{"id":732,"date":"2013-03-17T14:59:17","date_gmt":"2013-03-17T18:59:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tr10023.com\/?p=732"},"modified":"2013-10-18T08:53:04","modified_gmt":"2013-10-18T12:53:04","slug":"mr-skeffington","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.tr10023.com\/?p=732","title":{"rendered":"Mr Skeffington"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Claude<\/a>

Claude Rains as Mr Skeffington: The patience of Job.<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

Why isn’t “Mr Skeffington” a better picture than it is? \u00a0Why is it one of the least satisfactory Bette Davis\/Claude Rains pairings? \u00a0Davis was particularly fond of “Mr Skeffington.” It’s hard to tell why. \u00a0Her performance is a tour de force, as is Claude Rains’, so perhaps that was enough for her. \u00a0It’s enough for me, too, to a limited extent. \u00a0Yet, I can’t help disliking the picture for many reasons, the most important being that it could so easily have been so much better than it is. \u00a0The picture is a mess: \u00a0the story is interesting, individual scenes work well enough, and there are several fine performances. But it lacks the narrative momentum that was a hallmark of Warner Bros. pictures of that era — even the lousy ones. \u00a0At two and a half hours long, it’s almost a full hour longer than the average Warner Bros. picture of the mid-40s, but after sitting through it a number of times, I realize now that it’s not the running time that’s to blame: \u00a0it’s the direction by Vincent Sherman.<\/p>\n

Judging from numerous Sherman interviews, and from the commentary tracks he did for DVD releases of his pictures, he was a thoroughly decent, hard-working, conscientious man. \u00a0According to him, Claude Rains not only liked working with him, but saw him socially at least twice a month. \u00a0That’s evidence enough for me to accept that he was in no way a martinet or an egomaniac, and that his colleagues respected and liked him. \u00a0But it’s not enough to make him a director worthy of Rains and Davis.<\/p>\n

Sherman seems most to blame for what’s wrong with “Mr Skeffington.” \u00a0The suspicions I’ve long had about why the picture doesn’t work better are confirmed by the commentary track he supplied for the DVD. \u00a0When a scene doesn’t quite work, he’s honest about it — as, for instance, the scene after the society belle, Fanny Trellis (Davis), marries Wall Street magnate, Job Skeffington (Rains), for his money. \u00a0(On the DVD, it’s Chapter 10.) \u00a0Job is richer than Fanny (she and her deadbeat brother, Trippy, have run through the family fortune), but he’s from a poor background. \u00a0Fanny has social standing and breeding, but she lacks soul and heart . . . and the capacity to love.<\/p>\n

\"Bette<\/a>

Bette Davis, Claude Rains: Wedding Bell Blues<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

On their wedding night, they take\u00a0a boat ride round Manhattan; there’s a trio of musicians (violin, accordion, guitar) who stroll the deck; when they encounter a pair of newlyweds, they stop and serenade them. \u00a0Eventually, the strolling players cross the path of Skeffington and his new bride, take a brief look, shake their heads and move on. \u00a0On the commentary track, Sherman laments that the scene doesn’t quite work. \u00a0In a significant way, he’s right; in a significant way, he’s wrong. \u00a0He’s not specific about what he thinks is amiss, but he clearly believes that it’s either the actors or the writers or a combination of both that keep the scene from making its point. \u00a0He’s dead wrong: \u00a0the acting is meticulous, intelligent, heartbreaking, and in every way superb. \u00a0It could not be more brilliantly performed. \u00a0But the staging is terrible, and it makes the scene’s underlying purpose far too obvious. \u00a0Points are made with tools that sharpen, not with blunt objects.<\/p>\n

So what’s wrong with it? \u00a0Sherman relies almost entirely on close-ups — the bluntest object in a director’s toolkit: \u00a0it allows us to see only one face at a time and severely impairs the sense of human, spontaneous interaction. \u00a0Here we have a scene performed by two consummate actors and Sherman denies them the opportunity to act the scene together, and to let us see the sparks fly. \u00a0Mind you, they’re both terrific: \u00a0their individual reactions are specific, interesting and well-performed. \u00a0It is clear that Fanny doesn’t love Job; it is clear that Job loves Fanny. \u00a0But we need to see them in the SAME shot to get the full sense of the poignancy of their m\u00e9salliance<\/em>. \u00a0It’s yet another case of a director who underestimates the potency of great acting. \u00a0Claude Rains and Bette Davis together don’t need their performances to be spliced together in a cutting room: \u00a0put the camera in the right place and let them go at it. \u00a0This entire scene could have been done in a single shot and the effect would have been devastating. \u00a0As it is, the acting is so exceptional that even Sherman and his editor couldn’t entirely wreck it. \u00a0When I consider how William Wyler or John Huston would have staged and cut that scene, I can’t help resenting Vincent Sherman’s lack of imagination and sensitivity.<\/p>\n

Here is the dialogue from that scene, accompanied by stills. \u00a0The cinematographer was Ernie Haller, who did his usual beautiful work. \u00a0But as you can see by these stills, the whole scene is done in close-ups rather than two shots. \u00a0The acting and writing in this scene are wonderful, in every way beyond reproach. \u00a0The individual shots are gorgeous. \u00a0But it’s a ping-pong match rather than an unhappy love mis-match.<\/p>\n

Job:<\/strong> \u00a0[to deckhand, asking about the musicians]\u00a0<\/em>What\u2019s going on?<\/p>\n

Deckhand:<\/strong> \u00a0Oh, that\u2019s Tony, Joe and Luigi serenading a couple just got married over in Joisey.\u00a0 They go looking<\/i> for them!<\/p>\n

\"That's<\/a>

That’s Tony, Joe and Luigi . . .<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

[Musicians strike up “Here Comes the Bride.”]<\/em><\/p>\n

Job:<\/strong> \u00a0How do they tell?<\/p>\n

Deckhand:<\/strong> \u00a0I dunno, but they do.\u00a0 You know, they ain\u2019t messed up on a couple in over ten years.\u00a0 Can ya beat dat?<\/p>\n

[Skeffington returns to Fanny.]<\/em><\/p>\n

Fanny:<\/strong> \u00a0Job . . . Could you tell they\u2019d just been married?<\/span><\/p>\n

Member of Wedding Party:<\/strong>\u00a0 He’s a very lucky boy.\u00a0[Happy couple stare into each other\u2019s eyes]<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Yer<\/a>

He’s a very lucky boy!<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

Job:<\/strong> \u00a0I think I could.\u00a0 The way she\u2019s looking at him, you couldn\u2019t miss it.<\/p>\n

Fanny:<\/strong> \u00a0I<\/i> see what you mean.\u00a0 The way I\u2019m looking at you<\/i>.<\/p>\n

\"I<\/a>

I see what you mean. The way I’m looking at you.<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

Job:<\/strong> \u00a0No.\u00a0 Your look is cordial, not connubial.\u00a0 I\u2019ve married you, Fanny, but I haven\u2019t won you.<\/p>\n

\"No.<\/a>

No. Your look is cordial, not connubial.<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

Fanny:<\/strong>\u00a0 [Shocked]<\/em> Job!<\/p>\n

Job:<\/strong> \u00a0No.\u00a0 So far, I\u2019ve merely taken you away from the others. . . .<\/p>\n

\"So<\/a>

So far, I’ve merely taken you away from the others.<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

Do you think that night two months ago, when I broke into your dinner party, do you think that was the first time I\u2019d seen you?\u00a0 No. . . .<\/p>\n

\"Do<\/a>

Do you think that was the first time I’d seen you? No.<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

. . . I\u2019d seen you many times before that.\u00a0 Dining at Sherry\u2019s, dancing at the Waldorf . . .\u00a0 You never noticed me<\/i>.\u00a0 When I saw you in your home, on the night I came to see Trippy, you looked very beautiful . . . very unattainable.\u00a0 That\u2019s why I commissioned Howard Vanya to paint your portrait . . . At least I\u2019d have that . . .<\/p>\n

Fanny:<\/strong>\u00a0 [Cheerfully]<\/em> Well, now you have both<\/em>! \u00a0The portrait and <\/i>me.<\/p>\n

\"Well,<\/a>

Well, now you have both!<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

Job:<\/strong> \u00a0What you mean is I own<\/i> both.\u00a0 It isn\u2019t quite the same thing.<\/p>\n

Fanny:<\/strong> \u00a0Do you know why I came to your office that day to sell you bazaar tickets?\u00a0 Because I made up my mind, even then, that I was going to marry you.<\/p>\n

Job:<\/strong>\u00a0 [Nervous but hopeful]<\/em> Why?<\/p>\n

Fanny:<\/strong> \u00a0Because you\u2019re good and kind, and your eyes are special . . . in a St. Bernard sort of way. . .<\/p>\n

\"In<\/a>

. . . in a St. Bernard sort of way . . .<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

And although I\u2019ve never really seen you smile, I always have the feeling that you\u2019re laughing at me.\u00a0 And I find that attractive.\u00a0 Besides the fact you\u2019re very rich . . .<\/p>\n

\"Besides<\/a>

Besides the fact you’re very rich . . .<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

Would you like to kiss me?<\/p>\n

[There’s a long pause as Fanny goes through the ordeal of unpinning her veil and putting it up.\u00a0 Skeffington looks on, as Tennyson put it, \u201cHis eyes full of that life-long hunger.\u201d\u00a0 Finally they kiss; she opens her eyes wide, mid-kiss and looks off into the distance, as if distracted.\u00a0 Absently, she pushes a curl back into place.\u00a0 Then she pulls away, gently.]\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Prelude<\/a>

Prelude to a Kiss.<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

\"This<\/a>

This shot reminds me of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 93: ‘Thy looks with me, thy heart in other place.’<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

Fanny:<\/strong> \u00a0<\/span>[Brightly]<\/em> \u00a0We\u2019re about to be serenaded.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"We're<\/a>

We’re about to be serenaded.<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

[The musicians pause briefly, shake their heads and move along.] \u00a0\u00a0<\/em>This, apparently, wasn’t broad or bald enough to satisfy Sherman, who on the commentary track complains that the scene isn’t clear enough. \u00a0Jesus. \u00a0Just reading the dialogue and looking at the stills makes it more than clear enough, as far as I’m concerned. \u00a0Rains and Davis make the underlying problem even clearer: \u00a0we need no musicians shaking their heads scornfully to tell us this is not a match made in heaven. \u00a0But Vincent Sherman disagrees. \u00a0If he had it to do over again, I suppose he’d add a title card to explain what we’d just seen.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a>

The newlyweds fail the acid test.<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

Ah, I haven’t the heart to go on with this analysis. \u00a0It’s too upsetting. \u00a0The acting is of such a high calibre, and the foolish direction is appalling. \u00a0Vincent Sherman, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is the same dude who thought \u00a0Miriam Hopkins stole “Old Acquaintance<\/a>” from Bette Davis . . . I rest my case.<\/p>\n

The Brothers Epstein, who wrote “Casablanca<\/a>,” wrote “Mr Skeffington.” \u00a0There’s a lot of good dialogue in the picture, but one must put up with the incompetent direction to take it all in. Perhaps this is an exaggeration, but as far as I can remember I’ve never made it all the way through in a single sitting. \u00a0Every fifteen minutes or so, I throw up my hands and walk out of the room . . . as I am doing at this very moment.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Why isn’t “Mr Skeffington” a better picture than it is? \u00a0Why is it one of the least satisfactory Bette Davis\/Claude Rains pairings? \u00a0Davis was particularly fond of “Mr Skeffington.” It’s hard to tell why. \u00a0Her performance is a tour de force, as is Claude Rains’, so perhaps that was enough for her. \u00a0It’s enough for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[8,7,357,358],"class_list":["post-732","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-main","tag-bette-davis","tag-claude-rains","tag-mr-skeffington","tag-vincent-sherman"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p40pmy-bO","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.tr10023.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/732","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.tr10023.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.tr10023.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.tr10023.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.tr10023.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=732"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"http:\/\/www.tr10023.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/732\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3715,"href":"http:\/\/www.tr10023.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/732\/revisions\/3715"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.tr10023.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=732"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.tr10023.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=732"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.tr10023.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=732"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}