Until Bette Davis makes a play for George Brent, this film drags badly. Even then, there's little zip in the screenplay although it does become more interesting. Davis had a crush on Brent in high school but left for New York once he married Ann Dvorak, and now is hired as the chief advertising copywriter at the unheard of salary of $25,000 per year by the advertising firm where Brent works. (Brent earns $2,100 a year as office manager.) When Brent quits at the urging of Dvorak and starts his own firm, Davis is lured back to work for him and the trouble starts. This was the type of role Davis could eat up if it were in the hands of more capable screenwriters and the mores of the 30's permitted it. Then it might have been called "Homewrecker," with the emphasis on Davis rather than Dvorak. Still, it's fun to watch the stars and is a good example of an early Bette Davis film.
18 Reviews
Sappy soaper seems a lot longer than its running time...
Doylenf15 March 2010
GEORGE BRENT has a hard time making a living in HOUSEWIFE, married to ANN DVORAK and falling in love with a working girl he knew years ago--BETTE DAVIS in this flimsy soaper from Warner Bros.
Nothing much happens of much consequence except that for awhile Brent thinks he's in love with Davis, a hard-working office gal who takes his mind off his marriage to Dvorak, but doesn't stand a chance by the time the script gets to the tacked on happy ending after a brief courtroom scene.
The main acting chores go to Ann Dvorak and she does a good job of playing the loyal wife who helps her hubby up the ladder of success and sees him turning to a new love before things get patched up rather hastily.
George Brent does his usual good-natured job as the leading man who is caught between his loyal wife and "the new kid in the office" who has her own plans for their future. The courtroom ending seems tacked on and things are resolved in rather hurried fashion for a happy ending.
Nothing much, just a programmer for three dependable Warner workers early in their respective careers.
Nothing much happens of much consequence except that for awhile Brent thinks he's in love with Davis, a hard-working office gal who takes his mind off his marriage to Dvorak, but doesn't stand a chance by the time the script gets to the tacked on happy ending after a brief courtroom scene.
The main acting chores go to Ann Dvorak and she does a good job of playing the loyal wife who helps her hubby up the ladder of success and sees him turning to a new love before things get patched up rather hastily.
George Brent does his usual good-natured job as the leading man who is caught between his loyal wife and "the new kid in the office" who has her own plans for their future. The courtroom ending seems tacked on and things are resolved in rather hurried fashion for a happy ending.
Nothing much, just a programmer for three dependable Warner workers early in their respective careers.
Rather uninspired story has some fine acting...
AlsExGal17 March 2010
especially from Ann Dvorak (Nan Reynolds), who is in the title role as the housewife. It's basically a story that's been told time and time again, but with a few twists - a man (Bill Reynolds) rises up from obscurity to riches largely due to not only hard work, but the inspiration and ingenuity of a good woman, and then that man loses his head when he gets to the top. Brent plays the man forgetting where he came from and how he got there, and he does a more sympathetic job of it than actors in similar films, mainly because George Brent usually plays his roles with such sensitivity. Thus is the case here, and he therefore looks somewhat conscience-stricken even when he's behaving unconscionably.
John Halliday plays Paul Duprey, a major client in Bill's advertising firm as well as a man who sees the value in what Bill is tossing aside in the person of Bill's wife, Nan. Finally there is Bette Davis as Pat Berkeley, a creative genius in the advertising world and an old friend of Bill and supposedly of Nan too, although that doesn't prevent her from going after Bill. Warner Brothers has Ms. Davis' acting abilities packed in cotton here, as her sharp delivery and style of the late 30's and onward is on Valium in this particular film. She isn't given much more to do here than wander around looking fabulous in what seems to be a copy of Kay Francis' wardrobe. No wonder she fled to England in 1936.
There are a few touches that are pure Warners. Particularly humorous is a radio show - "The Duprey Hour" - designed by Bill's office manager rather than by Bill when Bill begins chasing after the charms of Pat and allows his business to be neglected. The show is supposed to build up Duprey Cosmetics. The final result is a disaster and consists of all kinds of bad humor that is so tasteless it's funny. It's topped off by a crooner singing lines like "...if the circles under your eyes look like apple pies...". You get the idea.
I'd recommend this one for the fine acting of Ann Dvorak and George Brent, for the unbelievable underutilization of Bette Davis, and the little touches and comic turns here and there that only seemed to pop up at Warner Brothers, especially in the 1930's. Do note that I think this might have been a better and meatier film if it had been made a year earlier and not just as the production code was coming into full effect. The director and writers just might have been afraid, under the circumstances, to take this film some of the places that could have made it more interesting.
John Halliday plays Paul Duprey, a major client in Bill's advertising firm as well as a man who sees the value in what Bill is tossing aside in the person of Bill's wife, Nan. Finally there is Bette Davis as Pat Berkeley, a creative genius in the advertising world and an old friend of Bill and supposedly of Nan too, although that doesn't prevent her from going after Bill. Warner Brothers has Ms. Davis' acting abilities packed in cotton here, as her sharp delivery and style of the late 30's and onward is on Valium in this particular film. She isn't given much more to do here than wander around looking fabulous in what seems to be a copy of Kay Francis' wardrobe. No wonder she fled to England in 1936.
There are a few touches that are pure Warners. Particularly humorous is a radio show - "The Duprey Hour" - designed by Bill's office manager rather than by Bill when Bill begins chasing after the charms of Pat and allows his business to be neglected. The show is supposed to build up Duprey Cosmetics. The final result is a disaster and consists of all kinds of bad humor that is so tasteless it's funny. It's topped off by a crooner singing lines like "...if the circles under your eyes look like apple pies...". You get the idea.
I'd recommend this one for the fine acting of Ann Dvorak and George Brent, for the unbelievable underutilization of Bette Davis, and the little touches and comic turns here and there that only seemed to pop up at Warner Brothers, especially in the 1930's. Do note that I think this might have been a better and meatier film if it had been made a year earlier and not just as the production code was coming into full effect. The director and writers just might have been afraid, under the circumstances, to take this film some of the places that could have made it more interesting.
Dvorak and Davis run rings around Brent
kidboots24 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The reason to watch "Housewife" is to watch Ann Dvorak. Possessing the most beautiful eyes of any actress (in my opinion) it is a rare chance to see her as the star. She was just as feisty as Bette Davis in her private life, going on suspension for better roles. She came to Hollywood as a choreographer and within a couple of years had wowed everyone in the movie "Scarface" (1932).
I know this was Bette Davis' "breakthrough" year but in this film she was quite good at the start - playing the "femme fatale".
I agree it was a walk through but Davis gave an edgy performance.
I actually viewed the film as showing Nan (Ann Dvorak) with her quiet, "I'm only a housewife" ways as having more brains and get up and go than either Davis or sappy Brent.
Nan is a housewife - she runs her home very efficiently - making sure there is a lamb roast every Sunday, calling in a plumber to fix a leaking tap, making sure bills get paid on time. Sister-in-law Dora (Ruth Donnelly) thinks she is a sap. Bill (George Brent) takes her and the running of the house for granted. He works for an advertising agency but he is having his own problems. He is not a "go getter" and even though he has been at the agency for many years he has never advanced or been promoted.
After an idea he has, for face cream promotion, is scoffed at Nan persuades him to go into business for himself ( with the help of a little nest egg Nan has been squirreling away). With Nan as the power behind the throne Reynolds advertising agency goes from strength to strength. Bette Davis plays Pat Berkeley a childhood friend of Bill and Nan's, who has hit the big time in New York advertising. She remembers when Bill was the head of his football team and had a big future. She is hired by his agency and they begin an affair.
Paul Duprey (John Halliday), a cosmetic manufacturer has his eye on Nan. After a disastrous radio programme - Bill hadn't bothered attending the rehearsal, he was too busy romancing Pat. Nan discusses her idea with Duprey - why not have a romantic theme for the broad- cast with songs from Paris and the Continent. Duprey feels Nan is the cleverest member of the family (more like the cleverest member of the this movie!!!). Bill has a showdown with Nan - he wants a divorce but she refuses, she wants to fight for him (I can't imagine why!!!). On his way to see Pat he runs over his little boy Buddy (Ronnie Cosby). Buddy pulls through but Nan decides to get a divorce.
The ending is pretty sappy - I didn't like it. The film had been quite dramatic but the ending was quite abrupt and like the director had wanted everything tidied up happily. John Halliday from the start had seen more in Nan than just being a "housewife" - all her qualities of imagination and good business sense but he was very quick to ask Bette Davis for a date when George Brent started to realise what a jewel his wife was. Halliday was probably just exasperated at the way the film ended.
Recommended.
I know this was Bette Davis' "breakthrough" year but in this film she was quite good at the start - playing the "femme fatale".
I agree it was a walk through but Davis gave an edgy performance.
I actually viewed the film as showing Nan (Ann Dvorak) with her quiet, "I'm only a housewife" ways as having more brains and get up and go than either Davis or sappy Brent.
Nan is a housewife - she runs her home very efficiently - making sure there is a lamb roast every Sunday, calling in a plumber to fix a leaking tap, making sure bills get paid on time. Sister-in-law Dora (Ruth Donnelly) thinks she is a sap. Bill (George Brent) takes her and the running of the house for granted. He works for an advertising agency but he is having his own problems. He is not a "go getter" and even though he has been at the agency for many years he has never advanced or been promoted.
After an idea he has, for face cream promotion, is scoffed at Nan persuades him to go into business for himself ( with the help of a little nest egg Nan has been squirreling away). With Nan as the power behind the throne Reynolds advertising agency goes from strength to strength. Bette Davis plays Pat Berkeley a childhood friend of Bill and Nan's, who has hit the big time in New York advertising. She remembers when Bill was the head of his football team and had a big future. She is hired by his agency and they begin an affair.
Paul Duprey (John Halliday), a cosmetic manufacturer has his eye on Nan. After a disastrous radio programme - Bill hadn't bothered attending the rehearsal, he was too busy romancing Pat. Nan discusses her idea with Duprey - why not have a romantic theme for the broad- cast with songs from Paris and the Continent. Duprey feels Nan is the cleverest member of the family (more like the cleverest member of the this movie!!!). Bill has a showdown with Nan - he wants a divorce but she refuses, she wants to fight for him (I can't imagine why!!!). On his way to see Pat he runs over his little boy Buddy (Ronnie Cosby). Buddy pulls through but Nan decides to get a divorce.
The ending is pretty sappy - I didn't like it. The film had been quite dramatic but the ending was quite abrupt and like the director had wanted everything tidied up happily. John Halliday from the start had seen more in Nan than just being a "housewife" - all her qualities of imagination and good business sense but he was very quick to ask Bette Davis for a date when George Brent started to realise what a jewel his wife was. Halliday was probably just exasperated at the way the film ended.
Recommended.
A Happy Ending from Nowhere
spirit1120 October 2000
WARNING: These comments may reveal portions of this film's plot.
This film takes you on a variety of "up's and down's" as you watch a young couple that is struggling during the depression make it big when the wife encourages her husband to strike out on his own in advertising. This portion of the film runs slow, and the entire film seems very melancholy, until the plan works and suddenly the couple is rich, pulling you up.
Then you are pulled back down when the now successful husband hires an old high-school flame onto his staff and starts an affair. The wife won't grant the husband a divorce, however, pulling the mood back down again. To throw a curve into the mix, (as if there weren't enough already), the couple's son is struck by a car. This changes both their minds about the divorce -- now she wants one, and the husband doesn't!
The film ends on another high note, with a happy ending that appears from no where. Up to this point, many portions of the film have run rather slow, just as the beginning of the film. This happy ending appears from no where -- the couple reconciles in the courtroom at their divorce.
Overall, the film surprised me. For a 1934 film to focus on the depression, adultery, and a child struck by a car doesn't seem to be much of the "happy-go-lucky" films of that era when people didn't want to be reminded of their problems -- or so I understood.
Parents, the kids won't like this one since it is a drama. They probably shouldn't see it anyway, considering the philandering of the husband and the car hitting the child. The big draw here is the "other woman," played by Bette Davis. If you can catch it on cable, you might want to check this one out.
This film takes you on a variety of "up's and down's" as you watch a young couple that is struggling during the depression make it big when the wife encourages her husband to strike out on his own in advertising. This portion of the film runs slow, and the entire film seems very melancholy, until the plan works and suddenly the couple is rich, pulling you up.
Then you are pulled back down when the now successful husband hires an old high-school flame onto his staff and starts an affair. The wife won't grant the husband a divorce, however, pulling the mood back down again. To throw a curve into the mix, (as if there weren't enough already), the couple's son is struck by a car. This changes both their minds about the divorce -- now she wants one, and the husband doesn't!
The film ends on another high note, with a happy ending that appears from no where. Up to this point, many portions of the film have run rather slow, just as the beginning of the film. This happy ending appears from no where -- the couple reconciles in the courtroom at their divorce.
Overall, the film surprised me. For a 1934 film to focus on the depression, adultery, and a child struck by a car doesn't seem to be much of the "happy-go-lucky" films of that era when people didn't want to be reminded of their problems -- or so I understood.
Parents, the kids won't like this one since it is a drama. They probably shouldn't see it anyway, considering the philandering of the husband and the car hitting the child. The big draw here is the "other woman," played by Bette Davis. If you can catch it on cable, you might want to check this one out.
Warner Bros. defiantly warns America against Roman Censorship . . .
tadpole-596-91825614 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
. . . in the first few months after the Pope insisted that His Roman Legions be allowed to snip, edit, censor, redact, and castrate American Entertainment with a perverted Holier-Than-Thou sense of misplaced priorities which would soon be feeding ALL of Italy's Jews into Hitler's Death Camp Gas Chambers and Ovens in an effort to "Save" some idolatrous fresco doodles in the Sistine Chapel. This wrong-headed Roman (commonly sold in Vatican souvenir shops as Dope-on-a-Rope) established the "Holy See-No-Evil's" Still-Blindering-the-USA-in-2017 MPAA No Fun Bozos Board of Review. (All of the True Facts of this HOUSEWIFE review are available in the 2006 documentary *THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED.) Warner cleverly trips up All of the Pope's Henchmen into a lose-lose position Vis a Vis HOUSEWIFE. After "Bill" has been Canoodling for months with "Patty" during a match obviously bronzed, welded, and cemented in Heaven, movie audiences everywhere were screaming to see Patty Caked Legally. Since Bill's wife "Nan" had let Billionaire "Paul" in by the Back Alley, Nan stood more than ready to pay the Baker's Man. By this juncture Warner's fiendishly tricky Warners bamboozled the MPAA High Priests to rear their ugly heads. The MPAA clowns insisted on rewriting the Only Possible HOUSEWIFE climax by having the Popemobile run over Bill and Nan's young son, implausibly bringing the mate-swapping couple back together!
Fair Film
Michael_Elliott26 April 2008
Housewife (1934)
** (out of 4)
Boring melodrama from Warner has a copyright expert (George Brent) becoming successful and leaving his wife (Ann Dvorak) for a vamp (Bette Davis). If you watch Turner Classic Movies late at night of early in the morning then you'll discover all sorts of lesser known titles and this is one of them but it's also like most of the melodramas they show. The film is predictable from start to finish if you've seen at least one movie like this. The film takes place in the pre-code era but sadly the movie doesn't try to do anything dangerous and instead just plays everything pretty straight. The story is your typical dumb guy gets famous an leaves for someone he thinks is better than his wife but none of this works and it just leads to one of the dumbest endings in film history. I'm really mixed when it comes to Brent because he's really hit and miss with me. I'd have to call his performance here one of the misses because he's really bland throughout and doesn't bring any energy to the role. Davis is somewhat better in the film but the screenplay doesn't do her character any justice. Dvorak is the best thing in the film but again, she isn't given too much to do.
** (out of 4)
Boring melodrama from Warner has a copyright expert (George Brent) becoming successful and leaving his wife (Ann Dvorak) for a vamp (Bette Davis). If you watch Turner Classic Movies late at night of early in the morning then you'll discover all sorts of lesser known titles and this is one of them but it's also like most of the melodramas they show. The film is predictable from start to finish if you've seen at least one movie like this. The film takes place in the pre-code era but sadly the movie doesn't try to do anything dangerous and instead just plays everything pretty straight. The story is your typical dumb guy gets famous an leaves for someone he thinks is better than his wife but none of this works and it just leads to one of the dumbest endings in film history. I'm really mixed when it comes to Brent because he's really hit and miss with me. I'd have to call his performance here one of the misses because he's really bland throughout and doesn't bring any energy to the role. Davis is somewhat better in the film but the screenplay doesn't do her character any justice. Dvorak is the best thing in the film but again, she isn't given too much to do.
B movie
blanche-216 March 2013
George Brent, Ann Dvorak, and Bette Davis star in "Housewife," a 1934 film done at Warner Brothers before they knew what they had in Bette Davis. Davis was pretty enough, with her blond hair and blue eyes, to be cast as an ingénue when she first got to Warners. When Warners realized she had some personality, they put her in films like this where she played stronger, ambitious women.
In "Housewife," she plays Pat, who has always had a mad crush on Bill (Brent), but Brent is married to Nan (Dvorak), and they have a son. Apparently this doesn't matter to her or Brent, as he starts working late at the office and enters into an affair with her. In one party scene, it's pretty obvious that they're a couple - and that's in front of his wife. His wife, well played by Ann Dvorak, refuses to give him a divorce. He doesn't know what the big deal is, apparently forgetting they have a child. All very odd - or is it the script.
This is a pretty typical and not very good B movie enlivened by the cast. I like Brent better without his mustache. Wonder why he grew one.
Pure soap opera and not of the highest quality, with a silly ending. But no Bette Davis fan will want to skip her earlier efforts; it makes one appreciate what came later.
In "Housewife," she plays Pat, who has always had a mad crush on Bill (Brent), but Brent is married to Nan (Dvorak), and they have a son. Apparently this doesn't matter to her or Brent, as he starts working late at the office and enters into an affair with her. In one party scene, it's pretty obvious that they're a couple - and that's in front of his wife. His wife, well played by Ann Dvorak, refuses to give him a divorce. He doesn't know what the big deal is, apparently forgetting they have a child. All very odd - or is it the script.
This is a pretty typical and not very good B movie enlivened by the cast. I like Brent better without his mustache. Wonder why he grew one.
Pure soap opera and not of the highest quality, with a silly ending. But no Bette Davis fan will want to skip her earlier efforts; it makes one appreciate what came later.
No Occupation, Just A Housewife
bkoganbing11 April 2008
Housewife is the kind of film that drive feminists absolutely mad in presenting the woman as fit to be nothing more than the one who keeps home and hearth for the husband. It must have been especially galling for Bette Davis who definitely did not fit the mold of the message of this film.
Bette's not in the title role, she's the infamous 'other woman' of this Warner Brothers soap opera. The title role is played by Ann Dvorak, wife of George Brent, mother of Ronnie Cosbey. She tells Brent that he's not exactly showing a certain amount of get up and go needed to succeed in the world. That sends Brent off in the direction of Davis who is a career woman who just started working at Brent's advertising agency.
In the meantime Dvorak ain't taking this philandering lying down, she shows she's got some worldly ways after all and even gets an admirer in the person of John Halliday sniffing around.
But this is 1934 so films like this can only follow certain specific formula guidelines. All these people are so terribly civilized about all this infidelity.
1934 was the year Bette Davis finally got a breakthrough part in Of Human Bondage. Yet Warner Brothers would still cast her in fluff like Housewife. No wonder she took off for Great Britain.
Bette's not in the title role, she's the infamous 'other woman' of this Warner Brothers soap opera. The title role is played by Ann Dvorak, wife of George Brent, mother of Ronnie Cosbey. She tells Brent that he's not exactly showing a certain amount of get up and go needed to succeed in the world. That sends Brent off in the direction of Davis who is a career woman who just started working at Brent's advertising agency.
In the meantime Dvorak ain't taking this philandering lying down, she shows she's got some worldly ways after all and even gets an admirer in the person of John Halliday sniffing around.
But this is 1934 so films like this can only follow certain specific formula guidelines. All these people are so terribly civilized about all this infidelity.
1934 was the year Bette Davis finally got a breakthrough part in Of Human Bondage. Yet Warner Brothers would still cast her in fluff like Housewife. No wonder she took off for Great Britain.
the type of fluff that drove Bette Davis mad!
planktonrules24 May 2006
In biographies of the life and career of Bette Davis a lot of space is devoted to her dissatisfaction with her contract with Warner in the 1930s. Her feeling was that all too often, she was asked to perform in meaningless fluff that only stifled her career. Well, having seen most of Ms. Davis' films, I can definitely understand her frustration. For every good film she did during this time, she was dumped into several completely forgettable and hastily written B-quality films.
Having said all that, this movie is a prime example of the crap that Ms. Davis was given. Here she plays a home-wrecker but is essentially limited to looking nice in a dress and being a plot device--not a real character. And, the actual plot itself is pure soapy hogwash about selfish jerk Brent and his wife, Dvorak, who loves him in spite of his being a selfish jerk. Ho-hum. There's really more to it than that, but who really cares!? The film mercifully ends, but on a sour note that is completely contrived and does nothing to help this soggy film.
PS--an odd note is the "adorable" little guy that plays Brent and Dvorak's son. Despite this movie taking place over what would seem a few years, their kid never ages and it's really creepy. He also gets run over, but like the Energizer Bunny, he keeps going. Perhaps the child is demonic? I dunno--I just know that continuity was a serious problem with the ragamuffin.
Having said all that, this movie is a prime example of the crap that Ms. Davis was given. Here she plays a home-wrecker but is essentially limited to looking nice in a dress and being a plot device--not a real character. And, the actual plot itself is pure soapy hogwash about selfish jerk Brent and his wife, Dvorak, who loves him in spite of his being a selfish jerk. Ho-hum. There's really more to it than that, but who really cares!? The film mercifully ends, but on a sour note that is completely contrived and does nothing to help this soggy film.
PS--an odd note is the "adorable" little guy that plays Brent and Dvorak's son. Despite this movie taking place over what would seem a few years, their kid never ages and it's really creepy. He also gets run over, but like the Energizer Bunny, he keeps going. Perhaps the child is demonic? I dunno--I just know that continuity was a serious problem with the ragamuffin.
Dressed to Sell
movingpicturegal18 May 2006
Self-described "just a housewife" Nan (Ann Dvorak) is married to hubby Bill (George Brent) who only earns $175 a month as office manager for an advertising firm. Scrimping and saving to make ends meet, she still manages to remember that Sunday dinner isn't Sunday dinner without Leg of Lamb (and even though complains about their lack of income, keeps a maid in the house to help her with her "housework"). Hubby has a meanie boss where he works who gives him no respect, so with wife giving him the push (she's been busy reading "Success" magazine) he quits and decides to start his own advertising firm, with strong wife by his side helping him come up with ideas AND helping him get new clients. And meanwhile - he brings over blonde Pat (Bette Davis) from his old office, a girl who once was in love with him in high school, and stills seems to hold the torch for him.
I guess the plot of this film sounds a bit silly, but I actually liked this a lot, though thought the ending was a bit tacked on and unsatisfying. Bette Davis looks very pretty in this film, and I love the chemistry between her and George Brent. Bonus - I love all the really gorgeous satin and crepe ruffled bias-cut dresses the women wear in this. Very good film, well worth seeing.
I guess the plot of this film sounds a bit silly, but I actually liked this a lot, though thought the ending was a bit tacked on and unsatisfying. Bette Davis looks very pretty in this film, and I love the chemistry between her and George Brent. Bonus - I love all the really gorgeous satin and crepe ruffled bias-cut dresses the women wear in this. Very good film, well worth seeing.
The Other Woman
nycritic18 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Proof of the matter being that you take whatever they give you when you're new at work, the badly titled HOUSEWIFE was a good story trapped in a bad movie that misused the talents of both Bette Davis and Ann Dvorak. Both women play friends vying for the same man, with the then "modern" catch that the man in question was married to Dvorak and Davis plain wanted him with the subtlety of a male ostrich trying to impress his bride-to-be. Then again, Davis was perfectly comfortable in these types of roles that made her wickedness seem just a commodity of her character, and in her limited screen time (the movie runs for a little over an hour and looks it), she manages to stir the pot and cook some nasty food. She definitely would have had a doozy of a time just floating around the story of "The Women" as yet another of these vicious vixens hoping to score a man of their own at the expense of another woman's happiness. Now, if only the story had not been part of the B-movie products turned out in those days and that the values of the time had allowed for just a shade more wickedness -- why not, even a showdown between Dvorak and Davis. The interesting thing is that despite a soap-opera plot that MGM could have produced in its sleep (and had in such stuff of the likes of WIFE VS. SECRETARY) it never feels a "woman's picture". Certainly not with the left turn the story takes in having Dvorak's son get struck by a car (although he recovers nicely the next time he's seen so maybe it wasn't that bad). Good bare-bones concept of a story, short, but ultimately just another Warner's B-picture.
Romantic struggles
TheLittleSongbird25 February 2020
While the premise sounded pretty old-hat and familiar and the title not particularly appetising (not to mention trusted reviewers not caring for it), 'Housewife' did have enough to make me want to see it. The main reasons being Bette Davis, an acting legend, and Ann Dvorak, always a pleasure to watch. But also because of my appreciation of the genre 'Housewife' fits under and of my love for classic, pre-1970s film (though my film taste is made up of all decades and genres).
'Housewife' though could have been so much better. It is watchable and does have its good things, including Davis and Dvorak. There is also though nothing much special in 'Housewife' and has a lot of major drawbacks, with the story almost single-handedly bringing the film down. All did much better work, performances and films, despite coming off quite well this is lesser early Davis in terms of films and even a lot of her previous films are better.
As said, Davis commands the screen without over-doing it, though to me it wasn't a going through the motions type of performance. The best performance as others have said belongs to Dvorak, a sheer delight and perhaps the best and only real exceptional thing about 'Housewife'. The film looks good and is amiably scored.
It does pick up in momentum a little in the middle act where things got more eventful. There are moments where the dialogue isn't too corny or overwrought.
The story sadly badly undoes 'Housewife'. It is a slow-starter and takes far too long to find its footing. For so much of the length, the story is very flimsy in content and what there is is so been there done that that there are so few surprises. Then the film gets very rushed and cramped towards the end, culminating in an "out of the blue", very silly and tacked on ending that doesn't ring true for a second.
George Brent is very take or leave for me generally as an actor, and here he came over as very bland as a character impossible to feel anything for. The direction is very routine at best, which is a good way to sum up too much of the pace too. The characters are sketchy and only Dvorak's has much likeability. The script was in sore need of a tightening up and wit.
All in all, watchable but a big disappointment. 5/10
'Housewife' though could have been so much better. It is watchable and does have its good things, including Davis and Dvorak. There is also though nothing much special in 'Housewife' and has a lot of major drawbacks, with the story almost single-handedly bringing the film down. All did much better work, performances and films, despite coming off quite well this is lesser early Davis in terms of films and even a lot of her previous films are better.
As said, Davis commands the screen without over-doing it, though to me it wasn't a going through the motions type of performance. The best performance as others have said belongs to Dvorak, a sheer delight and perhaps the best and only real exceptional thing about 'Housewife'. The film looks good and is amiably scored.
It does pick up in momentum a little in the middle act where things got more eventful. There are moments where the dialogue isn't too corny or overwrought.
The story sadly badly undoes 'Housewife'. It is a slow-starter and takes far too long to find its footing. For so much of the length, the story is very flimsy in content and what there is is so been there done that that there are so few surprises. Then the film gets very rushed and cramped towards the end, culminating in an "out of the blue", very silly and tacked on ending that doesn't ring true for a second.
George Brent is very take or leave for me generally as an actor, and here he came over as very bland as a character impossible to feel anything for. The direction is very routine at best, which is a good way to sum up too much of the pace too. The characters are sketchy and only Dvorak's has much likeability. The script was in sore need of a tightening up and wit.
All in all, watchable but a big disappointment. 5/10
You couldn't have your home wrecked by a finer actress.
mark.waltz11 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
When married George Brent's old acquaintance Bette Davis drops back into his life, it's only a matter of time before his long suffering wife Ann Dvorak finds herself tossed to the side. Sexpot Davis challenges Brent in ways his housewife spouse can't, and she's thrust into the nasty path to divorce court. A super cast takes this standard tale of a struggling marriage to higher places that it would have been with lesser talents, and the two women represent total opposites while never upstaging the other. Had Ann Dvorak wanted to, she could have been as big a star as Davis, having the same spunk when it came to fighting for respect, but not the same type of drive when it came to having the same lengthy career. Brent compliments both ladies without being over shadowed by them, and it's easy to see why he worked with pretty much every leading lady in the 1930's. But overall, it's standard stuff that would most likely be forgotten by the time the audience got home.
Bette hates it, but I love it!
JohnHowardReid16 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
George Brent (Bill Reynolds), Ann Dvorak (Nan Reynolds), Bette Davis (Pat Berkeley), John Halliday (Paul Duprey), Robert Barrat (Sam Blake), Hobart Cavanaugh (George Wilson), Ruth Donnelly (Dora Wilson), Joseph Cawthorne (Krueger), Phil Regan (radio singer of Duprey's commercial), Willard Robertson (testy judge), Ronnie Cosby (Buddy Reynolds), Harry Tyler ($2 plumber), Leila Bennett (Jenny), Charles Coleman (Bolton, the butler), William B. Davidson (Nan's lawyer), Edward Keane (Bill's lawyer), Eula Guy (Bill's secretary), Renee Whitney (Bill's receptionist), Morris Goldman (Rastus), Harrison Greene (Sambo), Donna Roberts (George's secretary), Ethel Wales, Lillian Harmer (voter registrars), John Hyams, Landers Stevens (impatient clients), John T. Murray (salesman), Leo White (waiter), Pauline True (Miss Martin, the typist), Perry Ivins (Joe Stevens), Art Holland (adding machine clerk), Jonathan Hale (doctor), Bill Elliott (clerk).
Director: ALFRED E. GREEN. Screenplay: Lillie Hayward, Manuel Seff. Story: Lillie Hayward, Robert Lord. Photography: William Rees. Film editor: James Gibbon. Art director: Robert M. Haas. Costumes designed by Orry-Kelly. Songs by Mort Dixon and Allie Wrubel. Music director: Leo F. Forbstein. Associate producer: Robert Lord.
Copyright 21 July 1934 by Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Strand: 9 August 1934. U.S. release: 11 August 1934. U.K. release: 13 April 1935. Australian release: 21 November 1934. 7 reels. 69 minutes.
SYNOPSIS: Married but harried advertising man meets up with an old flame.
COMMENT: A charming film, breezily directed by Alfred E. Green. The script packs enough material into its short running time for two or three features. It runs the gamut of captivating romance, trenchant satire, three-handkerchief domestic drama and brittle comedy of manners.
Admittedly, the triangle situation involving somewhat dowdy wife, go-getting hero and vampish employee gets the most play, while the sob stuff (thank goodness!) the least.
And fortunately the satire (directed almost entirely against advertising copy writers and commercial radio, although two or three other topics get more than a passing nod) gets a mighty good run.
What's even more pleasing, our players all have a grand time, including Miss Bette Davis who here makes not only a most convincing femme fatale but was never more beautifully made up, seductively costumed and lustrously photographed. (Needless to say, she hated the movie. "What a horror!" she exclaimed in a 1973 interview).
The other stars are a little outclassed by Bette, but nonetheless George Brent and Ann Dvorak give their material such a good college try, audiences are almost cheering when the couple disrupt their divorce proceedings.
The support brigades, led by the charismatic John Halliday, are all in particularly fine form. Ruth Donnelly, Hobart Cavanaugh and Robert Barrat deserve special mention. Phil Regan puts his all into a (deliberately) absolutely rotten song, while Morris Goldman and Harrison Greene really smell up the place as a pair of (once again, deliberately) really on-the-nose, blackface comics.
Director: ALFRED E. GREEN. Screenplay: Lillie Hayward, Manuel Seff. Story: Lillie Hayward, Robert Lord. Photography: William Rees. Film editor: James Gibbon. Art director: Robert M. Haas. Costumes designed by Orry-Kelly. Songs by Mort Dixon and Allie Wrubel. Music director: Leo F. Forbstein. Associate producer: Robert Lord.
Copyright 21 July 1934 by Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Strand: 9 August 1934. U.S. release: 11 August 1934. U.K. release: 13 April 1935. Australian release: 21 November 1934. 7 reels. 69 minutes.
SYNOPSIS: Married but harried advertising man meets up with an old flame.
COMMENT: A charming film, breezily directed by Alfred E. Green. The script packs enough material into its short running time for two or three features. It runs the gamut of captivating romance, trenchant satire, three-handkerchief domestic drama and brittle comedy of manners.
Admittedly, the triangle situation involving somewhat dowdy wife, go-getting hero and vampish employee gets the most play, while the sob stuff (thank goodness!) the least.
And fortunately the satire (directed almost entirely against advertising copy writers and commercial radio, although two or three other topics get more than a passing nod) gets a mighty good run.
What's even more pleasing, our players all have a grand time, including Miss Bette Davis who here makes not only a most convincing femme fatale but was never more beautifully made up, seductively costumed and lustrously photographed. (Needless to say, she hated the movie. "What a horror!" she exclaimed in a 1973 interview).
The other stars are a little outclassed by Bette, but nonetheless George Brent and Ann Dvorak give their material such a good college try, audiences are almost cheering when the couple disrupt their divorce proceedings.
The support brigades, led by the charismatic John Halliday, are all in particularly fine form. Ruth Donnelly, Hobart Cavanaugh and Robert Barrat deserve special mention. Phil Regan puts his all into a (deliberately) absolutely rotten song, while Morris Goldman and Harrison Greene really smell up the place as a pair of (once again, deliberately) really on-the-nose, blackface comics.
Her Husband's Affairs
lugonian24 November 2019
HOUSEWIFE (Warner Brothers, 1934), directed by Alfred E. Green, is a domestic story known basically as a Bette Davis movie. Though Davis appears in it, star billing actually goes to her frequent co-star, George Brent, in their third movie together, while the title character goes to third-billed Ann Dvorak as Brent's housewife. Taking second billing under Brent, Davis' role, as the other woman, might have benefited better and favorably for type-cast vamps as Helen Vinson or Claire Dodd, considering the fact that the Davis role is actually secondary and lesser to Dvorak's major co-starring performance.
Plot development begins with the introduction of characters starting off their new day at the breakfast table. William H. Reynolds (George Brent) is happily married to Nan (Ann Dvorak), with a son, Buddy (Ronnie Cosbey), who collects stray dogs, and a housekeeper named Jennie (Leila Bennett). Though Bill has worked as an office manager for Sam Blake (Robert Barratt) agency for five years without a raise in salary, his brother-in-law, George Wilson (Hobart Cavanaugh), who works with Bill, comes in late mainly to improve himself looking for a new and better job. After acquiring a job that pays $10 more than his present salary, Nan feels Bill can do the same, but he lacks confidence in himself in spite of some great ideas that can advance himself with the firm. Entering the establishment is Patricia Berkeley (Bette Davis), formerly Ruth Smith, a successful copyrighter who has known both Bill and Nan during their high school days. Seeing how he's not fully appreciated by Blake, Bill quits. Under his wife's advise and extra savings, he forms an agency of his own called the William H. Reynolds Company. Though he gets Mr. Krueger (Joseph Cawthorne) as his first client, it's not enough for him to survive until Bill becomes more aggressive enough to get one of Blake's most prospective clients, Paul Dupree (John Halliday), a cosmetics manufacturer, to advertise with him instead, taking Patricia along with him. Through the passage of time, Bill's business prospers, with he and his family now living in a luxurious new home with servants, and Buddy being sent to military school. All goes well until Nan notices Bill is spending more time away from home and business in favor of Patricia. Others in the cast include Ruth Donnelly (Dora Wilson, George's wife); Willard Robertson (Judge Edwin A. Matthews); Jonathan Hale (The Doctor) and Charles Coleman (Bolton, the Butler). One song, "Costumes by Dupree" by Mort Dixon and Allie Wrubel, gets vocalized by Phil Regan as Mike Hathaway during a radio broadcast.
A mediocre assignment for future major lead actress, Bette Davis, who might have thought of this assignment as both formula and forgettable. Yet her smoking trademark is evident here but little else except a rare opportunity finding Davis playing the other woman. For this 69 minute production, the film overall moves swiftly more in favor of its featured players of Brent and Dvorak. HOUSEWIFE does offer Davis her second and final collaboration opposite Ann Dvorak, following THREE ON A MATCH (1932), starring Joan Blondell, which Dvorak's role was a lot more meatier than Davis' secondary and smaller performance. John Halliday, playing a rich bachelor business tycoon who finds out what he's been missing after witnessing the Reynolds family life with child, is believably done. Ruth Donnelly as Dvorak's sister-in-law seems a little miscast here, but her role in general is not large enough to hurt the story in any way. Ronnie Cosbey, whom the Dvorak character claims him to be "all boy," is likable as the little son. In spite some similar features, he's not the same little actor from THREE ON A MATCH, actually played by Buster Phelps, minus the curly hair. For the teaming of George Brent and Bette Davis, better roles, particularly DARK VICTORY (1939) were ahead of them. HOUSEWIFE'S sole purpose today is getting a glimpse of its three major actors early in their careers, particularly career woman Davis, better off playing the other woman than just a housewife.
Never distributed on video cassette, HOUSEWIFE often turns up on Turner Classic Movies as either tributes to either Brent, Davis or Dvorak, or broadcast in general showing the now many forgotten films of the 1930s worthy of rediscovery. (** dishes)
Plot development begins with the introduction of characters starting off their new day at the breakfast table. William H. Reynolds (George Brent) is happily married to Nan (Ann Dvorak), with a son, Buddy (Ronnie Cosbey), who collects stray dogs, and a housekeeper named Jennie (Leila Bennett). Though Bill has worked as an office manager for Sam Blake (Robert Barratt) agency for five years without a raise in salary, his brother-in-law, George Wilson (Hobart Cavanaugh), who works with Bill, comes in late mainly to improve himself looking for a new and better job. After acquiring a job that pays $10 more than his present salary, Nan feels Bill can do the same, but he lacks confidence in himself in spite of some great ideas that can advance himself with the firm. Entering the establishment is Patricia Berkeley (Bette Davis), formerly Ruth Smith, a successful copyrighter who has known both Bill and Nan during their high school days. Seeing how he's not fully appreciated by Blake, Bill quits. Under his wife's advise and extra savings, he forms an agency of his own called the William H. Reynolds Company. Though he gets Mr. Krueger (Joseph Cawthorne) as his first client, it's not enough for him to survive until Bill becomes more aggressive enough to get one of Blake's most prospective clients, Paul Dupree (John Halliday), a cosmetics manufacturer, to advertise with him instead, taking Patricia along with him. Through the passage of time, Bill's business prospers, with he and his family now living in a luxurious new home with servants, and Buddy being sent to military school. All goes well until Nan notices Bill is spending more time away from home and business in favor of Patricia. Others in the cast include Ruth Donnelly (Dora Wilson, George's wife); Willard Robertson (Judge Edwin A. Matthews); Jonathan Hale (The Doctor) and Charles Coleman (Bolton, the Butler). One song, "Costumes by Dupree" by Mort Dixon and Allie Wrubel, gets vocalized by Phil Regan as Mike Hathaway during a radio broadcast.
A mediocre assignment for future major lead actress, Bette Davis, who might have thought of this assignment as both formula and forgettable. Yet her smoking trademark is evident here but little else except a rare opportunity finding Davis playing the other woman. For this 69 minute production, the film overall moves swiftly more in favor of its featured players of Brent and Dvorak. HOUSEWIFE does offer Davis her second and final collaboration opposite Ann Dvorak, following THREE ON A MATCH (1932), starring Joan Blondell, which Dvorak's role was a lot more meatier than Davis' secondary and smaller performance. John Halliday, playing a rich bachelor business tycoon who finds out what he's been missing after witnessing the Reynolds family life with child, is believably done. Ruth Donnelly as Dvorak's sister-in-law seems a little miscast here, but her role in general is not large enough to hurt the story in any way. Ronnie Cosbey, whom the Dvorak character claims him to be "all boy," is likable as the little son. In spite some similar features, he's not the same little actor from THREE ON A MATCH, actually played by Buster Phelps, minus the curly hair. For the teaming of George Brent and Bette Davis, better roles, particularly DARK VICTORY (1939) were ahead of them. HOUSEWIFE'S sole purpose today is getting a glimpse of its three major actors early in their careers, particularly career woman Davis, better off playing the other woman than just a housewife.
Never distributed on video cassette, HOUSEWIFE often turns up on Turner Classic Movies as either tributes to either Brent, Davis or Dvorak, or broadcast in general showing the now many forgotten films of the 1930s worthy of rediscovery. (** dishes)
Decidedly disappointing film, except for Ann Dvorak's performance
vincentlynch-moonoi15 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I think our reviewers miss what is really "wrong" with this film. It's not "fluff". It's not "uninspired". It is the year it was made -- 1934. The minute I began watching this film it seemed like a very, very old movie. So I looked at Bette Davis' filmography and noted that for her, her modern period of film-making really began rather suddenly in 1938. "Jezebel", "Dark Victory", "The Old Maid", "The Letter". But here, the staging, the photography, even the sound all seem not that removed from a silent film...and of course, the silents really were not that far away (as late as mid-1930, many films were still being made in 2 versions -- silent and sound).
Bette Davis is nearly irrelevant until half-way through the film (remember, one of her breakthrough films -- "The Petrified Forest" -- is still 6 films away), and then we begin to see the Davis we came to love just a few years later. But in this film, Davis is merely a supporting actress. And if you're expecting the chemistry that we later saw with George Brent and Bette Davis, it hadn't developed yet in this film. Brent is disappointing here, and never more so then when he strikes his son with his car.
The first half of the film belongs to Ann Dvorak and George Brent, and Dvorak is excellent here. While she may seem like merely a housewife in the early parts of the film, she develops her role well, and you're almost surprised at how mature she has become later in the film.
You should carefully watch John Halliday. Early in the film his role seems minor, but he plays an increasingly important part as the film progresses, and he does it well.
Unfortunately, the film is pretty much ruined by the stupid -- yes, STUPID -- courtroom scene. Apparently the writers couldn't find any way to come up with the requisite happy ending, but they should have been embarrassed by this ending.
This is a disappointing film, and I'll give it a rare "5".
Bette Davis is nearly irrelevant until half-way through the film (remember, one of her breakthrough films -- "The Petrified Forest" -- is still 6 films away), and then we begin to see the Davis we came to love just a few years later. But in this film, Davis is merely a supporting actress. And if you're expecting the chemistry that we later saw with George Brent and Bette Davis, it hadn't developed yet in this film. Brent is disappointing here, and never more so then when he strikes his son with his car.
The first half of the film belongs to Ann Dvorak and George Brent, and Dvorak is excellent here. While she may seem like merely a housewife in the early parts of the film, she develops her role well, and you're almost surprised at how mature she has become later in the film.
You should carefully watch John Halliday. Early in the film his role seems minor, but he plays an increasingly important part as the film progresses, and he does it well.
Unfortunately, the film is pretty much ruined by the stupid -- yes, STUPID -- courtroom scene. Apparently the writers couldn't find any way to come up with the requisite happy ending, but they should have been embarrassed by this ending.
This is a disappointing film, and I'll give it a rare "5".
Money Means Mistress
view_and_review1 May 2024
Warning: Spoilers
After watching "Ladies Should Listen" I queued up "Housewife." I had already watched "A Good Dame," "Ladies They Talk About," and "Gold Diggers". I only need to watch "A Woman's Place," "Cook My Meal," and "Woman Shut Up" to get a full understanding of the female role in the 30's.
"Housewife" was too much of a rerun. A struggling married man became successful then had an affair. I can't believe they were still pitching that narrative. Just watch "No Other Woman," "Palooka," "Crooner," or any number of movies from that time period. High society men and mistresses go together like peanut butter and jelly.
William Reynolds (George Brent) was a lowly office manager at an advertising agency. His wife Nan (Ann Dvorak) was a busy and, quite frankly, mistreated housewife. She was expected to fix leaky faucets, handle calls from bill collectors, cook, clean, and raise their son. For such a small family their house was busier than Grand Central Station, which I found a tad hard to believe. A family of three was such a task that they needed a maid, which is another oddity of yesteryear. How in the world did a family that was trying to scrimp and save afford a maid??
Nan happily worked as an overly-taxed housewife while her husband refused to lift a finger. He had no time for such trivialities such as taking care of bills or repairs. He'd been so busy at work he had no energy to help.
At home William was a king. At work he was a servant. His boss, Sam Blake (Robert Barrat), shat on him like he shat on his wife. The implication was that William was simply mimicking his boss while at home. William had had enough of his boss one day when Blake cruelly dismissed him and an idea he had. With his wife's encouragement and the money she saved being a thrifty housewife he struck out on his own. He was going to create a rival ad company that was full of new ideas (aka his wife's ideas).
In little time at all William had a thriving ad company. He and his wife moved from an outhouse to a penthouse. William even had the money and clout to attract Patricia Berkeley (Bette Davis), a premier ad creator. It wasn't much later that the two were carrying on an affair. A trite, rote affair.
This movie was so hamfisted and juvenile with the story that they made William lacking in any kind of discretion or social intelligence. The message was: "Once men get money they lose all of their sense;" which may be true, but I'd expect it to take some time. Who works so hard to build something only to neglect it and what got you there immediately after attaining success? In the case of "Housewife," William did. He got a taste of success and began catting around with Patricia (Bette Davis). He was so shameless with it that he was draped over Patricia in social settings right in front of his wife!! I found that a very forced addition to the movie because if I know one thing about high society of that era it is that appearances are everything. A mistress is fine, but you never flaunt her in public in front of your own spouse. Even if he wasn't society, I'd think he'd have enough shame and decency to spare his wife seeing him making love to another woman. He was so completely stuck on Patricia that he even ignored his biggest client.
Who does that?
William and Nan were headed for divorce. Waiting in the wings were Patricia and Paul Duprey (John Halliday). They would claim each respective rebound. Nan wasn't going to give up William so easily though. She'd helped to get him where he was, so she wasn't OK with allowing Patricia to reap the crop she painstakingly planted, nurtured, and grew. I could understand the sentiment, even if her husband was a scoundrel. It's a precarious predicament to be in. On the one hand, her husband was cheating on her; on the other hand, if she granted him a divorce she'd be giving him and Patricia what they both wanted.
She finally opted for divorce when William accidently ran over his own kid. She didn't want William sticking around out of pity. In divorce court they made up and had a happy reunion while Patricia and Paul had to walk away empty handed.*
In the next scene we see Nan happily proclaiming that she's a housewife as if she'd suffered nothing at all: no humiliation, no anger, no broken heartedness. She rebounded from her husband's cheating and the near collapse of her marriage as though she was happier it survived the trial than upset she had to be dragged through such a trial. It's embarrassing to watch and upsetting as well because I don't know any people like that. I don't know any Nan's or any women like a lot of the Stepford women in many of the 30's movies. Just show more real, authentic women, that's all I ask.
*It's hilariously stupid to see two paramours in court waiting for a divorce to be made final so that they could leave with their prize.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
"Housewife" was too much of a rerun. A struggling married man became successful then had an affair. I can't believe they were still pitching that narrative. Just watch "No Other Woman," "Palooka," "Crooner," or any number of movies from that time period. High society men and mistresses go together like peanut butter and jelly.
William Reynolds (George Brent) was a lowly office manager at an advertising agency. His wife Nan (Ann Dvorak) was a busy and, quite frankly, mistreated housewife. She was expected to fix leaky faucets, handle calls from bill collectors, cook, clean, and raise their son. For such a small family their house was busier than Grand Central Station, which I found a tad hard to believe. A family of three was such a task that they needed a maid, which is another oddity of yesteryear. How in the world did a family that was trying to scrimp and save afford a maid??
Nan happily worked as an overly-taxed housewife while her husband refused to lift a finger. He had no time for such trivialities such as taking care of bills or repairs. He'd been so busy at work he had no energy to help.
At home William was a king. At work he was a servant. His boss, Sam Blake (Robert Barrat), shat on him like he shat on his wife. The implication was that William was simply mimicking his boss while at home. William had had enough of his boss one day when Blake cruelly dismissed him and an idea he had. With his wife's encouragement and the money she saved being a thrifty housewife he struck out on his own. He was going to create a rival ad company that was full of new ideas (aka his wife's ideas).
In little time at all William had a thriving ad company. He and his wife moved from an outhouse to a penthouse. William even had the money and clout to attract Patricia Berkeley (Bette Davis), a premier ad creator. It wasn't much later that the two were carrying on an affair. A trite, rote affair.
This movie was so hamfisted and juvenile with the story that they made William lacking in any kind of discretion or social intelligence. The message was: "Once men get money they lose all of their sense;" which may be true, but I'd expect it to take some time. Who works so hard to build something only to neglect it and what got you there immediately after attaining success? In the case of "Housewife," William did. He got a taste of success and began catting around with Patricia (Bette Davis). He was so shameless with it that he was draped over Patricia in social settings right in front of his wife!! I found that a very forced addition to the movie because if I know one thing about high society of that era it is that appearances are everything. A mistress is fine, but you never flaunt her in public in front of your own spouse. Even if he wasn't society, I'd think he'd have enough shame and decency to spare his wife seeing him making love to another woman. He was so completely stuck on Patricia that he even ignored his biggest client.
Who does that?
William and Nan were headed for divorce. Waiting in the wings were Patricia and Paul Duprey (John Halliday). They would claim each respective rebound. Nan wasn't going to give up William so easily though. She'd helped to get him where he was, so she wasn't OK with allowing Patricia to reap the crop she painstakingly planted, nurtured, and grew. I could understand the sentiment, even if her husband was a scoundrel. It's a precarious predicament to be in. On the one hand, her husband was cheating on her; on the other hand, if she granted him a divorce she'd be giving him and Patricia what they both wanted.
She finally opted for divorce when William accidently ran over his own kid. She didn't want William sticking around out of pity. In divorce court they made up and had a happy reunion while Patricia and Paul had to walk away empty handed.*
In the next scene we see Nan happily proclaiming that she's a housewife as if she'd suffered nothing at all: no humiliation, no anger, no broken heartedness. She rebounded from her husband's cheating and the near collapse of her marriage as though she was happier it survived the trial than upset she had to be dragged through such a trial. It's embarrassing to watch and upsetting as well because I don't know any people like that. I don't know any Nan's or any women like a lot of the Stepford women in many of the 30's movies. Just show more real, authentic women, that's all I ask.
*It's hilariously stupid to see two paramours in court waiting for a divorce to be made final so that they could leave with their prize.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
