Lucille Watson's character in "The Women" said it best when she described a man's infidelity as a sign of him being bored with aging, with their insecurities of their virility taking over what was left of their sensibilities. This film version of a hit Broadway play youthens the leading characters played by Charles Boyer and Claudette Colbert on screen and makes them a decade younger through the casting of James Mason and Susan Hayward. The film has a strange narrative, with both of the leading characters seemingly talking to an audience, either out in an auditorium (in the case of Mason) or the audience (as in the case of Hayward). That makes this strange tale of assumed infidelity rather stagy, and the plot seems rather forced. That concerns the arrival of their Swedish house guest (Julie Newmar), a sex kitten who purrs sweetness but has other ideas for Mason other than just borrowing a bed in his beautiful home. She wants him to father his baby! Of course, in this era, there were certain terms that you could not use, and "sperm donor" on film was certainly one of them! This makes the audience believe that Newmar wants to conceive "the old fashioned way", obviously not something that Hayward would approve of her husband doing to assist a younger and shapelier house guest.
What might have worked on screen does not quite come off on film. The pacing is slow and aggravating at times, and Hayward comes off as too understanding until the conclusion. Even after she walks in on Mason and Newmar lip-locked, she acts as if she's just walked in on a mischievous child. Nobody fools around on Hayward and lives to tell about it, that's been my take on her temperament both in films and in real life which presented her as rather tempestuous. Still, she's always watchable, and Newmar is certainly a striking young lady, although in real life it would be Hayward who would do the striking. While the lush Cinemascope and art direction are lavish and Mason and Hayward's home certainly lush with art decco, it all feels a bit forced. The plot is resolved too nicely and far too quickly, and while the theme is perhaps way ahead of its time, the manner in which the subject matter is dealt with makes it feel like something very important is missing from Newmar's intentions. Certainly, a re-written version of this 10 years afterwards could have gotten away with a lot more, but not in the very strict code era. A comedy without real conflict, humor or resolution ends up being a near misfire saved only by its likable stars, even though, unlike the ridiculous name of Hayward's character, I was not content.
What might have worked on screen does not quite come off on film. The pacing is slow and aggravating at times, and Hayward comes off as too understanding until the conclusion. Even after she walks in on Mason and Newmar lip-locked, she acts as if she's just walked in on a mischievous child. Nobody fools around on Hayward and lives to tell about it, that's been my take on her temperament both in films and in real life which presented her as rather tempestuous. Still, she's always watchable, and Newmar is certainly a striking young lady, although in real life it would be Hayward who would do the striking. While the lush Cinemascope and art direction are lavish and Mason and Hayward's home certainly lush with art decco, it all feels a bit forced. The plot is resolved too nicely and far too quickly, and while the theme is perhaps way ahead of its time, the manner in which the subject matter is dealt with makes it feel like something very important is missing from Newmar's intentions. Certainly, a re-written version of this 10 years afterwards could have gotten away with a lot more, but not in the very strict code era. A comedy without real conflict, humor or resolution ends up being a near misfire saved only by its likable stars, even though, unlike the ridiculous name of Hayward's character, I was not content.