MovieChat Forums > The Three Faces of Eve (1957) Discussion > Too simplistic to be really good

Too simplistic to be really good

posted 11 years ago by hobnob53
22 replies | jump to latest

This film seems better than it is because of Joanne Woodward's superb performance, but when you get beyond that it's pretty standard. Not bad; but nothing all that special.

The worst thing about it is how Nunnally Johnson handled the multiple-personality aspect. It's not reducing the number of personalities the actual "Eve" had from over 20 to a more "manageable" three, or pretending things were neatly resolved when in real life they certainly weren't. This is reasonably acceptable for dramatic purposes.

The problem is in treating the audience like a bunch of nincompoops by having the three personalities split into neatly delineated and readily interlocking types: sweet but mousy and timid Eve White; sassy and sexy good-time girl Eve Black; and the safe, normal, well-balanced, middle-of-the-road "Jane" at the end, a combo platter of the best aspects of the other two, without the excesses.

Worse yet, of course, is that the first two are neatly whisked away and conveniently replaced by the sensible center one, and it's all tied up in one neat bundle that leaves the audience feeling everything is happy ever after -- what Lee J. Cobb in the film calls a "solution".

But worst of all is the blatant silliness of calling the women "Black" and "White". Gee, do you think these names signify anything? Could Johnson have made this movie any more basic? I mean, just to make absolutely certain we understood it all?

Oh, yeah, he could. The eerie, mysterious music played when Eve White comes back, vs. the honky-tonk music played when Eve Black shows up. Thanks, Nunnally, now we can really keep track of who's who.

And this film has the audacity to have Alistair Cooke insist at the beginning that every word of this story is true, that it all happened exactly as shown, that the film is not a product of Hollywood fiction. Oh.

[–] g_dekok 11 years ago

Hobnob, if you didn't like it, why did you watch it? This is an exceptionally fine movie, and obviously well-liked by film viewers.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

In the first place, g_dekok, I didn't say I didn't like it; if you read the post carefully, I say it's not bad. I just don't think it's as great as some people do, that's all. (Not to mention the fact that if I didn't watch it, how could I form an opinion about it?)

My criticism of this film centers on Nunnally Johnson's simplistic, one-dimensional treatment of what is (and in reality was) a complex story -- his "Black/White" business, the unnuanced, neatly divided differences between the "three faces", the pat resolution. I think he talks down to his audience, dumbing down the story to make it simple and tidy. Viewed more darkly, this shows a degree of contempt for the intelligence of his audience.

All this is made worse by the film's going out of its way to claim -- falsely -- that "every word of it" (Cooke's own scripted comment) is true. Most films, when adapting true stories to the screen, state outright, or at least don't pretend otherwise, that they have taken some liberties with the strict truth; at a minimum they don't specifically claim to be telling the actual truth with no changes. Three Faces does, and this is an egregious -- and wholly unnecessary -- lie. Cooke could as easily have said something like, while certain changes have been made for dramatic purposes, the basic story is true. That would have been fair, and honest.

But to get back to your question, even if you like a film, does that mean it's above any criticism? Aren't there films you like but find some fault with? Do you judge a film on the basis of its supposed popularity or what other viewers think of it? I doubt it. So why should that disqualify me from commenting on it, let alone watching it?

Fact is, I enjoy watching this movie but that doesn't mean it's above criticism. If you think it's "exceptionally fine", well and good, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Mine is different, and I'm entitlted to both it and to watch it again. I respect other people's opinions and am happy to exchange and discuss them, but I'm not at all concerned with whether most people think a film (or book, or play) is good or not.

Besides, you get more out of a film (good and bad) with repeated viewings.

[–] titusbeertsen 10 years ago

This is perhaps the most irrelevant reply to a post I've ever seen.

"The willow sees the heron's image upside down" from 'Sans Soleil'

[–] filmnoggin 11 years ago

I agree with you that Hollywood simplified this movie way too much, and mislead the public into thinking this is how it acutally turned out. However, I did enjoy watching it, and Joanne Woodward did an outstanding job.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Yes, that's how I feel.

[–] filmnoggin 11 years ago

Do you know if people back then really bought into the story as it was portrayed here? Were people that much more naive then?

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Whether it was naivete or just trust in what they were being told because it was stated so explicitly and emphatically, I know that most people took the movie at its word that this was a true story -- Cooke's "every word of it."

The film was advertised as being about a real person, and it gave no hint that it was a heavily altered and oversimplified version of the woman's actual story. Instead, it presented a tidy package of three personalities, all neatly cured at the end into a conveniently sane, safe, centrist personality, and everyone living happily ever after. Of course, the filmmakers and the movie itself lied when it was claimed that this film represented the full and absolute truth.

In short, people did swallow this movie whole. And why not? In the absence of any information about the actual case, and about a subject few people knew anything about, it was easy to accept that what they were being told was the entire truth, especially since the movie went out of its way -- as no other film ever had -- to insist that this was an absolutely and completely true account.

It wasn't until many years later that the woman on whose life this was based came forward and told the real story of her life and mental illness, which included something like 24 personalities and several decades before all were dispatched. (She was ill at the time, and for decades after, the film came out in 1957.) Plus the fact that this woman's true personality wasn't the product of some sort of "merger" of the best of other personalities, but one that had "been there all along", if you will, but battling the multiple personalities within her.

I'll bet you there are many people even today who see this film and accept it at face value.

[–] filmnoggin 11 years ago

Thanks so much. I guess I was sort of buying into it at first, but then I wondered how accurate it was when each of the personalities were being presented throughout the movie, just being called out by the doctor. I became especially doubtful when the catylist for her problem (the funeral scene) came about. That was really hard to believe. It's a shame that Hollywood portrayed this as factual. I would imagine that people back then, with limited exposure to mental illness, would be led to believe it was true.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Yes, I think you're right. Even when I first saw this movie decades ago its too-simple set-up gave me pause, since nothing in life -- certainly not in psychiatry -- is that neat and tidy. Its insistence that every word was fact made me wonder at first, but eventually I learned that there was a lot more to the story on every level.

As I said, what gets me is why the movie made such an issue about claiming that the story presented was completely true in all respects. As I wrote above, it would have been far more credible to have acknowledged that the story was condensed and some characters were composites or fictitious for dramatic purposes. This is the standard Hollywood dodge to allow for dramatic license, and it's fair enough. It's the movie's insistence on presenting itself as the absolute truth I find bewildering, unnecessary and dishonest.

[–] davidwile 11 years ago

Hey Hob,

After reading your initial post, I thought you were right on the mark with your comments, and I never thought your comments indicated you did not like the film. I also agree with you about one liking a film and still having critical thoughts on how it might have been better. That doesn't mean we are right; it just means we are thinking humans.

I was a young teenager when this film came out, and I remember being captivated by it. While the White and Black thing was obvious for me even then, I really did accept the film at face value. While working as a projectionist in college, I showed this film for the student body, and I still accepted it at face value. In fact, most of the students who saw the film seemed to be in the same boat. No one said anything about the real person not having the happy ending as depicted in the film. Not even the Psych students!

Now all these many years later, my wife and I watched the film again on Turner Classic Movies. Of course the film opens with Alistair Cooke telling us this film is "really" true, and the worst thing is that I do not remember Cooke's intro when I saw the film either time years ago.

By now, I had heard the real Eve was not as depicted in the film, so my thoughts were really turning after listening to Cooke. I also thought of Butch and the Kid where the intro tell the viewers that "most" of this film is true. The sceptic in me kicked in while watching the film, but in spite of my scepticism, I once again did enjoy the film and its fine actors.

After the film was over, and knowing some of the truth about the real Eve, I thought for a while about it, and I decided it was what I would call a really good story. Like you, I think the Cooke introduction cheapens the film, but I will stick with the idea that it made for a good fictional story - and that is the most important thing for me in liking films.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Hi Dave,

It isn't that I think the Cooke introduction "cheapens" the film, it's just unnecessarily and thoroughly dishonest in its claim that "every word of" the story is true.

I think having Cooke (nowhere near as famous then as he would be years later hosting PBS's Masterpiece Theatre) narrating the film was a good idea, as it helps link events and explain what's going on, something that in this kind of picture was probably needed to help the audience keep track of events. But aside from his "every word of this is true" falsehood -- and I attribute that to Nunnally Johnson, not Cooke -- I have no problem with Cooke's presence or anything else he says.

I just think Johnson made the screenplay too simplistic, too dumbed-down, too non-credibly neat and clean in depicting Eve's personalities, right down to their silly names ("Black" and "White"). Even if you didn't know the real story, this connect-the-dots approach makes the film less and less interesting and enjoyable after one's initially favorable impression...and you come to realize that that favorable impression is due essentially only to Joanne Woodward's performance. The rest ranges from standard to ridiculous.

Dave, may I ask, are you in Canada? I ask only because of your spelling of "sceptic" and "sceptical", contrasted with the American "skeptic/skeptical". The fact that you saw TCM obviously means you're not in Britain!

[–] davidwile 11 years ago

Hey Hob,

No, I am neither Brit nor Canadian. I hate to admit it, but I would normally spell it as "skeptic" rather than "sceptic." Last night I was reading an old Alistair Maclean book, and I am afraid his use of "scepic" stuck in my memory bank and came out without thinking. I really get upset when I mistakenly use the word "colour" instead of my learned spelling. Maclean gets me into trouble sometimes, and especially as I get older. I know he has been dead a long time, but I still re-read his books which I pretty much grew up reading from his first book in 1955. I like some current authors, but I keep going back to Maclean. I am also a big fan of Tony Hillerman and Louis L'amour. They are also dead, so what does that say about me?

Neither Brit nor Canadian, I must admit to being born and reared in Pennsylvania. My parents were from the Lancaster area, but I grew up in Middletown, Pennsylvania until I finished college and went to work in Clearfield, Pennsylvania. We spent some years in several places in Virginia and New Jersey before moving back to Pennsylvania again near my old hometown.

As far back as I can remember, I liked good stories. Verbal stories by a family member or from a radio while sitting on my father's knee, and stories on the big movie screen and later the little television screen. I learned to read fairly young, and books provided me with another source of great stories.

Given my appreciation for a good story, that is why I mentioned I thought this film was a good story, even if it might better have been told as fiction rather than fact. As I said previously, I had forgotten all about Cooke's introduction when I saw the film many years ago. When I saw it this time, the natural "skeptic" in me came out right away. I did not, however, allow it to ruin the story for me, and I enjoyed it very much. I just shut out what little I had learned about the real Eve, and accepted the film for the story and the good acting.

I never read the two books the real life character wrote, but I did read a bit about her books. Compared to the real life character, I would agree the film story is very simplistic. However, I accept the film story on its own because the real life story was far more complex and extended many years past 1957 when this film was released. Having said that, however, I do agree with you that the film was rather simplistic. I hate to use the term "dumbed-down," however, since I would have to include myself among the dummies since I did like the story. Actually, I do tend to prefer simple stories rather than complex ones. I guess I should be lumped in the dummy section.

I know most folks seem to only mention Joanne Woodward's fine performance, but I think Lee J. Cobb and David Wayne also did find jobs in the film.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Hey Dave,

Well, I'm on Long Island, so not too far. Born and raised in and around NYC, though I've lived in a scattering of other places (DC, MO, AZ). But my wife is British, and we still have fun go-rounds about some of her spelling and pronunication (as opposed to accent)!

I like Maclean too, though I've only read a couple of his books. I'm more into non-fiction -- hence, my liking for the basic story behind Eve.

So, yes, the basic story of TTFOE is a good one, and enjoyable enough...which makes me regret even more the way in which Nunnally Johnson insisted on reducing it to such simplistic, even childish (dare I say, Black and White), terms. I have no problem with his refashioning the true story into a more straightforward one that people could more easily follow (three "faces" instead of twenty-three, for instance), but he still could have made it a shade more nuanced and complex, and not relied on such frankly stupid identities as "Eve White" and "Eve Black". And, of course, not written that it was all true.

I suppose the "happy" ending was mandatory in 1957, yet even here, it still seems as if poor, limited but basically not bad Ralph deserved better consideration for taking care of their child, instead of "Jane" just taking her away with her new, kind, decent, middle-of-the-road (did I mention, dull?) husband.

By singling out Joanne Woodward I certainly don't mean to slight either Lee J. Cobb or David Wayne, both superb and versatile actors. But while I think few actresses could have managed the role of Eve as well as JW, I think there were any number of equally fine actors who could have handled the roles played by Cobb and Wayne. This is not to say they weren't good, or that anyone else would have been better, merely a comment on the nature of their roles -- fundamentally unchallenging parts that called only for competence. They were much more than that, but I think there were other actors who would have been just as good.

Nunnally Johnson was a terrible director, with absolutely no sense of the camera, which he handled in the most stationery, rudimentary, uninvolving and static way conceivable. But strangely enough he was good at handling his actors, his only redeeming quality as a director. He was also generally a good screenwriter, though he had his failings even there. But I particularly hate his predilection for having one of his characters in almost every one of his movies yell out at some point, "Holy Moses!", a lame phrase that became his boring trademark. I even started a thread about this on his IMDb message board. Someone says it in Eve, though right now I can't remember who -- I think it's Cobb. Next time you see a film he's written, listen. Other than The Dirty Dozen, it's usually in there someplace!

Best,
hob

[–] carrie_gonzalez 11 years ago

** I think having Cooke (nowhere near as famous then as he would be years later hosting PBS's Masterpiece Theatre) **

Oh, Omnibus made him rich and famous, alright. Every American television set could pick up CBS programming. Cooke was able to afford his son's tuition at Harvard starting in 1958. When Masterpiece Theatre premiered in the United States, some Americans couldn't watch it because their TV sets couldn't receive UHF channels very well, if at all.

** I just think Johnson made the screenplay too simplistic, too dumbed-down, too non-credibly neat and clean in depicting Eve's personalities, right down to their silly names ("Black" and "White"). **

Bennett Cerf disagreed with you. When Ms. Woodward and her husband are mystery guests on What's My Line?, Cerf can be heard saying her movie The Three Faces of Eve was one of the best movies he ever saw. Please click below.

http://youtu.be/h9jRiFVRNGE

Of course, Cerf didn't live to see the more realistic portrayal of multiple personality disorder in which Sally Field played the title role of Sybil and Ms. Woodward played her psychotherapist. Although it only was accessible on American television, not movie theaters, it might have been the most graphic portrayal of mental illness up to that time.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Oh, Omnibus made him rich and famous, alright. Every American television set could pick up CBS programming. Cooke was able to afford his son's tuition at Harvard starting in 1958. When Masterpiece Theatre premiered in the United States, some Americans couldn't watch it because their TV sets couldn't receive UHF channels very well, if at all.

Good point about Omnibus, but while Cooke was famous in the 50s (obviously, as he was chosen to appear in this movie), his fame grew even more later on. I don't agree that a lot of people couldn't see Masterpiece Theatre simply because some PBS channels were on UHF. From about 1965 on, every television set manufactured in the United States could receive UHF (channels 14-83), and no UHF stations were established until after sets that could receive them began to be made and sold. So for most if not all of the show's run, most people could see PBS and Cooke.

Bennett Cerf disagreed with you.

So? Cerf's opinion was no better or more informed than anyone else's.

When Ms. Woodward and her husband are mystery guests on What's My Line?, Cerf can be heard saying her movie The Three Faces of Eve was one of the best movies he ever saw.

Again, that's his opinion, he's entitled to it, but who cares? Bennett Cerf was not some sort of arbiter of film, or a critic of any kind. He was a fairly famous man whose opinions on movies (and most things) were no more valid (or invalid) than most people's. As to what he told the Newmans, would you expect him to say something bad about the film that brought Joanne Woodward an Oscar? I'm sure his opinion was honest but what Bennett Cerf thought about this or any movie has no relevance to anything.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Yes, I think that's a fair comment and an accurate one. It was all to the good that such matters were brought out into the open by being sympathetically treated in such dramatic movies. The only issue is that the means chosen to create the dramatic narrative in most such films (especially Eve) often don't hold up very well upon subsequent viewings.

TTFOE lacked the more complex approach that even films such as The Snake Pit (which I agree is a much better movie) and most other such films exhibited. Obviously we don't look for clinical accuracy and completely realistic characters in such films but something less blatantly obvious than the ultra-simplistic characterizations and rather plodding plotting of Eve could just as easily have been made.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

I'm sorry to hear about the problems in your family, but again I agree with your statements.

I believe TTFOE had a greater impact (beyond Woodward's performance) to audiences in 1957 than today. It was as you say an interim step, a sort of weigh station on the way to more complex movies on the subject. That's why its many flaws and overall unremarkableness (again, apart from JW) loom larger today than 56 years ago. I think had they endeavored to create more complex characters for the two Eves (as well as Jane), more edge and less dumbed-down simple-mindedness in how they're written, the film would stand up much better today than it does. Pity.

And I whole-heartedly return your feelings about these exchanges!

[–] Yorick_Brown 10 years ago

This film seems better than it is because of Joanne Woodward's superb performance, but when you get beyond that it's pretty standard. Not bad; but nothing all that special.

Agreed. Great performances from Woodward and Cobb but it is just an averagely scripted and directed film.

I see a red door and I want it painted black
No colors anymore I want them to turn black...

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Thank you, Yorick, for pointing out that Lee J. Cobb was equally good. He always was, no matter what the role. Eve came out the same year he played a very different kind of character in Twelve Angry Men. One just has to watch these two films to get a measure of his immense skill and versatility.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 6 years ago

Weren't there three personalities shown really named : Eve White Eve Black, and Jane? Did you want made up names to be used so it wouldn't look '"basic"?