Stream it now The Heiress 1949

 

Set in 18th century New York, "The Heiress" seems like a typical period drama about (what else) the prospect of marriage. But unlike most romances, this film features no feisty fem. The titular character Catherine (Olivia de Havilland) is plain and boring -- a maiden who's an old-maid-to-be. Even her well-meaning father thinks she's too dull to woo the opposite sex. Consider her sole great skill: embroidery.

At one party, however, a handsome man (Montgomery Clift) pursues her, soothes her with words, and moves her on the dance floor. Catherine is instantly smitten and soon, the suitor suggests of sudden marriage. Alarmed and concerned, Catherine's father reins in the galloping relationship. Can this love be explained by its perplexing nature? Or it can all be simplified in matters of finance? When a dreamy but broke guy courts a rich but dreary heiress, suspicions are bound to arise.

"The Heiress," like its heroine, looks ordinary on first impressions. You'd never mistake it as a classic when it plods through its premise. But once you reach that intriguing turning point, the movie improves considerably. The second act grows sparks as one event triggers another. Doubts lead to questions. Questions incite confrontations. And confrontations exhume the hidden truths and frustrations. Screenwriters Augustus and Ruth Goetz have fashioned a solid story structure here. It is masterful in the way characters slowly emerge above the 18th century demure and unleash their emotions.

With a juicy material like this, the actors amply squeeze out their talents. As Catherine's father, Ralph Richardson turns in a well-adjusted performance. The role could have been portrayed as purely intellectual snob. But Richardson is smart to engage sensibility into his act. It's a welcoming trait that makes the character surprisingly accessible. On the flip side, the viewer will have a trickier time assessing the role of the boyfriend. This is thanks to Montgomery Clift who does a fine job of obscuring the man's objective. Alas, as attractive the actor is, I wish the Mr. Clift could have imparted more charm, sexuality, and flashes of cunning. This could have enlivened the earlier scenes and provided greater impact on the latter events.

Of course, of all the actors, Olivia de Havilland is unequivocally the best. This is, without a doubt, her movie. Her Catherine goes through a transformation that is both credible and drastic. It is a feat for the ages and one that's rightly rewarded with an Oscar for Best Actress. The film also garnered accolades in original score, art direction, and costume design. Its black-and-white cinematography should have won too. The movie creates some striking shots; one includes an inventive viewpoint simply involving a mirror by the stairs. In a way, that creative framing is symbolic of the movie's visionary motto: Nothing is plain and boring when seen from a refreshing point of view.

A great period piece with gorgeous noir-style cinematography. Montgomery Clift shines in one of his earliest screen performances.

Heartbreaking story. But the best heartbreak of the 1940s.

It starts out a bit dull and you might say, "Hey... I'm bored..." but as soon as the father insults his daughter the movie takes an amazing turn. Most movies start out fantastic and have an ending that might make you want to erase the last moments of the life you just encountered but this movie... this movie is really something. This movie is one of the coldest I've ever seen. It is unforgetable!

I recently read Reading Lolita in Tehran, by Azar Nafisi. One of the books she and her students read in it was Washington Square, the book this movie is based on. I have not read any James, I'm afraid, so I can't compare book and movie. However, if Nafisi's summary of the plot is accurate, the movie does not sway from the book much. It is a continual mystery to me that Olivia de Havilland kept getting cast as women described in the original books as plain--no, she's not exactly Vivien Leigh, but who is? Still, you're not really going to get a Hollywood actress of the time put any great effort into appearing as plain as the book says the character is. I'm kind of curious as to whether Nafisi has seen the movie or not, and if so, what she thinks of it.

Catherine Sloper (de Havilland) is plain and mousy and a spinster. I am unable to find out exactly how old she is, but it's pretty clear within the context of the story that she is, as they say, beyond her first youth. Her father, Dr. Austin Sloper (Ralph Richardson) resents her, in that old-fashioned way, because her mother died of complications of childbirth. Her mother was bright and beautiful and clever, everything that Catherine herself is not. And one day, at a party, she meets Morris Townsend (Montgomery Clift), who is young and handsome. He courts her. She falls for him, probably in part because no man has ever wooed her before. Dr. Sloper, however, disapproves heartily, because he believes that Morris is only pursuing her for her fortune; she is the doctor's only heir. He takes Catherine to Europe to make her forget about Morris. It doesn't work. She makes arrangements to run off with Morris almost as soon as she gets home, telling him that she will let herself be disinherited if only she can be with him. Of course, Morris does not run away with her.

What I had not realized is that Olivia de Havilland (born 1916 and still alive) is only four years older than Montgomery Clift (born 1920 and dead since 1966). They feel as though they belong to totally different generations. He was, realistically, old enough to play one of those young soldiers in Gone With the Wind. I mean, Scarlett and Mellie were supposed to be young themselves; if I recall the book correctly, Scarlett was three years younger than Clift was at the time. I think of de Havilland as a product of the thirties and forties, yet I think of Clift as a product of the fifties. And, indeed, his first movie role wasn't until 1948, nearly ten years after her first Oscar nomination. Though, of course, he did get his first nomination for it. Those years he spent on Broadway make him seem so much younger than she; I think of her with Leigh and Davis, and I think of him with Dean and Brando.

Olivia de Havilland won her second Oscar for the role, and (although I haven't seen any of the competing films), I think she really deserved it. I don't want to give away the ending if you don't already know it, but the last scene is heartrending because of all the things you can see going through her mind. She is mourning for the past, afraid of the future, trying to make herself numb about the present. She has suffered for years, and this assuredly isn't a happy ending, but the look on de Havilland's face indicates, to me at least, that she will endure. All through the movie, her emotions have been written plainly on her face, but in this moment, her whole body shows what she is feeling. Clift and the others are good, too, but de Havilland's performance is brilliant.

So here's the odd thing about the film. Aaron Copland, after having been nominated for five other Oscars, finally won for this one and was never nominated again. He didn't compose much afterward, eventually dying of Alzheimer's in 1990. At any rate, he did, he said, compose a score for The Heiress. However, he was pretty clear about the fact that the score he composed was not the score that was actually used in the film, even writing a letter to the New York Times on the subject. However, not even IMDB seems willing to speculate about who actually wrote it. So far as everyone but Copland is concerned, he wrote the score and got the honours for it. If it's true, if he didn't write the score, I can't help wondering about that Oscar. Did he accept it? Did he pass it on to whoever-it-was? Did even Copland know?

The Heiress
directed by William Wyler
written by Augustus and Ruth Getz
based on the play by Augustus and Ruth Getz
starring Montgomery Clift, Olivia de Havilland, Ralph Richarson, Vanessa Brown

Ah, the brutality inherent in the myriad processes that inform human love. The fight for dignity in the face of so much emotional distress can kill anyone who falls prey to its cruel machinations. In this film, two people approach each other with distinctly different intentions that are slowly revealed to each character as the film approaches a great and terrible mystery. The film proves to be a tense, gloriously photographed study of socially proscribed etiquette that is both well-orchestrated ans stifling for those who exist firmly outside its strict formulations.


Catherine Sloper (de Havilland) has always done what her father, Dr. Austin Sloper (Richardson) has told her to do. She's the perfect meek, docile daughter who can never bring herself to speak in polite company. In truth she's capable of expressing herself but the pressures of society tend to tie her tongue so nothing of interest comes out. Her father recognizes this trait and despises her for it. He truly hates her for her lack of grace, manners, compatibility, etc. because he is convinced his dead wife was rich in such characteristics. Catherine is at another drab party where she is desperately trying (and failing) to make an impression, she meets the elegant and suave Morris Townsend (Clift). There is immediate tension between these two that is palpable as they dance. Quickly they are seeing more of each other and this leads to a proposal of marriage which Dr. Sloper rejects on the grounds that Morris is only after Catherine's inheritance which will kick in when the doctor dies.

The conflict between staunch authority and thoughtless bliss is exploited throughout this picture. Dr. Sloper represents a rigid, solid constancy and he believes that hard word is a virtue. He loathes Morris because he has no job and no prospects and cannot allow his only daughter to marry a man who will waste her money. This is the old order of law and order. The film takes place in the 1850's America and possesses a genuine spirit of gaiety and regulation. In this society everyone knows their place and there are strict penalties for anyone who even makes an attempt to deviate from the norm. Morris is a deviant who must be put in his place. He has no right to pretend he belongs to high society because he is, in Dr. Sloper's eyes, so incapable of putting his best effort forward come what may.

The contrast between the rational mind and the emotional realm of the imagination and the complexities of love give this film a poignancy that allows it to ask necessary questions. What is more important--financial viability or devotion? What are the necessary practicalities of life? Is it possible to truly love somebody who is incapable or unwilling to make their own way in the world if you are the one continuously footing the bill? Society in this period, much like now, did not reward ne'er-do-wells or essentially lazy individuals whose only intention is to live off of the good graces of others.

Morris is presented in just this light. He loafs about in a state of entitlement, surviving entirely on his charm and easy manners, never having to exert himself to earn his bread in any way. He has a calming effect on Catherine who is a jumbled confusion of nerves who is prone to great pangs of emotional distress at any time, anywhere. She exchanges her dedication to her father to Morris at great peril. She worships him and is pulled in by his ease and his ability to speak well whether he had anything interesting to say or not. There is a gentle element of true emotional between these two as they go about the arduous task of getting to know one another in a climate that is hostile to their interaction. They struggle at every turn and there are numerous awkward silences as Catherine clumsily tries to find the words that express her feelings to Morris. Mostly she just studies him and nearly swoons now and again which firmly articulate her approach to Morris and her reliance upon him for her emotional bearings.

This story is filled with dramatic emotional moments where the action is halted and an entirely new and strange arc is introduced. It follows a traditional narrative structure but there are several points where the narrative is dislodged and sent skidding. One of these instances comes when Morris is turned down by Dr. Sloper and forced to recede back into the darkness. From that point, any talk or pursuance of marriage is a deliberate violation of the code and a breach against the proper order of things. It's the first act of rebellion. Any attempt to circumvent the rational, economical, material reality of modern life is considered as severely as an attack attempting to disprove the existence of god. Dr. Sloper carries himself as if he were a god, at least in his own house. His word is the only one that matters on any issue of grave importance and moreover he believes stringently in his ability to keep the stars aligned and the sun in the sky in his own, peculiar universe.

The relationship between Catherine and Morris can be read as a definitive break from the old order where emotions are frowned upon and certainly not considered as proper barometers for the edicts of proper, necessary society. Yet it also points to the near impossibility under most circumstances to effectively make a total breach of controlled, practical means of existence. Money and status are held up as ideal goals for anyone who dares to make something substantial of himself. Women are merely supposed to take husbands with the best prospects in these areas and forget about the trivialities of love which are a product and not a precedent of the marriage question. Catherine makes the mistake of falling in love with a young man who is unable to provide wealth or security and in this case the roles would be reversed as she would be the one with the money and quite understandably, the power. Such a power shift is unthinkable in this codified society and subsequently Dr. Sloper rejects Morris as a perspective son-in-law.

The performances in this film are quite effective throughout. Montgomery Clift exudes charm and a general aloofness and manages to create a character of a sustained mystery throughout. Clift maintains a brooding intensity that lures Catherine, who is entrapped in his web, kicking her feet in a desperate attempt to break free. The mysterious qualities of Morris's character are both frightening and exciting for Catherine as Morris is practically the first man who has ever come along to treat her as the center of his universe. Clift conveys an uncertainty with Morris that informs every gesture he makes.

Olivia de Havilland demonstrates a protracted sadness throughout the film. She gives her character a decisive melancholia that is only broken by her relationship with Morris. Otherwise, Catherine is gloomy, dejected, confused and exceedingly lonely. She wiles away her time with embroidery and has shown an aversion to the social scene. De Havilland is graceful in her character's awkwardness. She conveys an unease that nevertheless gives her character a strange kind of grace. There is a coldness to Catherine which works itself out in the film's glorious conclusion which I consider one of the most emotionally satisfying endings I've found in film.

Ralph Richardson plays Dr. Sloper as the embodiment of the self-made man. He's well-respected, projects an air of absolute authority, and manages to conceal anything remotely approaching an emotional life. He's closed off and entirely divorced from the emotional reality his daughter exists in. Richardson ably convey Dr. Sloper's arrogance as well as the futility of his position. All his money and prestige prove no match for the ravages of age and disease.

Overall, this film shows how order and the illusion of permanence tend to disavow the confusion and chaos that are revealed in those who give into to the tyranny of their emotions. The correct and only way of dealing with emotions, according to the characterization of Dr. Sloper, is to never allow the emotions to rule the intellect. To do so is to risk losing one's footing which in Dr. Sloper's case was built in accordance to the edicts of his primary will. Marriage is only of practical concern and must only be entered into if all measures are in place that will insure financial solvency well into the future. This viewpoint isn't entirely disputed as the film reaches its startling conclusion. In many ways the ending cements the position of Dr. Sloper but merely as an exercise of reestablishing the correct order that is unduly threatened.

Ultimately this is a film about power and how circumstances often force one to wield it. Olivia de Havilland conveys her character's drab, sunken-in appearance in the film but once she gains her inheritance, her entire countenance changes and she obtains an elegance and posture that is painfully beguiling. She's already demonstrating her newly acquired power and it appears most readily in the spark of vehemence that lies in the depths of her eyes.

:D Netflix



My Review: This is a story set in an elite area of NYC around the 1850's about a plain, wealthy girl; a stern father; and a handsome suitor. It is about hope, self-preservation, and heart-wrenching truths. I watched "Washington Square" first, the 2002 version, with Jennifer Jason Leigh as Catherine Sloper, the central figure (see my review below). I think by doing so, I enjoyed "The Heiress" even more. Jason Leigh made a good Catherine, but Olivia de Havilland nailed it! I'm generally not a fan of black and white classic movies, so was worried that this 1949 version would not appeal to me. But I was wrong. As good as Jason Leigh was in "Washington Square", it seemed at times that she was "acting". de Havilland, on the other hand, BECAME Catherine. And who knew that Montgomery Clift was so handsome? He made a wonderfully alluring Morris Townsend. Watch "Washington Square" first, a very good movie, and then watch "The Heiress", an outstanding movie. I think you'll enjoy the comparison. If you're a period piece lover as I am, this is a must see!

SYNOPSIS:
A superb cinematic version of the Henry James' novel "Washington Square." After discovering that his bride-to-be is going to be disinherited, a handsome young fortune hunter jilts her on the night of their elopement. Years later, when the woman's fortune is secured, the man returns and again asks for her hand, but his erstwhile sweetheart has other plans for him. Copeland's score is magnificent. Academy Award Nominations: 8, including Best Picture; Best Director.

Comments pending.

Full review to come.

Fantastic 1949 version of James Ivory's Washington Square. a fortune hunter charms a doctor's plain daughter in 19th-century New York. Olivia de Havilland is superb in her second best actress oscar winning role. Montgomery Clift is also great as the fortune hunter who may or may not be in love. GREAT!!!!