Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack) is an obnoxious, spoiled and selfish playboy. He and his assistant, Mitch (Rock Hudson) fall for the same woman (Lauren Bacall) but Kyle somehow wins her with his charming personality. I say 'somehow' because after this, you see very little of his charm--mostly the actions of a boorish, sulking jerk. He immediately takes his wife for granted and you feel for the lady. As for Mitch, he can't stay--as he is carrying a torch for this now married woman. And then there's Marylee (Dorothy Malone), Kyle's rather obnoxious sister. She's in love with Mitch but Mitch tells her he's not interested. When Mitch doesn't reciprocate, she decides to destroy herself and everyone around her. And then, there's Kyles 'man problem'*...what's to become of that?
Does this all sound like a bit of fluff--like just another soap opera? Well, yes, but it is a very glossy and pretty soaper--thanks to director Douglas Sirk, who made a name for himself by making what was essentially high-quality trash. Films like "Magnificent Obsession**", "All That Heaven Allows" and "Imitation of Life**" were all about rich, bored and screwed up pretty folks. In many ways, these films are a lot like forerunners of shows like "Dallas" and "Dynasty". In other words, they appeal to a certain niche--and if you like this sort of thing, Sirk was great in creating them. He did, however, make MANY films that did not fit this mold--though today he is most known for the soaps. As for me, I am not a huge fans of soaps. This doesn't mean they are bad--just not the sort of genre that usually appeals to me. Additionally, there wasn't any subtlety about this film (except in what I mention below*)--it was loud, crass and bigger than life (particularly in regard to Malone's character). I also think it plays better if you see it as a comedy and not a drama--especially since Malone's and Stack's characters are so ridiculous and over-done! But, in an odd way, it IS entertaining...I will give it that!
Oddly, despite all this, Sirk and his melodramas have been adored by the French New Wave writers and directors--and perhaps that is why the film has been released as part of the much-heralded Criterion Collection. For me, I just cannot see what they see in this--it's just a soaper...and a rather trashy one at that for its time.
*Because it was the 1950s, the script really didn't know what to do with Kyle. Sirk envisioned the man as a closeted homosexual. However, they couldn't put that in American films at that time due to the Production Code, so they talked about him having some 'problem' that prevented the couple from having kids. Talk about cryptic and silly! The viewers might have thought he was impotent or had poor sperm motility or was chronically constipated or had major Freudian issues or goodness knows what!! Having him being clearly gay would have improved the film tremendously and made sense of some of the plot.
**These were remakes and especially in the case of "Imitation of Life", the original was much better. However, I am a guy who almost never likes remakes.
Does this all sound like a bit of fluff--like just another soap opera? Well, yes, but it is a very glossy and pretty soaper--thanks to director Douglas Sirk, who made a name for himself by making what was essentially high-quality trash. Films like "Magnificent Obsession**", "All That Heaven Allows" and "Imitation of Life**" were all about rich, bored and screwed up pretty folks. In many ways, these films are a lot like forerunners of shows like "Dallas" and "Dynasty". In other words, they appeal to a certain niche--and if you like this sort of thing, Sirk was great in creating them. He did, however, make MANY films that did not fit this mold--though today he is most known for the soaps. As for me, I am not a huge fans of soaps. This doesn't mean they are bad--just not the sort of genre that usually appeals to me. Additionally, there wasn't any subtlety about this film (except in what I mention below*)--it was loud, crass and bigger than life (particularly in regard to Malone's character). I also think it plays better if you see it as a comedy and not a drama--especially since Malone's and Stack's characters are so ridiculous and over-done! But, in an odd way, it IS entertaining...I will give it that!
Oddly, despite all this, Sirk and his melodramas have been adored by the French New Wave writers and directors--and perhaps that is why the film has been released as part of the much-heralded Criterion Collection. For me, I just cannot see what they see in this--it's just a soaper...and a rather trashy one at that for its time.
*Because it was the 1950s, the script really didn't know what to do with Kyle. Sirk envisioned the man as a closeted homosexual. However, they couldn't put that in American films at that time due to the Production Code, so they talked about him having some 'problem' that prevented the couple from having kids. Talk about cryptic and silly! The viewers might have thought he was impotent or had poor sperm motility or was chronically constipated or had major Freudian issues or goodness knows what!! Having him being clearly gay would have improved the film tremendously and made sense of some of the plot.
**These were remakes and especially in the case of "Imitation of Life", the original was much better. However, I am a guy who almost never likes remakes.