Cass Timberlane (1947)

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

It's been many years since I read the Sinclair Lewis novel. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember some interesting observations about a middle-aged, upper-middle class man, confronting a woman of a younger generation and a different social and economic class, in the 1940's.In that rapidly changing world, she's more liberated, more independent than the girls he grew up with. There's a generation gap between men of Cass's era and young women like Jinny, in the postwar world. It's a reflection of the way the country had changed, over the course of a few decades.Obviously, if they had gotten any of this into the film, it would have been far more interesting than the soap opera that emerged. Jinny just seems to be bored and restless because she's immature and shallow, and Cass just seems to lack understanding of her predicament because he's older and set in his ways. Still, Cass Timberlane, as one of MGM's superior factory products, can almost be enjoyed for the production values alone: gorgeous black and white cinematography, stunning women's costumes, detailed sets, nice use of locations, expert use of rear projection (lush, atmospheric shots of Scott and Turner on a NYC penthouse terrace), etc. As good a film as money can buy. And as good a cast.Was Lana Turner a good actress? I don't know - but I like watching her. Not just because she's pretty (and here, she's very pretty) - she's also extremely charming - especially in the early scenes - and there really is a good deal of chemistry between her and Spencer Tracy. (Jennifer Jones, first choice for the part, turned it down). Tracy is of course, excellent. And immensely likable. The romance between them is always believable, because he is such a charismatic, charming, somewhat devilish, interesting, intelligent, and apparently loving person, how could she not love him? And she is so beautiful, delightful, and seemingly sensible, how could he not fall head over heels for her? Both seem like down-to-earth people, so it's not hard to understand how they relate to one another. And also why they clash.George Sidney - who usually directed fluff like "Holiday In Mexico", and "Anchors Aweigh", tries his hand at something serious, here, and while I don't know why he got this big project that probably should have gone to Clarence Brown, or Cukor, he does a pretty good job. Just scratches the dramatic surface, though, unfortunately. He does better in the first hour, which, as usual, is the lighter half.Later on, it just reads like magazine fiction.

I seem to be a dissenting voice, looking at the other comments on this film. I didn't find it tedious at all. It is a warm, leisurely paced story. Spencer Tracy turns in a sterling performance as a judge who holds firm to old-fashioned values, though his commitment to friendship does blind him to his friends' shortcomings. Lana Turner does OK as a woman from "the wrong side of the tracks" who loves the judge but mistakes his principles for a lack of courage. There are some weak points in the film. Zachary Scott is not convincing at all as the cad who seduces Jenny away from her husband. There is a slightly cardboard quality of the scenes with the judge's society friends. And the subplot of friends wanting the judge to fix a trial in their favor slides so much into the background that it might as well not be in the film at all. But on the whole, I found this to be one of the better May-December romance films I have seen.

Spencer Tracy is a hard-nosed small town judge who meets feisty, attractive young Lana Turner in his courtroom one day and finds himself smitten; they date and he soon proposes, but there's an immediate problem: Lana's from the poor side of town and doesn't have the judge's class (she bowls and plays baseball) while all the judge's high society friends mingle at cocktail parties and gossip on the phone. From the way the film is written and directed, we are to assume Lana is really benefiting from this marriage, but she's never as happy as she was in those early scenes of "poverty" and, worse, she never returns to her roots, just goes around in circles finding the judge's money, power and friends a chore. The script is actually rather condescending in its approach to Turner's character; it has been written by people with money who have no idea what the "poor side of town" even looks like, and the filmmakers can't even grasp the fact that Turner (and maybe even judge Tracy) would be much happier away from all the champagne and telephone gossips and get involved in some low-income fun (like bowling!). Instead of focusing on the class-issue, they throw another man in Lana's path, which is the oldest issue in the book. This movie doesn't have any courage, and only the early courting scenes have spark. Tracy and Turner do all they can, but it's a lost cause.

Spencer Tracy tries hard to breathe life into this rather dull tale of a middle-aged judge marrying a younger woman. Lana Turner is hopeless as the wife, unable to give the character any of the internal conflicts that are supposed to motivate the action. Zachary Scott is boring as her love interest. An occasional spark comes from the under-utilised but strong supporting cast. Mary Astor is completely wasted - she would have played Lana's role beautifully a few years earlier. There's a couple of great cats in it, and the production design is excellent (Cedric Gibbons was a genius!), but overall this is over-talky tedious stuff.