How are there no posts about this film? I loved it! I loved Miss Moffat's witty remarks, they were hilarious. "Men would look at my figure and say, 'oh, she must be the clever one'" (probably not quoted precisely)
shareI agree it is a wonderful movie with a great story!!
shareI just saw this one and I think I understand why there are few posts. Among Bette movies I've seen, it's cetainly one of my least favorite. I understand what the movie is really about however, I don't know that's it's done very well. Seems like Bette has hardly any screen time and there seems to be little interaction with her and Morgan Evans (who BTW, is only like ten years younger than her...the actor is nearly thirty at the time and looks it). I think this movie could have been better done.
shareFunny, because I think this is my favorite Bette Davis film - but, to each his own. Bette's acting, as well as that of every other cast member, is superb, and Bette has an absolutely razor-sharp wit. She is very physically attractive in this film, with a shapely body and very pleasant of face - which, for me, is the exception to how I usually see her in her films.
Regardless of her actual screen time, or the amount of interaction she has with Morgan and the other characters, it is most effective, nonetheless, and successfully furthers the plot along smoothly and flawlessly, and she establishes Ms. Moffat's character and temperament with precision and professionalism.
I agree, Morgan Evans (as played by Dall), does seem to be a bit old for the part, but I tend to overlook that when I watch this film and just enjoy the characterizations and the action as it develops. This is definitely one of my favorite of all films.
My favorite line is Miss Moffat's "what do i know about babies? I don't even know what they look like."
"The Greatest Thing You'll Ever Learn, Is Just To Love And Be Loved In Return"
I agree 100% that there *should* be posts! It was a wonderful movie. I can scarcely believe there were only 2 Oscar nominations.
share[deleted]
This is truly a great motion picture, in all respects, and one of my all-time favorites. Morgan Evans affords Moffat an opportunity to vicariously experience a success that she has never known, nor could reasonably expect to know, considering the proprieties of the day. That she used him to that end, was an omnipresent theme throughout the film. But she goes overboard in the end. She has raised Evans from out of the mines, into the world, but her final "lesson" for him is that he must suspend his conscience and abandon his sense of responsibility. Good talker, that she is, she succeeds. She makes a last sacrifice on Evans' behalf in adopting his child, but the price he has to pay is to abandon his own identity, let alone child, and, ironically, to allow Miss Moffat to do his thinking for him. But it does not seem credible that Evans can simply suspend his own sense of conscience because Moffat "dictates" thus, and makes it possible for him to do so. The ending of the film is great drama, indeed, but the ease with which Evans can so easily and readily be swayed by Miss Moffat, shows a weakness of character that always, whenever I watch this movie, leaves me with a bad tatste in my mouth.
shareI agree with you romarub. It did not have to end that way. He could have gone on to university while Miss Moffat raised the child, but after university and developing a stable life, he could have returned for the child, or at least supported it financially.
shareI think we can assume that he did contribute, financially, to the child's upbringing after he finished school and was making a living for himself. Just seems like the sort of thing he'd do.
To modern sensibilities, it seems very odd indeed that he'll never see his own child again while it is being raised by Miss Moffat. (I say "it"---can't remember if the baby was a he or a she!) If I recall correctly, this wasn't the case in the later Hepburn remake, was it? It's been so long since I've seen the remake that I don't remember, but I don't think the idea that he'd never see the child again was part of the plot in that version.
I'm curious as to whether this idea---of giving up the child and having nothing whatsoever to do with it afterwards---would have been the way this situation would have realistically played out in late-Victorian Wales. Or, is it more a convention of the mid 1940s, when the film was made? Is this part of the plot in the original stage version from 1938?
Interesting question, theoctobercountry!
share