I had always heard of this film and of Jane Wyman in it, who won an Oscar. I then saw the film and wondered, why did she win? Her work was sweet and simple and competent, but certainly not of Oscar caliber. Also, the film was the overly sentimental and sugary Reader's Digest/Hallmark type of film-making that was so common in the family-worshiping 40's. I never liked that sappy way of storytelling so did not think the film was very good either. Some famous films of those years were made in that soap opera way but few of them hold up at all well with today's much more sophisticated audiences. It was a simpler and more innocent time then, yes, but many truly good films were made as that was the heyday of noir. This was not one of the good ones.
After a bit of research into a possible reason why Wyman won I found an obvious reason....she had lost a baby recently and resulting public sympathy for her won out over the superior work of others, exactly like Liz Taylor's public sympathy Oscar win years later following her near death from pneumonia. Neither one deserved to win. Check Patty Duke in The Miracle Worker, Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump, or Dustin Hoffman in Rainman for actors who truly deserved their wins in stories about the handicapped. What a giant difference between their work and Wyman's in this film.
The story about a Nova Scotia fishing village around 1900 was interesting early on but was soon made about as unrealistic as it could possibly be, as it hinged on one incredulous point.....Wyman's deaf and mute character was viciously raped and made pregnant but she was never pushed or forced to "communicate" who the rapist father of her bastard child was! That obvious exposure would have ruined the trumped-up plot that the film depended upon. There is no way that outrageous act would ever happen in that area at that time and be swept under the rug in those days of strict religious and social conformity and personal integrity. The entire plot hinged on keeping the rapist's identity a secret until the end, and that plot phoniness ruined the story's credibility to me. Actually, it was all pretty unsophisticated film-making even for those days and not at all convincing throughout.
Best things about it.....the beautiful Northern California coast standing in for Nova Scotia, and the "sign" teaching of Wyman's character by the doctor so she could communicate, but then she never used it to tell anyone who the criminal father of her child was! That dumb story line really insulted the audience's intelligence.
So, in the end, Wyman got the publicity and the award, but the work of Lew Ayres as the doctor, Charles Bickford as her father, and Agnes Morehead as her aunt in their roles was superior to hers but was not awarded. Overall, I think this film and Wyman's work are very overrated and hardly watchable in this modern film-making era where we are much less accepting of the excessive use of sappy story sentimentalism.
After a bit of research into a possible reason why Wyman won I found an obvious reason....she had lost a baby recently and resulting public sympathy for her won out over the superior work of others, exactly like Liz Taylor's public sympathy Oscar win years later following her near death from pneumonia. Neither one deserved to win. Check Patty Duke in The Miracle Worker, Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump, or Dustin Hoffman in Rainman for actors who truly deserved their wins in stories about the handicapped. What a giant difference between their work and Wyman's in this film.
The story about a Nova Scotia fishing village around 1900 was interesting early on but was soon made about as unrealistic as it could possibly be, as it hinged on one incredulous point.....Wyman's deaf and mute character was viciously raped and made pregnant but she was never pushed or forced to "communicate" who the rapist father of her bastard child was! That obvious exposure would have ruined the trumped-up plot that the film depended upon. There is no way that outrageous act would ever happen in that area at that time and be swept under the rug in those days of strict religious and social conformity and personal integrity. The entire plot hinged on keeping the rapist's identity a secret until the end, and that plot phoniness ruined the story's credibility to me. Actually, it was all pretty unsophisticated film-making even for those days and not at all convincing throughout.
Best things about it.....the beautiful Northern California coast standing in for Nova Scotia, and the "sign" teaching of Wyman's character by the doctor so she could communicate, but then she never used it to tell anyone who the criminal father of her child was! That dumb story line really insulted the audience's intelligence.
So, in the end, Wyman got the publicity and the award, but the work of Lew Ayres as the doctor, Charles Bickford as her father, and Agnes Morehead as her aunt in their roles was superior to hers but was not awarded. Overall, I think this film and Wyman's work are very overrated and hardly watchable in this modern film-making era where we are much less accepting of the excessive use of sappy story sentimentalism.