If any film role of Bette Davis got permanently identified in the minds of the public with her career it was that of Leslie Crosbie in THE LETTER. For years, if people wanted to do a quickie "imitation" of Davis, they just had to say the line "PETER...GIVE ME THE LETTER!!" In actuality Davis does not say that line anymore than Jimmy Cagney said, "You Dirty Rat!", Eddie Robinson said, "SEE!!...YAH!!!", or Cary Grant said, "Judy, Judy, Judy!!!". It was a capsule urban legend style commentary on a speech pattern (supposedly) and an image of the actor/actress in a typical role.
Still the legend would not have begun except for the role and the film. THE LETTER is based on a Somerset Maugham short story, set in Malaysia in the 1930s. Leslie Crosbie is the wife of a hard working plantation overseer Robert Crosbie (Herbert Marshall) who one night shoots one Peter Hammond, a well known member of the local British social set in the colony. She claims she shot him in self-defense because he was going to rape her. The British colonials rally around Leslie, and she engages Howard Joyce (James Stephenson) as her barrister.
Initially Joyce seems to feel this will be a simple case, but suddenly he finds that Leslie (on some minor details) is not consistent in her story about the shooting of the caddish Hammond. Then, Joyce's clerk (Victor Sen Yung) quietly drops a bomb of his own - the widow of Hammond, a local Malaysian woman (Gale Sondergaard) has some evidence that the defense may want: a letter written by Leslie to Hammond desperately asking him to come to Leslie's home that fatal night because she needed him. Stephenson taxes Leslie about this, and finds she has lied - she lured Hammond to the bungalow, he refused to desert his Asiatic wife for her, and she shot him in anger.
It is a fascinating film to watch because of the rich tapestry of characters involved. Leslie maintaining a near hysterical control over her emotions in the face of the murder she committed and the resulting trial. Joyce trying to do extreme damage control by purchasing the damning letter (and thereby ruining an unaware Robert Crosbie, not to mention threatening his own legal career by suborning evidence while an officer of the court). Mrs. Hammond, as controlled in her non-speaking as Leslie, but her face the face of retribution and hate. Maugham also showed a 20th Century realism in his handling of the relationships of the overlords of the colony with the Asiatics who live there. There is no real love for the colonial overlords, and the performance of Sen Yung is wonderful in it's polite but deadly malice.
The film's story is so well known I won't have to mention it's conclusion. The great question regarding the film was the conclusion. The story ended originally with her rejection of Robert's forgiveness because Leslie still loved Peter, the man she killed. Davis wanted William Wyler to end the film with this conclusion. Instead, the Hollywood Code required Leslie make a larger personal payment for her sin of murder. I have never had a problem with the ending Wyler put on, but Davis was right - the other ending would have been just as effective emotionally. But neither of these conclusions would have been good at all, had the rest of this film not been so splendid to begin with.
Still the legend would not have begun except for the role and the film. THE LETTER is based on a Somerset Maugham short story, set in Malaysia in the 1930s. Leslie Crosbie is the wife of a hard working plantation overseer Robert Crosbie (Herbert Marshall) who one night shoots one Peter Hammond, a well known member of the local British social set in the colony. She claims she shot him in self-defense because he was going to rape her. The British colonials rally around Leslie, and she engages Howard Joyce (James Stephenson) as her barrister.
Initially Joyce seems to feel this will be a simple case, but suddenly he finds that Leslie (on some minor details) is not consistent in her story about the shooting of the caddish Hammond. Then, Joyce's clerk (Victor Sen Yung) quietly drops a bomb of his own - the widow of Hammond, a local Malaysian woman (Gale Sondergaard) has some evidence that the defense may want: a letter written by Leslie to Hammond desperately asking him to come to Leslie's home that fatal night because she needed him. Stephenson taxes Leslie about this, and finds she has lied - she lured Hammond to the bungalow, he refused to desert his Asiatic wife for her, and she shot him in anger.
It is a fascinating film to watch because of the rich tapestry of characters involved. Leslie maintaining a near hysterical control over her emotions in the face of the murder she committed and the resulting trial. Joyce trying to do extreme damage control by purchasing the damning letter (and thereby ruining an unaware Robert Crosbie, not to mention threatening his own legal career by suborning evidence while an officer of the court). Mrs. Hammond, as controlled in her non-speaking as Leslie, but her face the face of retribution and hate. Maugham also showed a 20th Century realism in his handling of the relationships of the overlords of the colony with the Asiatics who live there. There is no real love for the colonial overlords, and the performance of Sen Yung is wonderful in it's polite but deadly malice.
The film's story is so well known I won't have to mention it's conclusion. The great question regarding the film was the conclusion. The story ended originally with her rejection of Robert's forgiveness because Leslie still loved Peter, the man she killed. Davis wanted William Wyler to end the film with this conclusion. Instead, the Hollywood Code required Leslie make a larger personal payment for her sin of murder. I have never had a problem with the ending Wyler put on, but Davis was right - the other ending would have been just as effective emotionally. But neither of these conclusions would have been good at all, had the rest of this film not been so splendid to begin with.