User Reviews

TO EACH HIS OWN is in that category of woman's films dealing with a mother who loses her child for social or economic reasons. So it is in the same group as MADAME X (in all it's versions) or STELLA DALLAS. But it is little better than a superior weeper. Mitchell Leisin was a director with taste and ability, frequently given run-of-the-mill assignments, and sometimes given important films that were taken from him and mangled (LADY IN THE DARK). But when given a sensible property like EASY LIVING or HOLD BACK THE DAWN he turned in one really good result of a film.

In 1941 Leisin had directed Olivia De Haviland in HOLD BACK THE DAWN, a film about European immigrants in a Mexican/American border town like Tijuana, who were hoping to figure out how to finally achieve permission to come into the U.S. and become citizens. De Haviland played an American school teacher who is swept off her feet by a calculating gigolo (Charles Boyer) and ends marrying him (which is how he plans to become an American citizen). Her performance was well done, and she got nominated for the Best Actress Oscar of that year. Unfortunately, her sister Joan Fontaine was also nominated for SUSPICION.

Fontaine was on a personal high at that time, as she had been the star of Hitchcock's film REBECCA the year before, and now that great director directed her in this second film. The news media built up the rivalry between the two sisters, probably out of nothing in particular. As it turned out, the result was good for Fontaine but bad for De Haviland. And a breach apparently did develop between the sisters (if it had not been there before).

But in 1946 Leisin got a second chance to direct De Haviland. Here she was Jody Norris, the daughter of a pharmacist in a New York State small town. In 1917 her town is visited by a pilot (John Lund) who is on a bond selling tour for the war effort. Lund and De Haviland hit it off in the brief time they are together, and have a very passionate love affair. But he has to return to the front. He leaves and she soon finds she is pregnant. Then she hears he is killed in the war. De Haviland decides (with the advice of her father) to have the baby away from the town, and then to arrange for it to be deposited on the doorstep of a poor family who have too many children. Her intention is to come by with her father, find the family can't afford to have another baby to feed, and offer to adopt the baby so they can avoid a scandal and keep the child.

Unfortunately the best laid schemes fall apart - De Haviland's rival, a wealthy snob (Mary Anderson) had married one of De Haviland's boyfriends (Philip Terry) but had lost their child. Terry hears about the foundling, and beats De Haviland and her father to the poor family's house. He and Anderson adopt the baby. And De Haviland's sad heartbreak begins. She can't (as her wise father - Griff Barnett - points out) make a scene about her rights to adopt the foundling without making everyone aware that she must be the mother. If she does it will bring shame down on the baby boy.

In the course of the film, De Haviland tries, over the years, to remain as close as possible to the baby as she can. Unfotunately Anderson keeps thinking that Terry is actually keeping sexual relations with De Haviland. Soon she is forbidden the house. Later she tries economic pressures, but with even less success - the baby has grown into the loyal little son of Anderson, and rebels against De Haviland's encroachment.

The script of Charles Brackett & Jacques Thery allows De Haviland to show more than heartbreak. She has been her father's assistant in the drugstore, and she puts this to use in building up a cosmetic empire (like Helena Rubenstein's). Also Anderson and Terry face financial problems, as Anderson's father manufactured player pianos - which are going out of favor in the depression. This briefly gives De Haviland her financial pressure on them to try to take Gregory ("Griggsy") - her son - back. And it does not work.

Still, De Haviland keeps tabs on her son. She has moved to England as she got wealthier, and the surrounding framework of the film shows her as a fire-watcher with a nobleman, Lord Desham (Roland Culver). They narrowly have a fatal accident, and when they are together having dinner we learn the story - and that she has a chance (she thinks) of seeing her son again before he is shipped to the front. Will she see him or not? De Haviland's role gave her scope to show heartbreak and to show sense and to show overreaching. It was a marvelous part. Leisin's direction gave her every opportunity, and he brought out the best in the supporting cast - and the over-the-years review of events like the rise of women in business, prohibition, the Depression, and the Wars helped the film too. De Haviland got nominated for an Oscar for best actress for TO EACH HIS OWN in 1946 - and this time she won. She would repeat her success in a few years with THE HEIRESS as well.

I was so excited to see this film because it was one that has thus far somehow eluded me in my quest for great cinema classics. And of course, I was not disappointed - after all, it starred the incomparable Olivia de Haviland.

To Each His Own is a classic melodrama which begins with a middle aged Olivia living in London, and is told through a series of flashbacks. It is the story of a young woman who meets a dashing airline pilot around 1916, falls in love and essentially has a one night stand with him. He flies off to France and writes her love letters, but unfortunately word comes back to her that he has been shot down. Around the same time she realizes that she is also pregnant with his baby. (Gasp!) Without revealing any spoilers, the film basically highlights moments for the next twenty years of her life.

I can honestly say that I have not seen a de Haviland film I didn't like, and she is one of my favorite classic film actresses along with her sister Joan Fontaine and my personal favorite, the great Bette Davis. She does not have the high drama that Davis projects, but she possesses such an incredible dignity and intelligence that flows into her work. To Each His Own won de Haviland her first Oscar in 1946, a very well-deserved honor for her. She followed it up a couple of years later with her fantastic turn in The Heiress, which earned her another Oscar.

This was a great melodramatic story that must have been slightly controversial in its day. Grab some tissues and enjoy this fine film.

--Shelly

Olivia De Havilland's first Oscar came for "To Each His Own."

After a one night stand with a pilot, De Havilland, a small town girl with intelligence and moral fortitude, finds herself in trouble.

Giving the child up is the most heart rendering thing imaginable to view.

Years later as the world enters World War 11, in a chance meeting, De Havilland meets the child, now a grown man and in the army as well.

Through the years, when they did meet, he could never imagine why she would cling to him.

With his wedding approaching, De Havilland attends it in London, where she now resides. When the son realizes who she is, he brought many a tear to the eye when he says, "May I have this dance, mother?"

Well done tear-jerker. A bold step in tackling the concept of illegitimacy; although, we saw this concept as early as 1932 in "The Sin of Madelon Claudet." Heroine Helen Hayes got an Oscar for that one as well. What does that tell you about Hollywood and socially controversial topics?

I have long admired Olivia de Havilland, partly because she was one of the stars of my favorite film -- "Gone With The Wind". Somehow I had never seen "To Each His Own", so I was rather glad to finally catch it on TCM. Considering the hype around the film -- mostly due to de Havilland having received the Academy Award for her performance -- I was a tad bit disappointed. Yes, her performance is excellent, but the film itself is only (only?) very good.

The story begins in London in World War II London, where Olivia is a fire warden. There she meets Lord Desham (Roland Culver), and at first they really grate on each other. Through an odd occurrence, however, they appear to possibly be headed for a long-term companionship. There's something about this part of the film that I found very boring.

In flash backs we then learn Olivia's history. A young lady in an American small town, she awkwardly falls in love with a WWI pilot (John Lund) on a barnstorming trip selling war bonds. Jody is the belle of her small American hometown of Piersen Falls. They only have one night together, shortly after which he dies in the war...but not before that one night together ends in pregnancy. Again, this part of the film seems awkward to me, but it is surprising that the unwed pregnancy is handled rather so-whatish for 1946. Not wanting the town to know of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy, she devises a plot to be able to claim her own baby as a war orphan. The plan goes terribly wrong, and the baby ends up the adopted son of an ex-boyfriend and his wife, crushing Olivia. She plots to win the boy back...and almost succeeds with her newfound fortune through another ex-suitor, but the child loves his adopted mother more than Olivia, so she gives the boy up.

Heartbroken, Olivia goes to England to continue working in her new profession (cosmetics). During World War II, her son (also played by John Lund; quite the fatherly resemblance!!!!) becomes a pilot. On leave in London, he is met at the train station by Olivia who tries to pamper him with affection, but is flummoxed when he wants to get married to a WAC-type young lady. Lord Desham arranges a wedding by breaking England's typical wedding laws, and while Lund's helpful friend (Olivia) is dancing with Lund, he finally realizes she is his real mother.

It's a good story, handled fairly well, but a bit unevenly.

In terms of the acting, Olivia de Havilland is fine as the real mother; I'm not sure it was of Academy Award status, but may have been due to the famous lawsuit that freed her from her Warner Brothers contract.

I was not so impressed with Mary Anderson as the adoptive mother; a bit too childishly vindictive, in my view, although that may have been the fault of director Mitchell Leisen. Roland Culver is fine as the British Lord Desham; very distinguished. Phillip Terry was a bit annoying as the other suitor, but much better once he became the husband of the adoptive mother; I wasn't very familiar with him, although he appeared in more than 80 movies. I always enjoy seeing Bill Goodwin, here as another suitor; he always seemed so comfortable on screen, but never made it beyond character acting. This was John Lund's first film, and a dual role at that. It seems to me that he never lived up to what was seen as his potential, but maybe that's just me since my introduction to him was in the Martin & Lewis debut film "My Friend Irma".

Don't get me wrong. This is a very good film. I just don't feel that it quite lives up to the hype around it.

...and I know that people will say it's soap opera !But to make that kind of soap opera,as Stahl,Minnelli and Sirk showed it through the years,it takes some kind of genius! First the structure:first a prologue ,then flashbacks and an epilogue ,which while going back to the present,connects all the links of the chain in an awesome way.It's not unlike Leisen's previous (and remarkable too) 'Hold back the dawn" : Lord Desham plays the same part as the director in the 1941 movie ;Although Jody does not tell her secret to him ,it's finally him who makes her dream come true.

"To each his own" possesses everything that makes a melodrama great: a "tearjerker" (not meant pejoratively) subject: the well known story of the unwed mother who's forced to leave her child to another family ,it recalls "the old maid" ,another classic where Bette Davis had a fate similar to her good friend Olivia de Havilland's; and ,another permanent feature of the genre,the heroine who has lost love (or who thinks that she 's through with it )and who begins a formidable business woman career (there are plenty of examples:Stahl's "Only yesterday" and "imitation of life" ,Sirk's "Written on the wind" );and a grandiose finale with a last line (I think it is our dance ,mother) to rival the best of the last lines.

To write that De Havilland deserved her AA is to state the obvious.She actually plays three parts ,with the same talent.Like her peer Davis in "the old maid" ,she was not afraid of making herself look older or uglier .(see also "the heiress" "hold back the dawn" "snake pit" ).

Olivia de Havilland won the Oscar for best actress in 1947 for "To Each his Own" a tearjerker, made in 1946. She was one of the great actresses of the day when movies were worth going to see. She made many good movies such as "Hush hush sweet Charlotte, Snake Pit are two good ones.They were released on DVD. But "To each his own is one of my personal favourites. 430 people on IMDb.com have rated this movie highly at 8/10 as of Sept./08, so why on earth has this good movie never been released on DVD. I am lucky to have it on video, but would rather have the DVD. In "To each His own", Olivia is Jody Norris, a small town girl working in her fathers store. She meets a handsome young air force pilot and they fall in love. He leaves to go to war and Olivia finds herself going to be a single mother. In those days young women were isolated and not supported when having a baby out of wedlock. Nothing like today. Olivia has a lot of heartache to go through, has the baby but faces further heartbreak. Her life moves on after she has the baby, who she was not able to keep, but I won't say any more. Get a hanky out for the ending. Studios, one of you need to get this movie out on DVD. If you can release a lot of junky movies on DVD, you can release this good classic on DVD. It would sell well. I'm tired waiting and getting older by the day. I've got about 100 good DVD movies, and need the DVD of this one as soon as possible.