In This Our Life (1942)

Simply A Masterpiece

Good movie but grossly overrated

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

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

John Huston's second film, "In This Our Life" may have been just a job of work for him and nothing more than a trashy melodrama but it's undeniably entertaining with a very classy cast even if it does have one of Bette Davis' worst performances, (she's still the bitch but her acting is pinched as if her heart wasn't in it, as if she knows what a crock she's landed herself in). She's the bad sister who steals her good sister's husband and drives him to suicide. Olivia De Havilland is the good sister who finds her backbone after she's been dumped. It was quite daring for its day, even touching on the subject of incest, (Bette has a randy old uncle who has the hots for her and is played with lip-smacking relish by Charles Coburn). The men in their lives are George Brent, (who else?), and Dennis Morgan and there's a nice supporting turn from the young African-American actor Ernest Anderson, (whatever happened to him?) as the boy Bette tries to incriminate in a hit-and-run. Unfortunately poor Hattie McDaniel, only a couple of years after winning an Oscar, is back to playing Mammy and Billie Burke is wasted as the mother who never seems to get out of bed. Huston's heart may not have been in it any more than Bette's but he keeps it moving along at quite a gallop nevertheless.

Maybe I shouldn't admit this, but this is one of my all time favorite Bette Davis films from her Warner Bros glory years. Southern decadence at its finest! Bette steals her sisters' husband then drives him to suicide, dances just out of reach of her old rich lecherous Uncle who always brings her gifts - "It's in my pocket, you have to reach for it!" Her rich and repulsive uncle got rich by tricking her father into overextending himself in the depression, then taking the whole business over, all but cutting him out. All this and more in the 1st 20 minutes! Bette is the spoiled southern tart who doesn't give a fig about anybody but herself; The kind of fatale the Bette could do with perfection. She plays her confrontation scenes at 110% intensity; I feel it's PERFECT for her character, not overacted! She is simply rotten to the core! Go, Bette, Go! Bette and her sister, played here by Olivia De Havilland, have terrific chemistry. And as a special treat, we get Billie Burke (Glinda the good witch) playing their neurotic, bed-ridden, chemically addicted mother. See it, See it, and for God's sake, SEE IT!

Bette Davis is trouble looking for a target. A Richmond girl bored with her declining family, running off with her sister's husband is only the beginning as she leaves a generally destructive trail behind her, though it's more recklessness than malice.As with The Little Foxes, the film links immorality and economics. Davis is aligned more with her shrewd businessman uncle - and a pretty lewd relationship that is - than with her own father, whose escutcheon, at the beginning, we see knocked off their former home. Davis may overdo it a tad with the wide-eyed hysteria but she's given the dramatic leeway - everyone else is rigid - and she's pure entertainment. Good sister Olivia de Havilland has a relatively dull part but makes something quite beautiful out of it.It's obscure to everyone why the two women have man's names (Stanley and Roy) and it certainly creates an odd effect. Huston's directing is immaculate, craftsmanlike, crisp and disciplined. The music is a also feature. If Davis isn't sashaying to the jukebox and the Victrola, she's being smothered by Max Steiner's symphonic score that has a fateful down-stepping motif like a staircase to hell.In the best Warners style it takes you by the lapels, slaps you about a bit, and pushes you back into a chair.

Have many modern viewers (and some older ones) forgotten what constitutes a 'good' film? My wife and I had not seen or heard of this movie and were wondering why a seemingly major film had slipped by un-noticed...Last night we watched it on Fox Classics and now understand why.The studio and everyone associated with it must have run for cover when the critics of the day released their reviews. W.B. often put shows like this undercover following initial release, and little wonder.Pulitzer prize winning novelist Ellen Glasgow was appalled at what had been done to her story. Seems she also criticized Ms Davis's overwrought performance. This films Screenplay adaptation needed someone of the caliber of Casey Robinson to do it justice, instead it got the lesser Howard Koch. The task was too big. Bette Davis has also been quoted as calling it a "phony film"Being John Hustons second film (following his masterly 'Maltese Falcon') It would most likely have been selected by the studio under the terms of his contract. From the look of the outcome it was beneath him. This was often a major flaw with the 'Studio System'~ above average directors, being given average material, with their heart just not in it.Superb Director Of Photography Ernest Haller has given the film a great look, but cannot lift it above the inept script. Olivia de Haviland looks wonderful and turns in a believable performance as does Charles Coburn, along with a few supporting cast members the studio were promoting at the time.The usually deft composer Max Steiner on seeing the images he had to underscore must have realized this was likely to run into trouble. He's created an over imposing score that often gets in the way of the action. It tends to do battle with Bette Davis's over the top character. Huston seems not to have cared, just gave in and went along with it. Other problems were introduced when Huston was called away for war service, being replaced by Raoul Walsh whom Bette did not get along with. One of the films few redeeming factors was the positive treatment given to the African American characters. Quite rare at this time. Screenplay wise, those who enjoy mediocre TV Melodrama or 'soaps' (judging from other posts, there are many) will certainly be in their element, and won't understand some of these comments ~ for others it just won't work. This belongs in a similar class as 'The Gay Sisters', another feature from this era the studio rapidly placed under wraps.Thank heavens they bounced back with some of the truly masterly classics that followed...