I've never read - and don't intend to read - the Fanny Hurst novel of this name that was behind the series of movies based on it, so I don't know if it took any stand on Rae Smith's decision to spend her life waiting for the odd free moment from a married man whom she chooses as her life lover. Did it condemn her for that decision? Did it condone it? I do know the 1940s movie adaptation, with Charles Boyer and Margaret Sullivan, which never takes a stand on the issue. This movie doesn't either. Not to do so by 1962, when this movie was made, must have seemed strange to at least some women.
There is almost nothing to recommend this movie, I'm sad to say. The script, unlike the 1940s one, is full of gaping holes. It takes repeated suspensions of disbelief to get through this. The wife, who was almost invisible in the 1940s version, is very visible here, and very disagreeable, no doubt to make Saxon's cheating on her more tolerable. Still, this time, unlike in the 1940s version, it makes no sense that Saxon wouldn't divorce her, as this time he has the family money, whereas in the 1940s version it had come from his wife's father. Making the Saxon boy a 12 year old child, rather than an adult teen as in the 1940s movie, makes his denunciation of "the other woman," Rae Smith, rather bizarre, especially since there are no affectionate scenes between the Saxon children and their mother and we have every reason to believe that they seldom saw her.
Indeed, I could go on and on about the things that don't make sense in this movie, but I don't see the point in kicking a dead horse.
The only positive thing I found to like in this movie was the sight of Susan Heyward. She is truly, stunning beautiful throughout, often dressed to the nines. Her acting is fine, I guess, but the character so difficult to respect in 2012 that I didn't pay a lot of attention to it.
I've never seen the first sound version, with Irene Dunne.
So, a worthless script that tells a sad story, with a very beautiful actress well dressed. If that works for you, fine. If not, take a pass on this difficult to explain movie.
There is almost nothing to recommend this movie, I'm sad to say. The script, unlike the 1940s one, is full of gaping holes. It takes repeated suspensions of disbelief to get through this. The wife, who was almost invisible in the 1940s version, is very visible here, and very disagreeable, no doubt to make Saxon's cheating on her more tolerable. Still, this time, unlike in the 1940s version, it makes no sense that Saxon wouldn't divorce her, as this time he has the family money, whereas in the 1940s version it had come from his wife's father. Making the Saxon boy a 12 year old child, rather than an adult teen as in the 1940s movie, makes his denunciation of "the other woman," Rae Smith, rather bizarre, especially since there are no affectionate scenes between the Saxon children and their mother and we have every reason to believe that they seldom saw her.
Indeed, I could go on and on about the things that don't make sense in this movie, but I don't see the point in kicking a dead horse.
The only positive thing I found to like in this movie was the sight of Susan Heyward. She is truly, stunning beautiful throughout, often dressed to the nines. Her acting is fine, I guess, but the character so difficult to respect in 2012 that I didn't pay a lot of attention to it.
I've never seen the first sound version, with Irene Dunne.
So, a worthless script that tells a sad story, with a very beautiful actress well dressed. If that works for you, fine. If not, take a pass on this difficult to explain movie.