Had I realized that the title evoked "Auld Lang Syne," I would have saved this viewing for New Year's. But while the song is played at the beginning and ending, no part of the film takes place at that time of year. We are to think of its actual meaning, not its holiday association.
The story begins in 1924 small-town America, when Kit (Bette Davis) has become a celebrity for her first published novel. Her long-time friend Millie (Miriam Hopkins, not dissuaded by previous experience with Davis) takes inspiration and becomes a novelist in her own right, far less favored by critics but far more prolific and financially successful. Alas, by 1932, Millie's husband Preston (John Loder) feels neglected enough to leave her and daughter Deirdre (Francine Rufo, later Dolores Moran). He courts Kit, but she declines for the sake of Millie's friendship. Most of the rest happens in 1942, when Kit and Preston meet again through the war effort, by which time Kit is finally if tentatively dating someone, the younger Rudd (Gig Young).
The "melodrama" tag stems primarily from Millie. She's always cocksure of things, with or without cause. When something deviates from her plans, however unimportant, she falls to pieces. She envies Kit yet also paranoidly projects envy of herself onto Kit. Way to make a Davis character not look like a jerk by comparison. Some viewers have trouble believing that Kit and Millie could still be friends after all this time, tho Preston says Millie used to be a lot more lovable.
Unfortunately, Deirdre comes to take after her mother. At least a teen has more of an excuse for acting that way. How Rudd falls for her is a somewhat disturbing mystery.
I can give the other characters some credit for recognizing how extreme Millie is. They almost seem plain vanilla next to her. Of course, there has to be an eventual ham-to-ham combat between her and Kit. I'd like it better if we had a less clear choice in whom to side with.
At 110 minutes, it doesn't feel especially consistent in tempo. Sometimes I was surprised at how quickly things advanced; other times, they were slower than they had to be. Still not boring by my sights.
Would I have preferred the play on which OA is based? Maybe. Director Vincent Sherman did a better job with the following year's Mr. Skeffington. But this film is hardly depressing to me. I find it acceptable for, y'know, old time's sake.
No comments:
Post a Comment