The Little Foxes

In 1900, in the Southern town of Linnet, the notorious Hubbard family is hated by the residents since they explore the poor and the black people in their business. Regina Giddens (Bette Davis), née Hubbard, is married with Horace Giddens (Herbert Marshall), who is a good man that is interned in a hospital in Baltimore due to a heart condition. They are estranged and they have a daughter, the naive Alexandra Giddens (Teresa Wright) that has a crush on the local David Hewitt (Richard Carlson) but she is controlled by her merciless mother. Regina's brothers are the exploitative Ben Hubbard (Charles Dingle), who is single, and Oscar Hubbard (Carl Benton Reid), who is married with the wounded Birdie (Patricia Collinge), and they have a son, the scum Leo (Dan Duryea) that works in a bank. Oscar and Regina have made arrangements to marry Leo with Alexandra. When Ben and Oscar invite the wealthy businessman William Marshall (Russell Hicks) to come to Linnet to build a mill to improve their business and pay low wages to the locals, they need US$ 75,000.00 from Regina. She manipulates Alexandra to bring Horace back home to convince him to lend the money. However, Horace does not accept the business and Leo steals his railroad bonds from the safe in the bank to invest in the business with Marshall, expecting to return the money without Horace noticing. Bur Horace goes to the bank and finds the embezzlement. What will Horace and Alexandra do? "The Little Foxes" is a movie directed by William Wyler and based on a play that shows a Southern family of snakes in the turn of the Twentieth Century. The unpleasant story is supported by magnificent performances and had nine nominations to the Oscar. Bette Davis and William Wyler had relationship problems along the production and they never worked together again. My vote is seven. Title (Brazil): "Pérfida" ("Perfidy")

source: The Little Foxes

This film goes on for nearly two hours. Thankfully, I didn't suffer that long and had it out of the DVD player after 30 minutes. It was still 30 minutes of complete disinterest, though. By all means, watch it if you need a Bette Davis fix. Dan Duryea pops up in a rather drippy kind of role while Teresa Wright is so saccharine that it makes you want to vomit. And the amount of black people polishing, cleaning and shining things is hilarious. So, after 30 minutes of this trash I fast forwarded to the end to see if there was light at the end of the tunnel. From what I could see, there isn't. Someone gets sick. Oh my! The drama! This film has left the building.

....I've read every comment, and am wondering why there aren't more....the only answer that is plausible is so few people know about it. Davis, Hellman and Wyler - what a magic combination. There may never again be a combination of such talent to produce another film so riveting. I am old enough to have seen it when it was first released; it has never left my mind, and I am a big movie-buff. As so many users wrote, the movie never drags - I don't understand why a few say it is "slow" in the beginning. Don't you first have to set the scene to give the viewers an idea to build upon? "Ms. Regina ain't one to be kept waiting'" is a potent message there are going to be fireworks. Several commentators mentioned what a huge success the stage-production had been - with none other than La Bankhead, how could it have been otherwise ? No matter how electrifying live performances can be, there is nothing like the camera to catch close-up expressions, especially for drama. Was Davis not the all-time queen of "the eyes"? Ms. Bankhead did her magic in "Lifeboat" - Pure Heaven ! Had I had my druthers, there would be two identical movies, one with Davis, one with Bankhead - I would watch the marathon with awe. Davis had to be a bitch during the filming to make certain her character-interpretation would be filmed as she saw it - after all, she would inevitably be compared to the "Queen of the Stage" who originated it. She was masterful and forceful in every scene - the closing one reminiscent of "The Corn is Green" - a window and "eyes". Hellman no doubt was determined her brilliant stage-play would not be maligned. She COULD have taken the money and run. Wouldn't you agree she intended to see this masterpiece recorded as it should have been? Film is forever. There were no wasted lines in this movie. Wyler drilled his actors/actresses until they got it right - so right, the other interpretations fell far short. As some users have written, Patricia Collinge was brilliant in the pathetic role of "Birdie". How perfect she was, because so many aristocratic, young ladies of The South lost their "belle" status - just as she did - after convenient marriages to not-so-aristocratic gentlemen. They were used as chattel, just as the young ladies of nobility were used - be brilliant, then get lost and run the house. Dan Duryea was as insipid as Wyler wanted him to be. This role was one that helped his longevity in movies. "Mr. Giddens" was perfect, showing that gentle men are just as vulnerable to heartbreak as women are. Richard Carlson gave us a glimpse of sincere gentility. Ms. Wright was the epitome of young ladies of that era - she grew with her role. All of the other players gave fabulous performances, no matter how important or supporting. Younger viewers most probably couldn't get into the film, because there were no explosions nor violence...only those that occur in every-day life. This film is to be celebrated - don't miss the celebration.

Lillian Hellman's The Little Foxes went from Broadway to Hollywood after it ran 410 performances in the 1939-1940 season through the good offices of Sam Goldwyn. Five members of the Broadway cast came west and repeated their roles, Patricia Collinge, Carl Benton Reid, Charles Dingle, Dan Duryea, and John Marriott. But the lead part of Regina Giddens which gave Tallulah Bankhead her career role on Broadway went to a proved movie name, Bette Davis. Bette then made the part all her own. Davis is the sister of Ben and Oscar Hubbard, Charles Dingle and Carl Benton Reid. They are a family of trades people, poor white trash in those halcyon years in the South before the Civil War. When the war laid the genteel planter class low, these are the people who prospered and became what was euphemistically entitled 'the new South.' They're a tough and ruthless family, but they are survivors though the next generation shows little promise because Dan Duryea who is the son of Reid and Patricia Collinge is an idiot and Teresa Wright, the daughter of Davis and Herbert Marshall will be rejecting the values of the previous Hubbard generation. I don't think Lillian Hellman's Marxist leanings were ever more prominently on display in her writing as in The Little Foxes. Though the characters she creates are brilliant, the elder Hubbards are a rather heavy handed symbols for greedy capitalism. It's not quite clear where Teresa Wright and her suitor Richard Carlson will be on the political spectrum having rejected Hubbard family values. The plot of the play itself is that Dingle and Reid are ready to invest in a cotton mill with northern businessman Russell Hicks. But they need more money which they're hoping Marshall and Davis will provide. That leads to all kinds of complications, legal and moral for the family. Hellman left it open as to what will happen. My guess is that she honestly didn't know. Like most Marxists of the day, especially American Marxists, they sat and waited for the great come and get it revolution like fervent Pentacostals waiting for the Judgement Day. Wright in fact wishes for a society where people like her mother and uncles don't run things. Sadly and this is the weakness of The Little Foxes is that Hellman drew her characters too well. I'd be willing to bet that Ben and Oscar would find a way to wind up Commisars if they had been transplanted into Russia during the revolution. Idealists had a short life span in the early days of the Soviet Union, never more so than after Joseph Stalin took over. Whatever else they are, the Hubbards ain't idealists. Still The Little Foxes is a riveting drama that will keep your interest through the whole film even if you don't buy the message totally.

I can't understand why this film isn't more famous than it is. Sure, THE LETTER, ALL ABOUT EVE and JEZEBEL are really good Bette Davis movies, but this one is every bit as good and perhaps better than some of these other films. Perhaps some of the reason it isn't more famous is because in many ways this certainly is an unpleasant film. However, the unpleasantness is important to the story of a family filled with evil vipers--you just can't make these people cute or endearing! Bette heads a marvelous cast of miscreants that are counter-balanced by the decent members of the family. This juxtaposition of good and evil is amazing to watch and up until the latter portion of the film you are really unsure which will win out in the end. However, the ending of this movie is probably one of the greatest moments in film history. Once you see it, you won't forget it. I don't want to say more, as it could ruin the film. The bottom line is that this movie taken from the Lillian Hellman play is exquisitely written with marvelous characters, great plot twists and savagery within a family that make them seem more like a family of badgers than human beings! And, combining this with the exquisite direction of William Wyler and the terrific acting, this is a movie that is a must-see for all cinephiles. It just doesn't get much better than this.

Besides a very strong cast and an interesting story, this carefully crafted drama also has many subtleties that make it satisfying to watch, and even more so on repeat viewings. It is still among the better movie depictions of the effects of greed and materialism, and it has lost none of its effectiveness or believability. Several things work together to make "The Little Foxes" a worthwhile classic. The cast could hardly be improved upon, with the great Bette Davis taking center stage with a role that has her in her element, Herbert Marshall in a role ideal for him, and the supporting roles filled by talented performers who are themselves, in most cases, very well-cast. The script, likewise, is a well-conceived and well-paced adaptation of the Lillian Hellman play. Finally, William Wyler and his crew piece everything together effectively. Wyler might not be the kind of director who draws a lot of raves for innovation or experimentation, but when he has a good cast and good material, he knows how to make it work. One of the movie's several noteworthy features is the pace. Much of the first half seems to move quite slowly, and much later the pace of events begins to build steadily. The first part contains many less obvious touches that fit together well, so it is worth watching carefully, even if parts of it seem slow. In the second part, the characters' cat-and-mouse games and attempts to outwit each other come to a head, resulting in some compelling moments. It might be even more satisfying to watch after you have already seen the movie once, because the numerous subtle points that help to establish the characters then come out more clearly, and the way that things fit together is also easier to see. In any case, it is a classic that has held up well.

The Little Foxes is a very good movie that stands up well today. I enjoyed it very much. As someone else noted, the director wanted Regina played more sympathetically but Bette Davis insisted on making her a total witch. The movie is fine but I think the director was right. Regina isn't a total witch, witness the cook giving food to children who showed up at the house and the cook saying "Miss Regina" wasn't one to count everything. She wasn't stingy. That was a telling comment that the film didn't follow up. Regina wasn't hardhearted towards her daughter, either. She had a view of her daughter's opportunities in life; she wasn't going to allow her daughter to marry the ne'er do well cousin. She felt disappointed, even deceived, by her husband and she has a point. Why would her husband have thought she should want to hang around Podunk all her life and be happy? Regina wanted to travel; she wanted to live in Chicago; she wanted her daughter to have more choices. When the husband falls, Regina is not so much calculating as she is frozen. She thought he was selfish and sanctimonious but she didn't plot his death. Regina was written as a complex character but Bette Davis made her a simple character.

Like a fine locomotive, this film picks up steam with each passing scene. Each building upon the next, gaining speed until it culminates in a cinematic masterpiece, and the expression "Betty Davis Eyes" is born! Not having seen the entire movie until recently, I knew about the "staircase" scene, and everyone knows which one I'm referring to, my heart raced as I kept waiting for it to happen. It's a superb, disturbing moment, with Bette giving a look that could turn Medusa to stone! Theresa Wright has long been a favorite of mine. Some people have said her character was too nice and sweet. Perhaps, but Xan was probably supposed to be around the age of 16, but she holds her own against Bette. Patricia Collinge was incredible, giving a controlled yet brittle performance of an abused wife who turns to alcohol. In fact the entire ensemble works so well together that there is no weak link in the production.

The only other film I can think of that matches this one for its study of greed is TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE. Both have a rather downbeat and moralistic ending, but here the sudden end to the story comes as a bit of a disappointment. Too bad that William Wyler didn't stress the "loneliness" theme of Bette's character to give more strength to the ending that merely shows her watching her daughter walking away from her in the rain with a young man. But aside from the abrupt and rather weak ending, this is a magnificent version of the Lillian Hellman stage play. I saw Elizabeth Taylor in a Broadway revival of the show years ago and she left none of the impact that BETTE DAVIS does here. Davis had the benefit of William Wyler's direction, as did all other members of the cast. HERBERT MARSHALL is excellent as the only truly decent main character in the story. His performance here is reminiscent of the work he did as Bette's weak husband in THE LETTER--but the scene where she denies him his medicine is as brilliantly played and filmed as any scene in the entire film. TERESA WRIGHT is a bit sugary as the sweet daughter but rises to the final moments--although I thought her last confrontation with her mother could have been even more harsh than Wyler permitted it to be. She and Davis were both Oscar nominated but lost to others. This scene loses some of its vitality due to Wright's low-key playing. All the other performers are more than equal to their tasks and the beautiful deep focus B&W photography of Gregg Toland is remarkable and deepens the tone of the story. Charles Dingle stands out particularly in the supporting cast, as Bette's conniving brother who is left, in the end, with nothing but a "sense of humor" about the outcome. Dan Duryea is convincing as the dumb Leo and Richard Carlson does nicely as Wright's boyfriend who realizes that she has a lot of learning to do about the household before she grows up. Most chilling aspect of the whole film is Bette Davis' towering performance as Regina--perhaps the most realistic of all of her "bad" roles. But for an even more powerful study of greed, I suggest you watch TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE.