Good but not great... (for those who have seen the film)
This is a discussion piece for those who have seen this film- there are mild spoilers in here, so don't read this if you were looking forward to watching the film for the first time "dry".
Right, well, I'm not here to rubbish this film, because I think it is very good. However, I wondered if anyone else felt that it simply wasn't a masterpiece, in the same way Mr Smith, Wonderful Life, and Vertigo were masterpieces? It felt like there was something lacking; Dowd's character was explored fully, and it was easily the best thing about this film, but I couldn't escape feeling that everyone and everything else was a bit... Undeveloped.
For example, I thought the script had dug itself into a hole concerning Dowd's (lack of) romantic interest. Throughout he was kind to Miss Kelly, and she was responsive, and she kissed him towards the end... Only for Dowd to turn around and say how good she was with the Doctor. It felt a bit of a cop-out, and it made out that Dowd had tried to get them together beforehand when only one scene had really spelled that out (the scene where they danced in Charlie's). That was one scene measured against the flower giving, the kiss, the looks and the chemistry between Dowd and Kelly.
Also, Veta. Was she a poor widow, struggling with sanity issues herself? A malicious mother simply sick of her son, and selfishly getting rid of him to improve her social life? Or a woman wracked with guilt at sending her son to the sanatorium? It seemed to change every scene. Also, why did she mysteriously stop suing the sanatorium, after she did have a form of sexual assault committed against her?
Also, and this was probably my biggest gripe- the relationship between the guard and Myrtle Mae! Where did it come from? Why was it there? Why, when she had just heard that he had forced her mother into a bath, make him a sandwich? And on what basis did she fall in love with him? Was there a line I missed?
Also, the whole "comedy of errors" motif got on my nerves in one scene, where the painting of Harvey and Dowd was placed on the mantelpiece- by this point, it was ascertained that Veta was not insane (or at least, everyone knew this). So why did the script call for a scene where Dr Chumley is led to believe she might be crackers; why does it call for her to not turn around, stretching this joke even further than it already should have gone? A minor gripe, but a gripe all the same.
Finally, more of an observation, but the film's stance on mental institutions of the day. Was this meant to be some kind of scathing indictment of what they do to insane people? Could this be seen as a liberal precursor to the 70's free will movies such as Easy Rider and One Flew Over? I may be the only one to have spotted this, but the way the first half hour was so committed to showing the ineptitude of the workers at the sanatorium felt like a point being laboured to me. I wondered if anyone else spotted this.
Maybe I am simply reading too much into it. But it was a good film, and I enjoyed it very much, and it seemed to me to invite this level of inspection. I gave it an eight on my personal rating system, where a nine is for an excellent, intellectual film that couldn't be bettered in many ways, and ten is for personal favourites; it was charming, it had a wonderful message, it didn't outstay it's welcome, and Stewart's performance was frankly incredible, a masterful spot of acting. It is a film I wouldn't mind watching again sometime. But to me it felt riddled with too many flaws for it to be a true masterpiece, and... Well I wondered if anyone else felt this way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A man who does not spend time with his family can never be a real man."