MovieChat Forums > Jezebel (1938) Discussion > Same casting problem as GWTW, but worse.

Same casting problem as GWTW, but worse.


In both films we're expected to believe this conniving belle can get her way with everyone, except this one man gets her panties all in a bunch.

Leslie Howard in GWTW was suspicious enough, but Howard's acting and demeanor conveyed a cool elegance that I could see a woman finding alluring.

But Julie in this film is even bolder than Scarlett, asp it's even more important that the man for whom she pines exude a smoldering charm and dignity that would make her heart skip a beat.

I've usually found Fonda overrated in the films in which I've seen him, but he is Really miscast in this one. I found his mamnerisms and facial expressions irritating--which I expected more from Davis., who was great. He seems more like the type a Julie or Scarlett type would chew and spit out rather unceremoniously. IMO, it really blows the story, especially given the ending.

"Well, for once the rich white man is in control!" C. M. Burns

reply

At least Fonda was attractive. Leslie Howard was British trying to play a convincing Southern gentleman, too old, and not handsome in the least especially when he's pitted against Clark Gable. To me, there's no comparison.

reply

And in the book Ashley was only a few years older than Scarlett and very handsome. I've always thought it's a shame we can't transport Leonardo DiCaprio (circa Titanic) back to be Ashley - at least then we would know why she keeps overlooking Gable for so long!

And I agree with you, at least Fonda had the looks, so we kind of get why she would be hung up on him.

reply

As I said in response to another thread here, physical attraction is not the point. Julie is attracted to the idea of Pres, his decency, his position in society and the respect it gives him, and his future, which is limitless. Hooking up with him would make her more respected in society and even the grand lady. Scarlet has similar ideals about that wet-rag Ashley, as portrayed in the film as well as in the book.

I think if Julie were attracted only by physicality and attitude, Buck Cantrell would be her man. But that is not what seems to attract her. Subconsciously and later consciously, she desires decency and societal acceptance. How do I know? Her regret of her rash behavior. You see it when she arrives at the Olympus Ball. She was intrigued with the idea of flouting it in the faces of everyone, but when she actually has to face the music, she wants to back out. She later wants Pres's approval, and she tells us as much with her speech to Amy at the end. She wants redemption (to be "clean" as she says) and seen as decent.

"The answers to all of life's riddles can be found in the movies."

reply

I don't know who was more miscast but Fonda did fall flat for me. I didn't understand if there was supposed to be chemistry between the characters that the actors weren't conveying or if there wasn't any chemistry but Davis was somewhat deluded. And it just made the whole film so boring. For me, the best thing about this film was the visuals. The story and acting were mediocre.

reply

TANSD76, I must respectfully disagree. I thought Davis' performance was sheer perfection. I agree with a previous post that perhaps Fonda's character should have been stonger-willed, which would have served as a greater foil to Jezebel and provide even greater plausibilty as to why she'd be attracted to him. However, Davis gave a magnificent performance with a very well-defined character.

reply

I mean Davis as Julie!

reply