The year 1939 was a huge one for Hollywood. Such well-known titles as “Gone with the Wind” and “The Wizard of Oz” exemplify its classic status. In discussions of that fruitful year, we hear about similarly classic titles as "Dark Victory," "Stagecoach," "The Women," and other films that are iconic for one reason or another.
Our featured film, however, is usually not on the list. "In Name Only” is what I believe to be an unsung film from the big year of 1939. It is a mature romantic drama, with career-changing performances from its two leads.
About the plot. The film stars Cary Grant as Alec Walker, a wealthy man living a fairly carefree existence, except for the fact that his marriage to Maida (played by Kay Francis) is a sham. They exist in an artificial image of a happy marriage; everyone else thinks it’s perfect except Alec, who knows the truth. Maida has carefully crafted an image of a doting wife, and everyone—including their friends and Alec’s parents—buy into it.
Julie Eden is a widowed fashion illustrator living in a small country cottage near Alec’s stately home. When Alec meets her at a pond while she’s struggling to catch a fish, they strike up a tentative friendship. Julie is reserved, broken-hearted by the death of her husband, and at first is resistant to Alec’s charms. But they spend more time together, and eventually fall in love.
Alec asks Maida for a divorce, but she won’t get out of the way that easily. When Alec is in a car accident, Julie and Maida meet for the first time, and Maida makes sure that Julie is painted as a home-wrecker. With everything—including Alec’s parents—against her, Julie breaks off the relationship, knowing it can’t work out under the circumstances.
Meanwhile, Alec, feeling trapped in a loveless marriage and unable to be with the woman he now loves, gets drunk and checks into a cheap hotel, where he passes out in front of an open window. The cold air causes him to catch pneumonia. At the hospital, the doctor tells both Julie and Alec's father that Alec will come out of his condition only with the will to live. So in an effort to help him recover, Julie lies to Alec, telling him that Maida has agreed to divorce him.
When Maida arrives at the hospital, Julie finally faces Maida and attempts to keep her from disturbing Alec. It’s at this moment that Maida makes herself perfectly clear, freely admitting to Julie that she married Alec not only for his money, but the social position that came with it. Unbeknownst to her, however, Alec’s parents overhear her as she explains that, once Alec’s father is dead, everything will be hers. Bad move.
Not only is Maida revealed to those she duped for the avaricious woman she is, but she has officially paved the way for Alec to be with Julie. An emotional conclusion with Julie at Alec’s bedside assure us that things are going to work out just fine.
 |
| Cary Grant |
About the actors. At the time this film was released, Cary Grant had developed a reputation as a comic actor opposite some of the era’s biggest female stars (Irene Dunne, Katharine Hepburn, Constance Bennett). But 1939 was an unusual year for Grant; he was cast against comic type in two grand adventure films (“Gunga Din" and “Only Angels Have Wings”), as well as the drama of “In Name Only.” I think his performance as Alec is one of the best of his career because it utilizes his effortless charm—and, in a few scenes, his comic timing—yet lets him demonstrate his dramatic chops as well.
I always thought there was something fresh and contemporary about Carole Lombard, and those traits are on display in “In Name Only.” When I first saw this film, I knew her strictly as a comic actress, and for me her performance was a revelation.
 |
| Carole Lombard |
 |
| Kay Francis |
Like Grant, she was clearly trying to branch out from the comedies that had been her mainstay throughout most of the thirties. The same year as “In Name Only,” she starred opposite up-and-comer James Stewart in a domestic drama called “Made for Each Other.” And she followed “In Name Only” in 1940 with two other heavy dramas. I admire her for trying to stretch her talents beyond freewheeling comedies.
While these dramas are all good on their own terms, there is something special about her as Julie in “In Name Only.” The earthy honesty of her comedies is there in this performance, whose resigned, restrained sadness is very touching. (Speaking of sad, Lombard only made four movies after “In Name Only”; she died in a plane crash in 1942. I always wondered what her career trajectory would have been had she lived.)
Kay Francis, as Maida, was one of the most popular stars of the early 30s, the “Queen of Warner Brothers.” Like many actresses of the early talkie era, she had a grandiose manner that was typical after sound first came in and Hollywood was still finding its footing. She made a few classic light comedies and melodramas at this time (such titles as “Trouble in Paradise,” "Jewel Robbery," and “One Way Passage,” all from 1932), but by 1939 her popularity as a leading lady had long slipped and she was relegated to playing second leads and supporting roles.
"In Name Only" is probably her most distinguished film of this period; her characterization of Maida utilizes her studied regality very well. I found a greater appreciation for her here, as she pretends to be the long-suffering wife of a ne’er do well, while actually scheming to get whatever she wants. She plays her final scene, set at the hospital, to the hilt, her calculated coldness on full display.
About the look and feel. This is an RKO Radio Pictures production, and it bears the studio’s visual stamp. Unlike some studios, many RKO pictures actually filmed outdoor scenes outdoors, rather than on a sound stage with fake sets or rear projection, and it makes them feel more authentic, more direct. The early scenes near the pond, for example, have an open, airy quality that underscores the relaxed interplay between Grant and Lombard.
The interior scenes of Julie’s cottage, as well as Alec’s estate, have a tastefully appointed coziness. So for fans of period Hollywood-idealized interior design, the film is a treat. (Even if a fashion illustrator in 1939 most likely couldn’t afford a one-room apartment, let alone a cottage, as Lombard's Julie Eden does in this movie.)
The fashions in the flim are similarly understated. Almost all of Lombard's clothes are casual and practical, which echoes her character. Julie is an unaffected woman, so her wardrobe in in line with her personality. It's a relief from the fabulous gowns and frocks that Lombard usually wore. By contrast, Francis gets to wear a variety of glamorous outfits that underscore her character's love of what money can buy. And for the man in the picture, Grant looks—as he always did—terrific in his suits and sport coats, as always.
My assessment. Sounds like this story is the stuff of high soap opera, right? True, but it’s easy to do this type of story wrong. It's harder to make it work on its terms. In the case of “In Name Only,” it’s all played so well, so smoothly, that the film is engrossing and thoroughly entertaining throughout. Director John Cromwell conducts the proceedings without florid dramatics. In fact, the action is downright understated. And that’s part of the reason why I think it’s impressive and worth watching today.
“In Name Only” is not usually included in the pantheon of classic films of 1939, but because of its cast and production, I think it should be. Turner Classic Movies runs it occasionally, and it is available on DVD. It's worth catching.
“Have you ever noticed how transparent people are when you really look at them?”
With 2013 Oscar season now behind us, I thought this was a good time to kick off “In a Movie Place.” I was thinking about how many great films were made during Hollywood’s so-called golden age of the studio era, the 1930s. I did a quick scan of the best picture nominees throughout that decade. I thought about how, in hindsight, some of the winners have not held up, while several of the also-rans are actually superior films that hold up remarkably well today.
One of those titles is “Dodsworth,” a 1936 best picture nominee. It started as a book by Sinclair Lewis, which was turned into a play by Sidney Howard, who then wrote the screenplay for director William Wyler’s film, produced by Samuel Goldwyn, no stranger to high-quality material.
About the plot. The film examines pre-war American morals, manners, and spirit through the character of Sam Dodsworth, the head of Dodsworth Motor Company, an automobile manufacturing firm headquartered in Zenith, Ohio. His wife Fran is a denizen of Zenith society, obsessed with remaining youthful despite the onset of middle age. She has distinct aspirations for what she considers the better things in life. While very wealthy, Fran still feels frustrated and unfulfilled living in this small Ohio town and wants more excitement. Meanwhile, Sam is at a crossroads in his life, having achieved most everything he ever set out to do. Fran capitalizes on his discontent by convincing him to sell his interest in the company and take a voyage on the Queen Mary bound for England and Paris.
But the cruise has unintended ramifications, as Fran’s own discontent manifests itself in flirtations with various men aboard ship. While Sam views Fran as merely stretching her wings a little, he meets a sympathetic divorcee named Edith Cortright, with whom he develops a friendship. Arriving in Paris, the Dodsworths begin a social whirl, during which Fran’s flirtations develop into an adulterous romance with a nobleman. Fran, tired of Sam, insists that they separate. A brief reconciliation leads to a decision to divorce. However, at the climax of the film, Fran learns that the nobleman cannot marry her after all; desperate, she tries to convince Sam to take her back. But he has had enough, and in a dramatic finish, he leaves Fran on a cruise liner bound for the states for the kind-hearted Edith who, through the course of the film, revealed her own feelings for Sam.
My assessment. It may sound like soap opera, but this is really an expert examination of the dissolution of a marriage and an epiphany, the reawakening of a particular man. The film is unique for the 1930s in that it is really an examination of Sam’s inner life; we get to see him reevaluate how far he has come in life in terms of his success, as he begins to yearn for something he can’t quite define. (As it turns out, that yearning is for someone who loves him not for what he can buy, but for who he is.)
 |
| Walter Huston |
Sam represents the classic American self-made man. However, despite all that he has achieved, he is not happy. Fran represents the striving for self-improvement, the feeling that what she has is not enough. For all she has, she is not happy. Yet her aspirations and pretentions make her lose sight of what is truly important. To me, “Dodsworth” stands today as an excellent evocation of the mid-1930s in terms of manners, morals, and international attitudes, not to mention fashion and transportation. It's worth noting that making Sam the president of a car company is emblematic of where we were as a nation at that time—the height of the machine age.
Outside of a dramatic (and cathartic) climax, there really aren’t any overblown dramatics in the film; rather, the dialogue feels very true. The scene between Sam and Fran in their hotel room as they bicker while getting ready for bed is a great example. The scene in which Sam confronts Fran’s new paramour—and her subsequent defensiveness—is another. It’s here where Sam says slyly, “Have you ever noticed how transparent people are when you really look at them?”
I think the success of the film over many other Best Picture nominees (and winners) of that decade is that it still tells us something about ourselves. As Americans, we still have the mentality to work hard, achieve the best, strive for more, always fit society’s standard of success. Yet, like Sam, some of us reach a point where we realize there must be something else to life.
About the actors. By today’s standards, Walter Huston’s portrayal of Sam may come across as bombastic at times, but at that time he was considered one of the best actors of the stage and screen, someone who could do anything. (BTW, he's the father of John Huston and grandfather of Anjelica Huston.) I think his gruffness is spot-on. It characterizes a smart, yet plain-talking man from humble roots who has made good for himself in a capitalist society, someone who believed in his God-given right and ability to make a name for himself.
 |
| Ruth Chatterton |
Ruth Chatterton, as Fran, has the grandiose diction and delivery typical of a former stage actress and early-30s film star. She comes off as artificial and tinny, but I think this suits the character of Fran. Her grasping brittleness may not make her accessible to modern audiences, but it certainly helps frame her as an unsympathetic character in this film. (Fun fact: In the racy 1933 film “Female,” she plays a hard-edged executive of an automobile manufacturer!)
In contrast to Chatterton, Mary Astor, as Edith, seems very real and grounded. She creates a warm characterization of an independent woman who is not the least bit concerned about making a big impression on anybody. She is smart and self-aware, and her scenes opposite Chatterton’s self-absorbed, shallow Fran underscore these traits. In fact, in any scene in which Fran and Edith interact, you immediately know who the real sophisticate is, who the real lady is. And they have a couple of great moments together. (Astor's career lasted much longer than Chatterton's, and she proved herself consistently as a versatile actress adept at heavy drama, action adventure, film noir, and screwball comedy. She has several big-time classics in her filmography, the best known being the femme fatale in Walter's son John's 1941 masterpiece, "The Maltese Falcon.")
 |
| Mary Astor |
I see the characters of Fran and Edith as opposing forces. It would be simplistic to say that Edith is ‘good’ and Fran is ‘evil.’ Rather, I kind of look at Sam Dodsworth as a scale, with the heaviness of Fran on one side and the lightness of Edith on the other. But in this film, everyone is flawed.
About the look and feel. The film does a terrific job of capturing the look of the 1930s, from the streamlined manufacturing plant to the plush coziness of the Dodsworth’s Zenith home; from the art deco design of the ship to the extravagance of old Europe. Not to mention the casual airiness of Edith's Italian villa, the scene of a turning point in the film.
Speaking of the ship, it’s important to remember that "Dodsworth" was made when ocean liners were still a major mode of transportation. The movie surely conveys the glamour and romanticism of ocean travel in a visual way that the book and play could not. (And it makes you want to go back in time and take the Dodsworth’s journey, as long as you can look as good in a deck chair as Mary Astor does!)
The film’s look and tone feel very rooted in the 1930s, but because it’s so well done across the board—from the writing to the acting and directing to the impeccable costumes and set design—and because it deals with substantial themes, I feel that "Dodworth" rises above the other nominees (and the winner) for its year. A classic is a film that feels timeless, and, to me, “Dodsworth” does. Taking stock, seeing how far one has come and the prices paid, asking, “How did I get here? Is this what I wanted?” are themes that resonate regardless of time period, and that’s why the movie is so special.
The film is available on DVD and runs pretty regularly on Turner Classic Movies.
