MovieChat Forums > Possessed (1947) Discussion > Misgoynist Criticism and Reviews

Misgoynist Criticism and Reviews


It's surprising how many negatives are used by experts and amateur reviewers alike to describe Louise--almost none referencing David Sutton at all. Right now, I'm listening to a USC film professor's commentary freely using words such as "bonkers" and "crazy" to describe Louise, but making absolutely no commentary on David Sutton, who to me came across as a sexual psychopath and a sadist. (On the DVD from Netflix, one male commentator goes so far as to call Sutton the film's "hero.")

reply

And are we given any reason to believe Sutton is a "sexual psychopath and a sadist"?

Or is that just assumed about all men who can't be controlled?

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

I imagine one's view of Possessed's ending is highly influenced by one's own emotional ethics.

reply

I imagine your pretentiously meaningless commentary reveals your emotional ethics.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

reply

Back in the happy days when people could speak plain English instead of having to spout politically correct catch-phrases garnished with psychobabble, Sutton would have been simply called a "cad".

--------

He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45

reply

A cad and a blackguard, more commonly known as a love rat these days.

I don't think it's misogynistic, the main credited writer is a woman....

I thought Crawford appeared quite wooden and unconvincing in this role, I know she was capable of far better.

Perhaps it was poor direction, or the lack of a motive for the fixation upon Van Heflin's character.

I found my mind wandering throughout the film, and it took several goes before I could get my teeth into it; not a good sign with such great actors in a film.

Speaking simply, Heflin's character had discovered he could sleep with women and not marry them, and there was nothing much they could do about it. I found the character smarmy, condescending, untrustworthy, secretive and self-centered, caring little or nothing for those women with whom he trifled. The sort of person who goes through life and never marries, as he doesn't really want to. His "real" relationships are with men, and women, for him, are more of an entertainment and an amusement. He wouldn't dare annoy Massey's character, but would push him for a desperately wanted job all the same while secretly toying with Louise from downstairs. He had no real interest in Carol Graham either, and should not have led her on for such a length of time; he used the Grahams and just pursued those around for what was in it for David.

Perhaps that kind of aloofness and cavalier attitude is attractive to some women, or maybe he was just good in bed - but I found Louise to be obsessed, fixated, duplicitous, stifling cloying and clinging to a man who quite frankly asked her to let him go. In being cruel to be kind, he just should have faded away and left the Graham family to their devices, but being somewhat of a user he hung around a bit too long and when the opportunity of marrying into the family (and it's money)eventuated, his only real moral dilemma was "solved" by him deciding to separate Carol from her money, and he hung around just that little bit too long, like a moth finally settling onto a globe and being consumed by it's own instinct to get what it wants.

Everyone is awarded their just desserts and the rest of us go on with our lives following the moral "lessons" we have just learned....

At 108 minutes its too long and slow moving, I began to feel impatient as the film seemed to meander it's way around any real reasons for Louise being so peculiar around Dean Graham, and literally deconstructing around David. It took too long to draw the threads together and a good 18 to 25 minutes' reduction would have brought the story to it's denouement and climax at a better pace, with just a hint around the Hays code as to why Louise just couldn't live without David, and why he just wasn't interested in anything more than a plaything to while away his non-engineering hours. Raymond Massey's Dean Graham seemed to stumble around like a blind man without a cane, and had no sense or intuition as to what was going on around him, while being a massively successful multi-millionaire and an astute businessman.

Not Ms Crawford's finest but we'll never know the reasons why...

reply

Your assessment of David is correct, however, he was a bit worse than a cad. We don't know what happened before the first flashback between Louise and David; he only mentions later that he "fell out of love with her." It's difficult to believe, observing his character, that he would have ever been in love with her at all.

On Crawford, I have seen plenty of wooden Crawford performances and this simply wasn't one of them. My opinion, of course, but it was great to run into this film on TCM. I'd never seen it and was pleasantly surprised by the genuineness of her performance. The diva that you hear she was, wasn't in evidence her. Her psychosis was believable without being over the top. I know that the Oscars have become a political joke, but back in the 40s they meant something. Crawford was only nominated for three Oscars for Best Actress and this was one of them.

Massey was adequate in his role. No real complaints about the performances. I loved this film!

reply

As for David's character, and before getting into it as written I must say I found Van Heflin's performance not up to the others, and was the main source of my negative take on the film. He quite simply was played by the actor on the surface, with no real depth to the performance. I would not go so far as to say wooden, but too far in that direction to be "good".

As written, the character is not heroic, but he does have enough sense and strength to avoid being overwhelmed by Louise. Still you feel their backstory immediately before we first see them is one of knowing manipulation by him over her. I say this because the alternative explanations are less persuasive - David is simply not that compelling a character to have compelled Louise's devotion and obsession in repose as it were. He had to have encouraged it before realizing she would go too far in a direction he was not really interested in.

Any sympathy I had for him, based on the obvious need to get away from her obsessive ways, was lost in the second half of hte film, where we see what had to be a manipulative approach in the backstory confirmed by the way he used the Grahams, especially the daughter. Any doubt that his interest was a combination of mercenary and manipulation was dashed when he talked about separating the poor girl from her money - he was not joking.

Now, I do not think we are meant to be too sympathetic to Louise's obsessive nature, by any means. But this film succeeds precisely because it paints her story with relative subtlety, in shades of gray.

I gave it 9 out of 10.

reply

Because David was self-absorbed, greedy, rude, arrogant, etc... but he did not have a mental dysfunction. While David was simply a jerk, Louise had a mental problem (hallucinations for crying out loud) and needed professional help. If you think David's problems were on par with Louise's and Louise is being targeted for "misgoynistic" reasons (in a story written by a woman) I think you'd be way off the mark.

reply

Don't you know any man who can't be controlled is misogynistic, satanic and evil?

Her psychosis gets a free ride. His mere insensitivity is tantanmount to sadistic rape and should be charged with such! Even in death!


--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA


reply

That's outrageous.

reply