Mr Skeffington (1944)

I wanted to see Mr Skeffington because it stars Bette Davis, who is one of my favourite actresses. However, I ended up feeling that Claude Rains gives by far the stronger performance in this movie, which saw them both receiving Oscar nominations.

MrSkeffington1

Bette Davis and Claude Rains

I was also interested to see it because I’d read that it is one of Hollywood’s first films to tackle anti-Semitism, and I’ve recently seen a couple of other films which look at this – but there isn’t as much about this theme as I’d expected. There are some brief, painful scenes where the Jewish hero, Job Skeffington (Rains) is shown being cruelly snubbed by members of society – and towards the end of the film there is some limited suggestion of what the Nazis were doing in Europe, leading to a shocking climax. However, most of the movie in fact focuses on Mrs rather than Mr Skeffington and on her struggle to come to terms with growing old and losing her looks – something which is unfortunately  portrayed by Bette Davis wearing unconvincing wigs and  inch-thick make-up.

The movie, a 145-minute epic covering several decades, is directed by Vincent Sherman and loosely based on a novel by Elizabeth von Arnim. I decided to read the book after watching the film, but found that, while both are absorbing, they are very different, so there isn’t much point in doing any detailed comparisons. Von Arnim’s novel feels very English and is a sharp but understated tale, unfolding in flashback and following Mrs Skeffington’s thoughts – there are long scenes where nothing much happens.  By contrast, the film, scripted by Philip G. and Julius J. Epstein and moving the story to America, is a glossy, elaborate melodrama with strong elements of soap opera. Another big difference is that Mr Skeffington is hardly present in the novel, despite being the title character, whereas in the movie he is an important character and has some of the most powerful scenes.

mrskeffington3I especially enjoyed the early part of the film, which shows Bette Davis’ character, Fanny Trellis, as a society beauty with a whole army of adoring suitors. Although Davis was a little old to play a young girl in the opening scenes, she makes you believe that she is irresistible, and is so charismatic that it is easy to believe she has all these people under her spell. Fanny’s secret is that, despite having a Gothic-looking old house, she doesn’t have the money to support this lifestyle – and must marry well, something which becomes all the more imperative when her brother, Trippy (Richard Waring) is caught swindling money from Job, who is his boss on Wall Street.

Mr Skeffington agrees not to press charges and then falls in love with Fanny, who visits him at his workplace. This might sound like a deal, like Fanny selling herself, and that is what  the anti-Semitic Trippy claims. But, as far as Job is concerned, it is a love match. He  is generous to a fault all through the movie, and has already shown he doesn’t care about the money before there is any romance. There are some affectionate scenes between the couple, including one where Job opens up about his impoverished childhood, and it is clear there is a real attraction between them. However, we are repeatedly told that Fanny doesn’t love him as he loves her – her real love is for her brother, with hints of incestuous feelings, and she is really marrying  in order to protect Trippy. Her brother rewards her by making cruel comments about Job and then going off to fight in the First World War, where he is killed.

The Skeffingtons have a daughter, but Fanny is more interested in being worshipped by a succession of young men (although she never seems to have affairs) than in looking after her child. Showing a woman as a bad mother is definitely a way of stacking the dice against her in a classic Hollywood movie, and this whole plot development is clearly designed to make Fanny less sympathetic – though I must say I don’t think she ever quite loses my sympathy, because she always seems to have an essential friendliness and interest in other people, and of course she is played by Davis, who I think always has a vividness which makes her characters appealing.

When she discovers that Job has had a succession of affairs because he is so lonely in their failed  marriage, she decides it’s a good opportunity to divorce him – and he goes off to Europe, taking their daughter with him. One of the most powerful scenes in the whole movie is where Job takes their young daughter out to a restaurant to persuade her to stay with her mother, but she pleads with him to take her with him instead. I’ve mostly seen Rains in parts where he is deceptively quiet and controlled, as he is up to this point  in this film, but here his emotion comes to the surface – though without any hamminess – and you have to realise what a great actor he was.

mrskeffington2

Bette Davis in a wig as the older Mrs Skeffington

The later sections of the movie seem weaker than this first part, as Job disappears and all the action centres on Fanny, who worries about her fading looks. I thought this whole theme went on for too long and seemed to get rather repetitive, as Fanny meets up with her old loves and is repeatedly shocked to find that they no longer see her as attractive. They have aged just as much as she has, of course, but she doesn’t seem to worry about that. All this is drawn from von Arnim’s book, but in the film there seems to be  a disturbing element of gloating over the idea of an older woman making herself ridiculous by trying to attract men.

There are a number of plot twists which I won’t go into, leading to a final wildly melodramatic reconciliation, when Job, who has been tortured by the Nazis but somehow escaped,  turns up at what used to be his house, and Fanny decides to take him back – partly, it is suggested, because he is now blind and so will still think she is beautiful. There is something peculiarly tasteless and cruel to both characters about this ending, yet I’d say Davis and Rains transcend that because there seems to be so much real affection between the characters, and so much longing to help and support one another despite all that has happened.

11 thoughts on “Mr Skeffington (1944)

  1. Rupert Alistair

    MR. SKEFFINGTON is one Bette Davis film that I didn’t see until well into adulthood. I didn’t realize what I had missed all these years. With shades of Queen Elizabeth I and hints of Baby Jane Hudson to come, her Fanny is amazing. Good post.

    Reply
    1. Judy Post author

      Thank you, Rupert. Must admit I prefer the part of the film where Bette isn’t swathed in make-up and does it all with acting – but I’m interested by your comparisons here. Haven’t seen Baby Jane yet, I have that one to look forward to!

  2. Pingback: Monday Morning Diary (November 2) « Wonders in the Dark

  3. John Greco

    Nice detailed review Judy. I have not seen this but Davis and Raines are always interesting. It is a double edge sword when comparing a book to a movie. They are two different arts and generally, when made into a film, books have to be condensed and depending on the style made more cinematic. In this case, it seems that the adaptors took the bare bones of the story changed quite a bit.

    Reply
    1. Judy Post author

      Hi John, thanks, I definitely agree that they are two different arts. In this case I wasn’t able to do much comparing since the book and film are so different – this is one film which actually elaborates the novel’s plot, though I agree with you it is normally a case of condensing! But it is also intensified and, as you say, made cinematic. Davis and Rains are great actors and I enjoyed watching them working together in this.

  4. Sam Juliano

    Judy, terrific review as always. I have always been a big fan of this film, and I completely agree with you on what you say there at the outset about Rains, who delivers one of his best performances, right up there with his work in THE INVISIBLE MAN, KING’S ROW, NOTORIOUS, CASABLANCE and ROBIN HOOD. Of course Davis’s Fanny is quite a memorable performance in her arsenal and this is a seminal Hollywood film in its social bent, which you astutely point out. I must agree with that the melodram ais sometimes suffocating and that the early parts of the film are stronger than the later. But it is certainly more than a guilty pleasure in view of its considerable craftsmanship in a number of departments.

    Reply
    1. Judy Post author

      Thanks so much for the encouragement, Sam. I’ve been an admirer of Bette Davis for a long time and am trying to see as many of her movies as possible, but have become impressed by Rains more recently – as well as my list of movies to watch growing ever longer, the same thing is happening with actors and directors to watch out for. I do agree with you that the film is a lot more than a guilty pleasure. Thanks again!

  5. Dave

    Judy – Excellent review… and this time you’re flipping things back at me, by highlighting a movie that I haven’t seen! But it’s hard to imaging going wrong with two headliners like Davis and Raines. Fortunately, this is one that I know has popped up on TCM before and is likely to be shown in the future as well. I’ll keep my eyes open for it.

    Bette Davis in these years is nearly incomparable in my book.

    Reply
    1. Judy Post author

      Many thanks, Dave – I’m relieved to hear you haven’t seen quite everything yet! I think you’d find this interesting if you do catch it on TCM some time – and I agree that Davis in these years is such a great actress.

  6. Pingback: Monday Morning Diary (November 9) « Wonders in the Dark

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s