I knew nothing of this movie before starting to watch it however within minutes it became quickly apparent that she is surrounded by a cast below her league and I began to wonder if this was Bette Davis's last Warner Bros picture which indeed it was.
Prickly, fastidious Bette Davis knew her own worth and while other stars - see Rosalind Russel in "The Women" - could clown as well as be serious, Davis's haughtiness and seriousness about her craft made this an absolute no no. Here amiable George Brent was no "A List" star and some of the support is decidedly mediocre. In the movie she has longish exchanges with, and must submit to being I think playfully slapped on the back by, an actor some leagues below her. She was an actress who could and did frequently signal boredom and distaste when the plot has her in substandard company. In terms of fellow cast it is clear that she is here but the script demands that she doesn't indicate or feel that.
As a viewer I thought the movie was more than she could - or deserved to - take. That Warners did not see that is curious. Perhaps their sense hitherto of owning, contractually, their stars who had to do what they were told. Perhaps it is hindsight - what the world came to know later of her character and talent. "Now Voyager" has her cast as a drab - she was not vain about her appearance, but in that, cast with the superbly charming, intelligent talented Claude Raines she had a part and co-star equally worthy of her talent. She was surely right to demand that the parts and co-stars matched her own high standards. Classic movies fully worthy of her talent were the result.
Prickly, fastidious Bette Davis knew her own worth and while other stars - see Rosalind Russel in "The Women" - could clown as well as be serious, Davis's haughtiness and seriousness about her craft made this an absolute no no. Here amiable George Brent was no "A List" star and some of the support is decidedly mediocre. In the movie she has longish exchanges with, and must submit to being I think playfully slapped on the back by, an actor some leagues below her. She was an actress who could and did frequently signal boredom and distaste when the plot has her in substandard company. In terms of fellow cast it is clear that she is here but the script demands that she doesn't indicate or feel that.
As a viewer I thought the movie was more than she could - or deserved to - take. That Warners did not see that is curious. Perhaps their sense hitherto of owning, contractually, their stars who had to do what they were told. Perhaps it is hindsight - what the world came to know later of her character and talent. "Now Voyager" has her cast as a drab - she was not vain about her appearance, but in that, cast with the superbly charming, intelligent talented Claude Raines she had a part and co-star equally worthy of her talent. She was surely right to demand that the parts and co-stars matched her own high standards. Classic movies fully worthy of her talent were the result.