Bette Davis in The Letter (1940)

Watching this version of the letter brought back plenty of memories of the 1929 version I watched back then, which I found to be a terrible film with a great leading performance. Undeniably, I found this the superior version, and I thought it was quite enjoyable, though nothing special. There are some scenes that are really well directed, such as the use of wind chimes in a tension filled scene, or even the  intense opening with Bette Davis’ Leslie coldly firing her gun away at her lover in the plantation. The acting by the supporting cast is also universally better throughout, especially by the victim’s widow and also in James Stephenson’s portrayal of Howard Joyce, the sharp and conflicted lawyer who defends Leslie despite knowing the truth. I think he deserved his nomination.

Bette Davis is such a talented actress that I knew she was going to give a good performance at the very least. And essentially, that’s what I got here. To me, this performance isn’t on the same level as her Baby Jane or Margo Channing, but it’s still solid and watchable nonetheless. She’s actually a lot restrained here than usual, and also as compared to Jeanne Eagels’ fiery portrayal of a volatile woman consumed by her passion. Davis portrays Leslie as a coolly calculative woman who knows what she’s doing right from the start, where she, in my opinion, not very convincingly cooks up a story to explain her crimes. It’s always fascinating to see how 2 different portrayals of the same character can work well, but I’d would also admit that there’s something about Davis’ performance that I feel less engaged with as compared to Eagels. She does a lot of acting with her eyes, and it works well. We can constantly see her plotting away to cover up her tracks, and also the palpable fear in her eyes when faced with the threat of being exposed. The scene where she meets her victim’s widow was also very well played, and you can truly sense the fear and vulnerability Leslie is feeling. However, I do think the direction plays a huge role in making that scene work too, even more than Davis’ acting.

Her revelation scene to her husband was also great, and probably my favourite part of her performance. I loved the way she delivered the line “let him see it” with resignation , and the way she revealed her affair to her husband was also really good, where she excellently portrays her exhaustion and guilt for not loving him.

With all that said, I still prefer Jeanne Eagels explosive performance of that scene (can never forget the way she hissed “so I FIRED AND FIRED AND FIRED”). I know I shouldn’t be making comparisons, and I liked how Bette Davis tried to give Leslie a softer and more sympathetic edge but this is one instance where I very much preferred the more unlikeable portrayal of a character. Rewatching Jeanne Eagels’ confession scene to her husband again was truly exciting – the way she spat out her words with venom and revealed that she has no guilt whatsoever in what she did. I think she took more risks with her performance, and the result was a more raw, electrifying and fascinating result. While Davis’ performance is obviously the more calculated and polished one, I have to say I respect it more than I love it. There are no false notes, and she’s always interesting to watch, but it’s just solid and not extremely exciting work. 4/5

 

Joan Fontaine in Suspicion (1941)

Just a forenote: this post is more of a rant about what a stupid film Suspicion is, rather than Joan Fontaine’s performance.

Joan Fontaine won her only Oscar for playing Lina Mclaidlaw, an unbelievably idiotic woman, in Alfred Hitchcock’s Suspicion. Many today feel that Fontaine’s win is a make up Oscar for her brilliant performance in Rebecca the previous year, and it’s not hard to see why.

In a way, you can claim that this is my first time watching Suspicion – in full. I actually tried watching it a few years back and gave up within 40 minutes. Till today, I cannot believe that Hitchcock, who made the masterpiece Rebecca the previous year, could actually churn out such a terrible film. The story is amateurishly written, and completely unbelievable. I’m gonna sum it up for you here, so yes, spoilers till the end of this paragraph: an unbelievably naive and one dimensional young woman literally chooses to fall in love with a good for nothing, super unlikable douchebag to prove to her parents that she is not going to end up a spinster. She literally overhears her parents’ conversation outside the window, and said man mysteriously pops up beside her, where she decides to give him a kiss. She then becomes unhealthily obsessed with this man, to the point where she enters a semi depressed state, only to be revived when she learns that he is attending a party her father is organising. Nonetheless, when she marries him, she learns that he is a lazy and broke a-hole who chooses to lead a lavish lifestyle despite not having any money, thinking that she will pay for him. Despite this, SHE CHOOSES TO STAY WITH HIM AND LETS HIM REPEATEDLY LIE TO HER. Like, he doesn’t even has to try with his flimsy lies because he knows that she will forgive him because she literally loves him too much. Throw in some suspense in the second act where she begins suspecting that he wants to kill her (like only NOW she realises there’s something wrong with her husband), only to lead to a cop out ending where he actually wanted to kill himself.

Look, I don’t deny that there are not very bright people in real life who gets themselves all manipulated by their vicious spouses because they are completely blinded by their delusional idea of love. Over here, however, it’s just 100 percent ridiculous and over the top, right from the beginning where Lina chooses to fall in love with him just to prove that she’s not going to be a spinster.

That being said, I’ll give credit when it’s due: Joan Fontaine elevates this movie. I read somewhere that she was extremely interested in doing this part, for whatever reason I cannot comprehend, and actually it shows. You can see she completely believes in Lina and her wacky idiotic decisions, and she’s such a good actress that she plays the character with truth. Unfortunately, it only serves to accentuate the idiocy of the whole character and plot of the movie even more. The first time I saw Suspicion, I literally stopped watching when I saw how easily Lina forgave her husband for embezzling funds. Perhaps I should give Fontaine credit for making the character’s unbelievable stupidity believable, which in turn produced such a strong reaction from me? Still, with such a terribly written character, there’s only so much a great actress like her could do. 2.5/5.