Dodsworth (1936)

Better Late Then Never

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

"Dodsworth" is an adaptation of a novel by Sinclair Lewis. I have not read the novel, but every film should stand on its own anyway.The film follows the marriage of a couple who decide to retire and travel abroad. The husband, Sam Dodsworth (Walter Huston), is dedicated to his wife and her wishes. His primary character trait is duty. The wife, Fran Dodsworth (Ruth Chatterton), wishes to get away from her routine life. Her primary character trait is vanity.While on their excursion, they quickly drift apart. To quell her fear of aging, Fran seeks the attentions of other men. Sam--a man of action and industry--finds himself lost in the inaction of leisure.The acting in this film is wonderful. The photography is beautiful. All of the production values--from sets to music--are first class.In my opinion, the story challenges the conception that marriage is about self-sacrifice. It shows the damage that is wrought when one person dedicates his existence to the happiness of another with no regard for his own. It's an important message that gives "Dodsworth" consequence.

Successful auto manufacturer Sam Dodsworth (Walter Huston) retires at the urging of his wife (Ruth Chatterton). He takes her on a European vacation she desperately wants. Unfortunately poor dumb Dodsworth doesn't realize his vain, shallow wife has already emotionally checked out of their marriage and is looking for something more exciting.Wonderful lead turns by Huston and Chatterton. The rest of the cast is about as good as it gets: Mary Astor, Paul Lukas, David Niven, Spring Byington, John Payne, and the great Maria Ouspenskaya. Classic based on Sinclair Lewis' novel and beautifully-directed by William Wyler. It's a very sophisticated and mature film for the time. Highly underrated.

This was a quite a departure for films of 1936. It really depicts decadence in American society and possibly showing that family values sometimes need to be changed for lives to proceed normally.As the wealthy tycoon, John Huston etched an unforgettable character, but he is equally matched by his movie "wife" Ruth Chatterton, turning in a fabulous performance as his wife, longing for youth and therefore joining a jet-set group for her times. In his anger and frustration, Huston meets Mary Astor and the two begin a time honored affair.Maria Ouspenskaya is memorable as the wealthy-dowager mother reminding Chatterton that she is not for her son.The film so beautifully captures the grand American spirit and justifies that things have to be turned around if happiness is to be achieved. To respond to a fellow reviewer, Ruth Chatterton was nominated for best actress here as well as Oscar nominations for Huston and Ms. Ouspenskaya.

Sinclair Lewis' novel receives the red-carpet Hollywood screen treatment, becoming a well-made (but glorified) soap opera complete with marital break-ups and transatlantic shipboard romances. The idea of a well-to-do matron abandoning her comfortable marriage for the more exhilarating pleasures of worldly-wise Europe must have seemed daring in its day, but William Wyler tiptoes his way through the scenario with what looks on screen more like respect than enthusiasm, leaving his veteran cast to pick up the slack, which is probably just as well. Not all the characters fare entirely well by the film's conclusion, and the lack of a conventional happy ending to this otherwise straightforward melodrama provides one of the few surviving reasons to recommend it today.[ ...a belated postscript: after fulfilling my promise to revisit the film, in this case some twenty years after being underwhelmed by my first exposure to it, I'm convinced some movies shouldn't be wasted on kids. The subtlety and craftsmanship displayed on both sides of the camera were lost on me at the time, and the story itself was obviously beyond my experience. My rating has been adjusted accordingly, but the original review I'll let stand as a lesson in humility. Older, wiser, so forth... ]