Susan(Joan Crawford) that they live together in their mansion this summer, with daughter Blossom(Rita Quigley), instead of sending her to summer camp, as usual, so that they will learn to live together as a normal family. He will try to totally abstain completely from alcoholic drinks. If he slips up, he will agree with her divorcing him. She agrees, providing there is no sex. The next nearly one hour is mostly boring, as things go well for them until nearly the end of summer. Then, in about the last 15 min , things get interesting again.

Near the end of summer, Susan announces to Barie that she is going to a meeting of her religious cult in Newport, RI, and that she will give a talk about Barie's 'miraculous' transformation from an alcoholic this summer. Unfortunately, this makes Barie very angry. He announces that they are finished as man and wife, and leaves. Susan thus goes to the train station alone, asking for a one-way ticket. But, after the train leaves, we see her still standing on the platform. She's had a change of heart, and returns home. Meanwhile, Barie has gotten drunk, and is weaving on the road, bound for the house of single friend Charlotte, who is generally known to have a crush on him. Despite knocking down her fence with his careless driving, amazingly, she agrees to accompany him to wherever he wants to go. Next morning, we find them in an inn in upper state NY., Barie not remembering anything about the previous day or night, having drunk more brandy at the inn. He asks her if she will marry him. She says "Maybe". Meanwhile, Susan and Blossom are frantic, wondering where Barie has gone. Friend Iris visits Susan, and complains that her engagement to Mike is over, and he has married another. She blames Susan for telling them that they weren't right for each other. A few minutes later, she admits that Susan was right. Soon, Charlotte walks in and admits that she has been with Barie. Susan cusses her out, calling her a home wrecker. Charlotte excuses herself, saying she found out what she wanted to know, A bit later, Susan goes down stairs to see Barie. Awkwardly, she wishes him happiness with Charlotte. But, Barie says that Charlotte rejected his marriage proposal. The two have an awkward conversation, denoting anticipated reconciliation, not convincing to me, for an apparent happy ending.

A side benefit of reading about the background of this film is that I learned about The Oxford Group': an evangelic group, founded by American Frank Buchman, which was the inspiration for the successful play this film is modeled after. Unfortunately, the film wasn't as well received, and incurred a loss. This group supposedly lived by 'The 6 assumptions', which were as follows: 1) men are sinners 2) men can be changed 3) confession is a prerequisite to changing 4) the changed soul has direct access to God 5) the 'Age of Miracles' has returned 6) those who have changed have an obligation to try to change others(for the better).

We learn how Susan practiced or commanded her friends to practice several of these 'assumptions'. Also, Alcoholics Anonymous was started as a spin-off of the Oxford Group, although it decided it was best if it wasn't officially related to any particular Christian denomination. I have read quite contrasting reports on how helpful AA has been. It's pointed out that, today, there are other, non-religious-oriented self-help organizations that may be more effective, along with medical professionals. Today, we have several drugs that can be of great benefit, that weren't available then.