Susan and God - EXCELLENT! - Susan and God (1940) Discussion

[–] xerses13 14 years ago

BarryTrexel; After re-watching the film I reevaluated it and agree with you. Now rate it IMDB********Eight. It was underestimated back then and it is topical today. Rather then religion being used as a moral guide or teaching tool, many try to turn it too their personal ends, just like SUSAN did.

Bible beating 'Fundamentalists' wish to turn back the clock on knowledge with their 'Creationist Science' which is not Science at all. Muslims justify the slaughter of innocents to gain entrance into some sort of delusional heaven, complete with personal brothel. Hindus use it to justify 'caste systems' or any occasion too oppress other religious views. If I have left anyone out, don't worry your included to.

reply

[–] jaddeo 14 years ago

Just re-watched this incredible movie. I know I'm in the minority but this is one of my all time favorite Joan Crawford movies for the simple fact that it is not anything like the typical MGM Crawford movie of the time (outside her fabulous Adrian wardrobe). The script by Anita Loos (adapted from the Rachel Crothers play) is witty, intelligent and makes some incredibly insightful points about religious fundamentalism and fanatacism. The direction by George Cukor is well paced and he allows the actors to create real character and relationships with each other. The cast is first rate and then there is the incredible central performance of Joan Crawford herself. Cukor got her to excel in an incredibly difficult high comedy role that normally would have gone to the likes of Colbert, Dunne or Hepburn and I have never ever seen Joan Crawford play a character like this so well. Her comedic timing is excellent and I find it mind boggling that this film isn't better remembered. Frederic March is fantastic but it is Crawford's film all the way and I could watch this over and over and over. Her character has such depth and dimension and she really goes through an incredible change and Crawford handles the nuances of the role with grace, elegance, subtlety and REAL CHARACTER ACTING. What a shame her talent wasn't appreciated by her studio in an Academy Award nomination but it just propelled Crawford to try harder and push with that ever present determination and competitive spirit that drove her to one of the greatest careers Hollywood has ever known.

reply

[–] xerses13 14 years ago

jaddeo; Current critics are coming too that realization also. The film now gets a standard score of 'three***stars'. I think back when it was originally made that critics were more interested in slamming CRAWFORD and comparing her with GERTRUDE LAWRENCE then evaluating the movie on its own merits.

reply

[–] BarryTrexel 14 years ago

Crawford in 1940 really did some of her best work. Not only is her performance in "Susan and God" sensational, she also tackled a completely different kind of character in "Strange Cargo". It's interesting how God plays part in each of these films. It's a shame that "Susan and God" wasn't as well received by the critics due to the unfair comparison to Gerterude Lawrence, but "Strange Cargo" contained excellent performances and was indeed a major hit for MGM (of course, it had much to do with it being Gable's follow up to GWTW.) George Cukor coaxed one of the best performances out of Crawford in "Susan and God". And then Cukor directed her next in "A Woman's Face". Jackpot!

reply

[–] xerses13 14 years ago

BarryTexel; Suspect that L. B. MAYER wished to give JOAN the HEAVE HO! M.G.M. and Warner Brothers did a-lot of house cleaning, disposing of first line and supporting actors in 40 & 41. At the same time promoting new material. With M.G.M. it was LANA TURNER. WWII would accelerate this trend.

Agree with STRANGE CARGO and A WOMEN'S FACE. Both films also had the advantage of a strong supporting cast. M.G.M. must have felt that CRAWFORD could no longer carry a picture by herself.

reply

[–] BarryTrexel 14 years ago

Very true: MGM producers put more of a concentration on Lana Turner, Greer Garson, and Hedy Lamarr, and seemed to lose interest in Joan Crawford, Norma Shearer, and Jeanette MacDonald. Even with strong performances in "The Women, "Strange Cargo", "Susan and God" and "A Woman's Face", MGM showed more interest in promoting newer stars. What's interesting is that her last films at MGM, "Reunion in France" and 'Above Suspicion", might have been poor vehicles for Crawford, but they both were moneymakers. Then again, one can argue that most films set in wartime Europe were moneymakers. Regardless, the best roles at the studio available starting in 1940 and 1941, many coveted by Crawford, were going to the moneymaking powerhouse actress Greer Garson, the young and sexy Lana Turner, and the Goddess like Hedy Lamarr. MGM also built up Lucille Ball, when she joined the studio in 1943, though not being able to turn her into a star. Then there was Katharine Hepburn having a successful fresh comeback, starting in 1940 with "Philadelphia Story", and then "Woman of the Year" in 1942. Still, the fact is that Mayer wanted family films and big musicals, and therefore, MGM producers lost interest in the Garbo, Crawford, and Shearer type vehicles that were the bread and butter for the studio for over a decade. When the European market was closed off to Hollywood product, Garbo's largest market was gone. After trying to Americanize her in the flop "Two Faced Woman", Garbo, herself, lost all interest in her career at MGM. Shearer was offered some great roles, as she was a major stockholder in Loews Incorporated, such as "Mrs. Miniver". Instead she personally chose such passe vehicles as "Her Cardboard Lover" and "We Were Dancing". Crawford was just tired of being offered poor material. "When Ladies Meet" was a flop, even with such a distinguished cast, but while her two final films at MGM did make money, they did nothing in her desire to be regarded as a dramatic actress. Crawford wanted the plum roles and it is my opinion that she was the one who asked for her release from the studio. Warner Bros. was producing the type of films that she thought suited her and she was indeed correct. There's even a story that LB Mayer would later run her first three WB films for MGM producers ("Mildred Pierce", "Humoresque", "Possessed") to rub it in their faces that they failed her. Whether it's true of not, Mayer still loved success stories and took great pride in Crawford being the first film star created by MGM. Crawford remained devoted to Mayer as a boss and mentor for the remainder of her life.

reply

[–] xerses13 14 years ago

BarryTrexel; JOAN's arrival at Warner Brothers helped JACK WARNER with a problem he was having. How to spike BETTE DAVIS's guns. He (and others) were getting tired of the 'Queen' of the Warners lot who did not get along well with Directors, Crew and the rest of the staff. Along with JOAN the plum roles started going to BARBARA STANWYCK and CLAUDETTE COLBERT. After 1943 BETTE was the fourth choice for the best material.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BarryTrexel 14 years ago

Thank you for the compliment, but I disagree with your assessment of Xerses. I usually find his posts interesting, and I also learn a couple of things I didn't know from time to time. Your assessment of Davis is somewhat correct Bonnie, but that's no reason to be rude to other posters. BTW - who are are you?, and why would you be picking a fight with a poster when just starting on this message board. Thanks for the compliment anyway.

reply

[–] xerses13 14 years ago

BarryTrexel; This is the type of nonsense that I am constantly dealing with. No doubt a BETTE DAVIS sycophant. It is useless talk to these people in a rational manner. They treat these threads as if they were still on a Grade School playground.

reply

[–] xerses13 14 years ago

BonnieJordan; It would be easy to reply in kind. Just commenting that you are a ignorant person should suffice.

reply

[–] sophisticatedbeggar 12 years ago

I didn't like it. It felt like two different movies. It started off as a "born-again Christian" satire but suddenly they dropped this and opted for the "socialite neglecting her family" idea.

Also, I so wanted to shake some sense into Barry's character, I wanted him to leave his obnoxious wife and run away with Charlotte so much that the end left me cold.

Susan's change (unlike Tracy Lord's in Philadelphia story) felt fake because of three things: a) her age (sad but true, younger women are more likely to come to their senses than older) b) it's hard to kick off a lifelong habit of self-admiration and c) she appreciated her husband only when she felt threatened by another female.

reply

[–] first-things-first 10 years ago

Barry didn't choose Charlotte because he still loved Susan. Charlotte knew it too. She would never have him completely because Susan left Barry. And when Susan changed her mind, Barry would know, and she would be back where she started.
As for your first and second items that can be true. The longer you embrace a behavior, the harder it is to let go. The opposite is true also, if the behavior you covet leaves you unfulfilled. A poster on a different board said people can change because of the people they love. They see something in them they believe in. That works because they choose it for themselves and not to please the other person, in my opinion. So Susan has a real chance at happiness. She admitted her problems, accepted her blame.
The road to change was possible for both Susan and Tracy, once they accepted their role in the problem, and they asked for a second chance. I believe that it's when you only ask for a chance without acknowledging why, no change is possible.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

reply

[–] montrossboc-1 10 years ago

Absolutely agree. Has been one of my favorite movies for years.

Almost every time TCM airs it, I DVR it, than put it on a disc.

For some reason, it reminds me of 'The Woman'.

Possibly because of the ensemble cast.

Short Cut, Draw Blood

reply

[–] liscarkat-2 10 years ago

sophisticatedbeggar is correct on all points. This is an interesting movie, entertaining enough, but certainly not 'excellent'. Susan's character is just too shrill and self-absorbed to ever be anything but insufferable, in spite of her much-too-quick turnaround in the last couple of minutes. Her husband should have divorced her, then taken their daughter and moved to the other side of the continent. With his money, he probably could have obtained the legal help necessary to pull it off. There was a good woman in love with him, but he was too hung up on idiot Susan to make the change that would have made his and his daughter's lives much better.

reply

[–] montrossboc-1 10 years ago

sophisticatedbeggar is correct in that he finds it an 'interesting' movie.

I find it excellent because I really don't care about the movie's storyline. I just enjoy the incredible acting that takes place in the movie. I couldn't care if Susan's husband gets back with her or runs her over.

If you dint want him dead, why yall leave him with me?-Mouse

reply

[–] liscarkat-2 10 years ago

Aye, excellent performances. You can't go wrong with Joan.

reply

[–] PoisonRegal 9 years ago

Very true: MGM producers put more of a concentration on Lana Turner, Greer Garson, and Hedy Lamarr, and seemed to lose interest in Joan Crawford, Norma Shearer, and Jeanette MacDonald. Even with strong performances in "The Women, "Strange Cargo", "Susan and God" and "A Woman's Face", MGM showed more interest in promoting newer stars. What's interesting is that her last films at MGM, "Reunion in France" and 'Above Suspicion", might have been poor vehicles for Crawford, but they both were moneymakers. Then again, one can argue that most films set in wartime Europe were moneymakers. Regardless, the best roles at the studio available starting in 1940 and 1941, many coveted by Crawford, were going to the moneymaking powerhouse actress Greer Garson, the young and sexy Lana Turner, and the Goddess like Hedy Lamarr. MGM also built up Lucille Ball, when she joined the studio in 1943, though not being able to turn her into a star. Then there was Katharine Hepburn having a successful fresh comeback, starting in 1940 with "Philadelphia Story", and then "Woman of the Year" in 1942. Still, the fact is that Mayer wanted family films and big musicals, and therefore, MGM producers lost interest in the Garbo, Crawford, and Shearer type vehicles that were the bread and butter for the studio for over a decade. When the European market was closed off to Hollywood product, Garbo's largest market was gone. After trying to Americanize her in the flop "Two Faced Woman", Garbo, herself, lost all interest in her career at MGM. Shearer was offered some great roles, as she was a major stockholder in Loews Incorporated, such as "Mrs. Miniver". Instead she personally chose such passe vehicles as "Her Cardboard Lover" and "We Were Dancing". Crawford was just tired of being offered poor material. "When Ladies Meet" was a flop, even with such a distinguished cast, but while her two final films at MGM did make money, they did nothing in her desire to be regarded as a dramatic actress. Crawford wanted the plum roles and it is my opinion that she was the one who asked for her release from the studio. Warner Bros. was producing the type of films that she thought suited her and she was indeed correct. There's even a story that LB Mayer would later run her first three WB films for MGM producers ("Mildred Pierce", "Humoresque", "Possessed") to rub it in their faces that they failed her. Whether it's true of not, Mayer still loved success stories and took great pride in Crawford being the first film star created by MGM. Crawford remained devoted to Mayer as a boss and mentor for the remainder of her life.