MovieChat Forums > The Women (1939) Discussion > Joan Fontaine is great!!

Joan Fontaine is great!!

posted 17 years ago by bjnevin
9 replies | jump to latest

I'm surprised that there isn't a thread here commending Joan Fontaine on her great performance! She's so cute funny as the ditzy, soft 'Mrs. John Day'! In fact she's one of my favourites who, despite her relatively short screen-time adds to the film in spades! I love it especially when she's on the train with Shearer and at the last scene when (as some of you may have noticed) she nods courteously with a big smile on her face a few times as more of the women come in the door. It's quite different to her usual performances and quite enjoyable too. *Sigh!* She had class...

............Anyone else agree? :)

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] countrygirltori 17 years ago

I adore Joan Fontaine in this movie. I think my favorite part is when she is exercising with Sylvia. It's soo humorous. I love the little thing Sylvia and her do when they fall to the matt - hysterical!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RWeaver769 17 years ago

For me, Joan Fontaine and her character were a welcome relief from all the bi*chiness of the other characters. She was adorable, young and beautiful.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Thrift_Store_Junkie05 17 years ago

For me, Joan Fontaine's character as the young and shy divorcée, Peggy, has always been my favorite in the film, not to mention, she's the most likable character according to my standards. Therefore, I'm surprised her performance in The Women isn't discussed more often because she proves wonderful comedic capabilities and with her modest and reserved manner, yet being so delicately beautiful and fragile, her character is undeniably refreshing.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] communionsong 15 years ago

I guess one of the reason's Joan Fontain is not discussed much on this board is that her part just wasn't all that great. If Joan wasn't in the movie, or I should say if her character wasn't written in the movie, it would not have been a huge loss. She played a totally forgetable character and I always cringed when she came on board. "go back go back go back go back go back"...and when she tells her husband "I'm going to have a baby"...gag...I want to vomit. Her acting is only so-so.

[–] practicepiano 15 years ago

I think she's a necessary part of the big picture. She is younger than the other main characters, which accounts, in part, for her personality. It also makes her the only representative of women in their early 20s among the leads.

Some of the other women may have been just as they are from day one. But some, whether they are now smarter or making the same stupid mistakes over and over, whether they are trapped by circumstance or in control, whether they are bitter and nasty or willing to take life as it comes and work with it, were probably just like her when they were as young as she is.

I think one of the reasons she's there is to remind us of that stage of life.

Was it a smart decision to go back to her husband, to promise to be obedient, to hold back on using her own money? From our modern perspective, it seems really grating -- to an audience of the time, there were probably mixed reactions.

But we'll never know if everything went well for her and Johnny, or if it was a total disaster. We'll never know if she matures and blooms, stays weak and fragile, or hardens into a nasty bitch.

That's actually sort of interesting.