Back Street

source: Back Street

I'm no militant feminist and I admit to being a hopeless romantic, but this movie was just too much! I happen to like both Charles Boyer and Margaret Sullivan, but I can't say the same for the characters they play, Walter and Ray. They fall in love, but Walter's engaged to another woman, whose father will be a big help to his career ambitions. Despite this, they plan to marry but circumstances prevent this from happening. When they mee again, after five years, both are successful in their careers, Walter's married with two children and that should have been that, except it wasn't. The next thing you know, Ray puts aside her career and her other aspirations, and becomes Walter's mistress. She loves and is devoted to him, there's nothing more important to her than him, but it's clear that Walter doesn't feel the same. While he does love her (or maybe I should say he loves her in his way), he wouldn't consider putting her before his career, social status, and the marriage that gave him both. In fact, he even told Ray at one point (when she was unhappy about how little she saw of him, especially after finding out he had returned from an extended trip and took his time about visiting her) that she had a place in his life, but only a place, whereas she had made him her whole life. Big mistake! An even bigger mistake is when she returns to her hometown and reconnects with curt, her former boyfriend, who's still in love with her. He offers her a chance for her own life, a home and family, and she almost accepts him, then turns him down after meeting Walter again. Afterward, despite her limited time with him, despite gossip, despite the hatred of his children, who find out about the affair, Ray stands by her man (just not in public) until he dies, and she soon follows. How pathetic! The movie should have been called "Back Seat", since that's what Ray took when it came to Walter. What a pity!

This second version of Fannie Hurt's famous melodrama compares favorably with Stahl's earlier effort featuring Irene Dunne , Margaret Sullavan being at least as convincing as her peer ,her face always longing for a happiness which eludes her will move you.The ending was sweetened and we're spared the sordid details of Ray's fate in dire poverty in the book . Rays's fate is a succession of missed opportunities: first she misses the boat ,and every time she has a way of leading a happy life ,something happens : Walter reappears and she throws away a possible safe future ,although he knows by doing so that she will always be an outcast : the apex of the movie is the New Year's eve celebration :whilst the crowds are singing "auld lang syne" ,she's waiting alone -never she seems more lonely than in this sequence- in her bedroom for her lover ...who has bad news for her :he is to leave for Europe. Walter (French handsome Boyer) is not a bad man ;he does not even realize that Ray is sacrificed ;on her part, she thinks about his career, his wife -one only catches a glimpse of her- ,his son and later his daughter ; by and large the wife is the victim and the kept woman laughs behind her back when she's in her lover's arms;Madame Hurst had the guts to show the other side of the mirror: the mistress who ruins her whole life to be faithful to a man whose position in the world is at least as important as a dear lover .That's why the son's (Tim Holt) words hit so hard when he meets Ray on the boat . A third remake ,starring Susan Hayward and John Gavin , betrayed and cheapened Hurst's book ; avoid this color version and stick with Dunne or Sullavan.

This 1941 version of "Back Street" is a remake of the 1932 version with Irene Dunne. In this newer version, Margaret Sullavan plays Rae, a woman who is swept off her feet by a handsome man, Walter (Charles Boyer). However, after a mix-up occurs, he thinks she's left him...so he goes on with his life and career. But it wasn't her fault that she missed the boat...and she also, figuratively speaking, misses the boat with Walter. Five years pass. Rae has moved from Cincinnati to New York City. And, one day she bumps into Walter on the street. They pick up where they left off years before, though their reunion is muted when she learns that he is married and has a child. Now instead of them saying their goodbyes, she agrees to become his mistress. Years pass....and essentially, Rae just sits around her apartment to catch moments with Walter here and there. What follows is a very sad story about a woman with very low self-esteem spending her life hiding in the shadows...only for the tiny moments she can have with her lover. Many years pass....and still she is his hidden woman. What's next? See the movie...or don't. "Back Street" is a very slick movie. The acting is excellent, there are some nice supporting actors and the direction is lovely. The only problem, and it's a huge one, is that the story is all about adultery....and it makes for a rather wistful and pathetic one. I had trouble looking past this and felt as if Rae was just a sad chump...not someone I really cared about or could connect with in any way.

This second version of Back Street stars Margaret Sullavan as the Fannie Hurst heroine who contents herself with being a mistress to a well known and rich business executive. She has a few chances at marriage with others but this woman won't settle for what she considers second best. Margaret Sullavan had that tragic quality to her that made her cast so well in these parts. She had an unusual amount of screen deaths among her films like Three Comrades and No Sad Songs For Me. In this one she chooses what amounts to a living death with only moments of happiness. It was a chance meeting at a railroad station that she meets up and coming business executive Charles Boyer. Boyer's French accent is explained by saying he was originally from New Orleans. Boyer too was born for romantic parts and he had just come off films like Algiers, Love Story, Hold Back The Dawn and All This And Heaven Too. Anoher player born for romance, happy or tragic. It's a moment of capricious fate arranged by one of Sullavan's male acquaintances Frank Jenks that keeps them apart as she misses a riverboat that she was to leave on with Boyer. The next time they meet Boyer is married, but she agrees to be his mistress she loves him so. Noting some other fine performances in this version are Esther Dale as Sullavan's stepmother, Frank McHugh as a traveling salesman who introduces Boyer and Sullavan, Richard Carlson as another male acquaintance whose proposal she turns down and who makes a fortune in the up and coming automobile business Samuel S. Hinds as Boyer's father-in-law. Three of Hollywood's best actresses have played Ray Smith. In order Irene Dunne, Margaret Sullavan and Susan Hayward. Who was best in the role who can say. But I wouldn't want to bet money on a contest poll on any of them. Ray Smith is a choice female role and three choice players have done it.

Somewhere there must still be feminists cringing at the memory of this movie, and with good reason. It tells the story of an independent young woman, Ray Smith, played by Margaret Sullivan, who falls in love with, and is loved by, a visiting banker, Charles Boyer. Boyer wants to marry her but there is a misunderstanding - he thinks she has dropped him for another man - and he leaves town without Smith and marries the boss's daughter back in New York instead. Five years later Smith and Boyer's character meet again. He is still married, though evidently it is a loveless marriage. S and B start to see each other again. She realizes that she will never be the sole center of his attention, that she will always be a "back street woman," but even when she has a chance for marriage with another man, she remains with Boyer as his hidden mistress, for 25 years. No, a woman's only happiness is not necessarily marriage and children. But this movie doesn't really - would not have dared, in 1941 - show that Smith has a happy, fulfilling life as a married man's other woman. So we are left with a strange feeling. Yes, Sullivan's character loves Boyer's and feels that she is loved by him, but she can never acknowledge that publicly. She spends 25 years in the shadows, and we never really have the sense that she is happy doing so, except perhaps at the end. Of course, any feminist would say, and quite rightly so, that Smith should have gone for something more fulfilling. So I am left to wonder 1) who was the intended audience for this picture?, and 2) how were they expected to react to the heroine's choices? A frustrating movie.

God, this film is the queen of tearjerkers ! I have watched it countless numbers of times, and I always hope that the end will change, that brass band music playing while the steamboat wends its way down the river, with Margaret Sullavan not having been able to reach the jetty in time to catch it together with Charles Boyer, is just too much for me ! Although the story appears unbelievable, that's exactly what makes its charm ! Nowadays, the cinema is too crude and holier-than-thou to be able to make such a beautiful love story as this. Political correctness has won the battle over true feelings and emotions and has destroyed them ! The theme music to this film is lovely and sad, tears are guaranteed, that is, of course, if you manage to find it on CD ( which you cannot ! ) Apparently there are other versions of this story but I would not even consider to watch them as this version with Charles Boyer and Margaret Sullivan is so beautiful and full of finesse. This film will bring tears to your eyes, even if you don't agree with infidelity. The acting is excellent and one cannot help but be moved by the lady who is desperately seeking happiness with the man she should have married but was prevented from doing so by a cruel twist of fate.

Margaret Sullavan is one of my all-time favorite actresses with her husky voice and haunting screen presence. The original version in 1932 with Irene Dunne and John Boles was dull and stage-bound; the later version with Susan Hayward was just too gaudy. This is the version to watch! Margaret gives an exquisitely heart-rending performance as a turn-of-the-century miss who falls in love with a man (played by the smooth but oh-so-serious Charles Boyer). Fate intervenes and the two lovers are separated. They meet again years later, but, true to the classic weeper formula, he is married. Despite her better judgment, she carries on a "Back Street" romance with him for many years until their untimely demises. Promoted with the tag line, "If you have tears, be prepared to shed them", this movie does involve some suspension of disbelief. For example, for such a level-headed gal, why does Margaret allow Boyer to treat her so shabbily? Just when I am about to shake my head and yell "Why?", Margaret then either let loose with the tears or try to hide the choking sob in her voice, and I'm transfixed all over again. This film does feature solid direction, beautiful photography and some good supporting performances (I particularly liked Frank McHugh in this one). This film remains on my "Wish-They-Release-This-One-on-Video" list.

"This film (based on a Fanny Hurst best seller) is way out of date in the modern age. No self-respecting woman would be so willing to sacrifice her career for the prospect of being a millionaire's kept woman. No man, seriously in love with any woman, would put them through such a demeaning situation (they would consider divorce first of all, then remarriage). But there was supposed to be a sense of self-sacrifice by the heroine (Margaret Sullivan) that transcended the entire story." The point is, this film isn't set in the modern age. There's no sense judging this or any other movie set in another era by today's standards. At the time this story took place, divorce wasn't common. In fact, it was still considered scandalous. Many women put up with unhappy, even abusive marriages, rather than incur the wrath of society that a divorce would have brought upon them. Also, regardless of what her career prospects may have been, a man's career always took precedence. There's no way that he would have sacrificed his family and his career in order to divorce his wife and marry his mistress. There's no way she would have asked him to. This was made very clear in a conversation that took place between them. When you watch a movie set in another time you need to keep in mind that the rules that governed society are most likely far different than the ones we have today. You need to judge it by those rules or not at all.

Movies like this are never a reflection of real life, and they should never be considered a reflection of life in any era. The point is that they packed the audiences in, and if they didn't appeal today, people wouldn't be hunting for them. Classic literature and film is truly engaging when it shows people sacrificing for love and happiness in a way that their neighbors would probably disapprove of but secretly want for themselves. This is a remake of an already classic film made ten years prior, and it's ironic that that versions star, Irene Dunne, appeared in two films with this version's male lead (Charles Boyer) just two years prior. An exquisitely dressed Margaret Sullavan takes over Dunne's part here, and she shows her independence early on by slapping Frank McHugh across the face for his inappropriate behavior. However when she meets Boyer right after, she is immediately charmed by him, and their love is a foregone conclusion. He's later married, ending up unhappily of course, and by honor and the code of the times must stay with his wife. Boyer and Sullavan are reunited five years later, and their love by now is too strong to blame on missed paddle boats. You get to see Boyer and Sullavan setting up house with her being kicked out of Cecil Cunningham's home and moving into the house owned by a gregarious heavyset woman (Kitty O'Neil) who obviously knows what's going on and doesn't disapprove. exchange between her and McHugh is hysterical. Sadly though the holidays are all very lonely for Sullavan as social obligations keeps Boyer away from her, but she certainly didn't want to spend it with her ornery stepmother (Esther Dale, stuck playing another one of her opinionated buddies). The looks on Boyer's face though indicate that he is thinking of her. This story works because it's like a novel with it series of chapters of the sequences in their life, showing Sullavan watching as Boyer rises in success and power, dealing with his now grown children and the ultimate conclusion. The two stars who also appeared in "Appointment With Love" the same year have tremendous chemistry, and are surrounded by a terrific ensemble of character actors mixing the drama with subtle comedy and a romance that no matter how hard it is on Sullavan isn't something she can easily end. It's obvious that she'd rather have 50% of him than no percent of him at all, and that makes this a love story for the ages.