'Another Part of the Forest' has been compared often inevitably and for good reason to 1941's 'The Little Foxes', a great film with one of legendary Bette Davis' best performances. The reason for the comparison is that this is a prequel to that film despite being made seven years later. It sees a fascinatingly evil and ruthless family and the source material was shocking at the time and with the portrayal of such ruthlessness in just one household still has the ability to shock.
Have actually seen mixed reviews for 'Another Part of the Forest'. It is very positively received here and a number of classic/Golden Age film fans like/love it too. At the same time, there have been criticisms from some critics, mostly trusted ones from personal view but they're not without dubious opinions every now and again, of 'Another Part of the Forest' being static and that the stage origins are obvious. Actually lean more towards the former and it is great to see people here fond of it. To me, it was very good even if there is a preference for 'The Little Foxes'.
The direction could have been sharper in places, parts of it tend to be on the limp side and lacks William Wyler's imaginative use of camera and atmosphere a little.
Did think too that Ann Blyth's acting, though she does absolutely have great moments, didn't quite gel with that of the rest of the cast. She didn't quite seem monstrous enough and could have gone for it more, Davis was so toweringly monstrous in 'The Little Foxes' and there didn't quite seem to be enough here of how the character came to be the way she became.
However, the cast on the most part are wonderful. Fredric March is perfectly cast and he was never more chilling than here. Dan Duryea does calculating in a way that is very sinister and Florence Eldridge is effectively dotty. Edward O'Brien is a great and more sympathetic contrast to March, their conflict is not just ruthless but also very interesting. The father-daughter chemistry also unsettles and although the characters are with few redeeming qualities and very unsympathetic they are interesting and didn't come over as too over-written, motivations take a lot of unpredictable turns but they were at least buyable.
It, 'Another Part of the Forest' that is, moreover looks great. Very sumptuous and atmospheric, with eerie shadowy lighting and elegant costuming and settings. The music is haunting without over-shadowing or being over-bearing orchestrally. The script thought provokes and bites and doesn't feel too overly talky in the way a lot of other stage to film adaptations do, found it quite vicious too. Personally didn't think it was static or stagy at all, the character interactions were very believable, there were tension and chills in the atmosphere, it was darkly dull and it didn't feel that much of a filmed play or get too melodramatic again like some stage to film adaptations do and also considering the subject. If there was an improvement over 'The Little Foxes' it was the ending, it was the one weak spot in that film whereas it was unpredictable and didn't come over as abrupt.
On the whole, very good. 8/10
Have actually seen mixed reviews for 'Another Part of the Forest'. It is very positively received here and a number of classic/Golden Age film fans like/love it too. At the same time, there have been criticisms from some critics, mostly trusted ones from personal view but they're not without dubious opinions every now and again, of 'Another Part of the Forest' being static and that the stage origins are obvious. Actually lean more towards the former and it is great to see people here fond of it. To me, it was very good even if there is a preference for 'The Little Foxes'.
The direction could have been sharper in places, parts of it tend to be on the limp side and lacks William Wyler's imaginative use of camera and atmosphere a little.
Did think too that Ann Blyth's acting, though she does absolutely have great moments, didn't quite gel with that of the rest of the cast. She didn't quite seem monstrous enough and could have gone for it more, Davis was so toweringly monstrous in 'The Little Foxes' and there didn't quite seem to be enough here of how the character came to be the way she became.
However, the cast on the most part are wonderful. Fredric March is perfectly cast and he was never more chilling than here. Dan Duryea does calculating in a way that is very sinister and Florence Eldridge is effectively dotty. Edward O'Brien is a great and more sympathetic contrast to March, their conflict is not just ruthless but also very interesting. The father-daughter chemistry also unsettles and although the characters are with few redeeming qualities and very unsympathetic they are interesting and didn't come over as too over-written, motivations take a lot of unpredictable turns but they were at least buyable.
It, 'Another Part of the Forest' that is, moreover looks great. Very sumptuous and atmospheric, with eerie shadowy lighting and elegant costuming and settings. The music is haunting without over-shadowing or being over-bearing orchestrally. The script thought provokes and bites and doesn't feel too overly talky in the way a lot of other stage to film adaptations do, found it quite vicious too. Personally didn't think it was static or stagy at all, the character interactions were very believable, there were tension and chills in the atmosphere, it was darkly dull and it didn't feel that much of a filmed play or get too melodramatic again like some stage to film adaptations do and also considering the subject. If there was an improvement over 'The Little Foxes' it was the ending, it was the one weak spot in that film whereas it was unpredictable and didn't come over as abrupt.
On the whole, very good. 8/10