Back Street (1941) User Reviews

Classic romantic weeper is excellently crafted.

[st-shot · 8/10 · 21 October 2011]

This is the second of the thrice filmed Fanny Hurst novel about the other woman. Tastefully directed and lensed by Robert Stephenson and Charles Daniels and featuring standout performances from Charles Boyer and Margaret Sullavan it is probably the best of the bunch.

Traveling salesman Walter Saxel and free spirit Ray Smith meet through an acquaintance and in the course of an evening become strongly attracted to each other. He is engaged but makes a decision to marry her on board a river boat. She unfortunately misses the boat and Saxel doesn't see her for another five years marrying in the meantime. They rekindle and she becomes his mistress. As he grows in fame and fortune she remains in the shadow for decades until his children confront her.

Boyer and Sullavan as the long time lovers display a wonderful chemistry with each other. Sullavan's husky voice and Boyer's suave inflection reinforced by telling glances unite the two in an odd but perfect romantic match. Richard Carlson as a well intentioned suitor is also well cast and Frank McHugh, allowed to stretch, shines as Ray's loyal friend with an eternal crush.

Director Stephenson does an excellent job of keeping mood subdued without resorting to hysterics to bring life to the story. His adults behaving like adults expressing and suppressing their feelings in a tempered but passionate way gives the film a graceful tension. Cinematographer Charles Daniels turns in his usual array of impeccably lit compositions such as an evening snowfall where Ray and Walter meet for the first time in five years and the powerful final moments that he along with Stephens jarring and effectively de-romanticizes with stunning portraiture that evokes Goya.

An extremely emotional, unforgettable and well acted film

[nicholas.rhodes · 8/10 · 16 October 2000]

God, this film is the queen of tearjerkers ! I have watched it countless numbers of times, and I always hope that the end will change, that brass band music playing while the steamboat wends its way down the river, with Margaret Sullavan not having been able to reach the jetty in time to catch it together with Charles Boyer, is just too much for me ! Although the story appears unbelievable, that's exactly what makes its charm ! Nowadays, the cinema is too crude and holier-than-thou to be able to make such a beautiful love story as this. Political correctness has won the battle over true feelings and emotions and has destroyed them !

The theme music to this film is lovely and sad, tears are guaranteed, that is, of course, if you manage to find it on CD ( which you cannot ! ) Apparently there are other versions of this story but I would not even consider to watch them as this version with Charles Boyer and Margaret Sullivan is so beautiful and full of finesse.

This film will bring tears to your eyes, even if you don't agree with infidelity. The acting is excellent and one cannot help but be moved by the lady who is desperately seeking happiness with the man she should have married but was prevented from doing so by a cruel twist of fate.

"Back Street"

[Rinellabunch · 8/10 · 15 April 2005]

Margaret Sullavan is one of my all-time favorite actresses with her husky voice and haunting screen presence. The original version in 1932 with Irene Dunne and John Boles was dull and stage-bound; the later version with Susan Hayward was just too gaudy. This is the version to watch!

Margaret gives an exquisitely heart-rending performance as a turn-of-the-century miss who falls in love with a man (played by the smooth but oh-so-serious Charles Boyer). Fate intervenes and the two lovers are separated. They meet again years later, but, true to the classic weeper formula, he is married. Despite her better judgment, she carries on a "Back Street" romance with him for many years until their untimely demises.

Promoted with the tag line, "If you have tears, be prepared to shed them", this movie does involve some suspension of disbelief. For example, for such a level-headed gal, why does Margaret allow Boyer to treat her so shabbily? Just when I am about to shake my head and yell "Why?", Margaret then either let loose with the tears or try to hide the choking sob in her voice, and I'm transfixed all over again.

This film does feature solid direction, beautiful photography and some good supporting performances (I particularly liked Frank McHugh in this one). This film remains on my "Wish-They-Release-This-One-on-Video" list.

This movie isn't out-of-date

[susan-scholey · 26 September 2006]

"This film (based on a Fanny Hurst best seller) is way out of date in the modern age. No self-respecting woman would be so willing to sacrifice her career for the prospect of being a millionaire's kept woman. No man, seriously in love with any woman, would put them through such a demeaning situation (they would consider divorce first of all, then remarriage). But there was supposed to be a sense of self-sacrifice by the heroine (Margaret Sullivan) that transcended the entire story."

The point is, this film isn't set in the modern age. There's no sense judging this or any other movie set in another era by today's standards. At the time this story took place, divorce wasn't common. In fact, it was still considered scandalous. Many women put up with unhappy, even abusive marriages, rather than incur the wrath of society that a divorce would have brought upon them. Also, regardless of what her career prospects may have been, a man's career always took precedence. There's no way that he would have sacrificed his family and his career in order to divorce his wife and marry his mistress. There's no way she would have asked him to. This was made very clear in a conversation that took place between them.

When you watch a movie set in another time you need to keep in mind that the rules that governed society are most likely far different than the ones we have today. You need to judge it by those rules or not at all.

A twist of fate

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 6 February 2020]

This second version of Back Street stars Margaret Sullavan as the Fannie Hurst heroine who contents herself with being a mistress to a well known and rich business executive. She has a few chances at marriage with others but this woman won't settle for what she considers second best.

Margaret Sullavan had that tragic quality to her that made her cast so well in these parts. She had an unusual amount of screen deaths among her films like Three Comrades and No Sad Songs For Me. In this one she chooses what amounts to a living death with only moments of happiness.

It was a chance meeting at a railroad station that she meets up and coming business executive Charles Boyer. Boyer's French accent is explained by saying he was originally from New Orleans. Boyer too was born for romantic parts and he had just come off films like Algiers, Love Story, Hold Back The Dawn and All This And Heaven Too. Anoher player born for romance, happy or tragic.

It's a moment of capricious fate arranged by one of Sullavan's male acquaintances Frank Jenks that keeps them apart as she misses a riverboat that she was to leave on with Boyer. The next time they meet Boyer is married, but she agrees to be his mistress she loves him so.

Noting some other fine performances in this version are Esther Dale as Sullavan's stepmother, Frank McHugh as a traveling salesman who introduces Boyer and Sullavan, Richard Carlson as another male acquaintance whose proposal she turns down and who makes a fortune in the up and coming automobile business Samuel S. Hinds as Boyer's father-in-law.

Three of Hollywood's best actresses have played Ray Smith. In order Irene Dunne, Margaret Sullavan and Susan Hayward. Who was best in the role who can say. But I wouldn't want to bet money on a contest poll on any of them. Ray Smith is a choice female role and three choice players have done it.

True love and fate

[dimplet · 7/10 · 17 July 2013]

The strength of Back Street is the writing in the early scenes where Ray and Walter fall in love. Too many modern movies don't know how to write romantic dialogue; the two just meet, look into each other's eyes and are eternally smitten. These modern writers could learn a lot from watching Back Street.

The romance is believable, and were it not, the entire movie would not work. However, we do not know for sure as we watch early on if it is true love or infatuation. And there is a feeling that certain turns of plot are dictated by the rules of motion picture morality, but they are not. Back Street is not a simple, predictable romance.

So here is my ...

Spoiler alert:

Back Street is an adaptation of The Scarlet Letter to the 20th century. It is about adultery, but not the usual "sex-driven adultery is bad" story. It is about adultery driven by true love.

The theme of true love is one that does not go out of date, nor is it at odds with political views, such as one poster suggests, feminism. And Ray is not dependent on Walter, as she has a job and later becomes a successful dress designer. She is a fairly modern woman.

The lesson of Back Street that makes it relevant for today is that we, like the prudes in The Scarlet Letter, should not be so quick to judge others for romantic or sexual improprieties. Here we are in the 21st century and we are as hypocritical as the Puritans of the 17th century. When someone is found to have committed an indiscretion, we should consider the possibility that they might actually love each other, and show some understanding. Of course, in many of the bizarre stories in the news involving politicians, love probably has nothing to do with it, so much as power and stupidity. But that is not what Back Street is about; it is about the power of true love and fate.

The director Robert Stevenson is not a big name, though he did some well known movies later. The most interesting element of the movie is the use of ambiguity: We do not know for sure what sort of fellow Walter is when he enters, nor for a long time afterward; nor do we know for sure what sort of person Ray is, which is how things are in life. There are hints in the plot that the viewer picks up on, such as that Curt will one day become successful with those new-fangled automobiles. But that still doesn't tell you a lot.

All considering, Back Street is a realistic movie that avoids oversimplification. It even introduces the element of pain the affair causes the family and children. The element that is out of date, of course, is that these days they would just get divorced and marry each other, the feelings of the children be damned. Is that progress?

a real chick flick!!!

[machine2 · 10/10 · 6 April 2001]

This is my favorite movie of all times. It makes me cry, laugh, and hope. Rae makes your heart break for her. I never stop hoping that the ending will change. I know thats silly but...hey its a movie! Every woman should see this film if she is considering having an affair with a married man! I love all the versions but this is the best one! The ending just floors me each time I watch it.

The story is annoying, but Sullavan and Boyer rescue it.

[friedlandea · 7/10 · 21 June 2019]

Three great actresses, each in turn, Irene Dunne in 1931, Margaret Sullavan ten years later and Susan Hayward twenty years after that, took a shot at the role of Rae Smith, the protagonist of Fanny Hurst's popular novel "Back Street." Each tried her best to make sense of a perplexing character. Of the three actresses, Margaret Sullavan comes closest to putting it across. It's almost not fair to include Susan Hayward in the trio because for her the role was drastically rewritten. The others play more faithful versions. Rae Smith is a - I was about to say unique, but I cannot claim an encyclopedic literary knowledge - let us say, rare character. Scandalizing women abound in literature and film. None (at least I can't come up with any) are quite like Rae Smith. She is not a coquette like Manon, or a professional courtesan like Nana. She's not a poor girl seduced by the deviltry of a powerful man, like Faust's Margaret. She's not a conniver like Becky Sharp. She doesn't latch on to an otherwise intelligent man to destroy him, as Marlene Dietrich's Lola Lola in "The Blue Angel," or Arletty's Garance in "Les Enfants du Paradis," or Bette Davis' Mildred in "Of Human Bondage." She is a pure American type: an otherwise intelligent woman who lets a destructive man latch on to her. She ruins her life for love of a man who does not ruin his life for love of her. By the time Susan Hayward's turn came around that idea had become too grating. The story was twisted 180 degrees. Her Rae Smith refuses to surrender her life or her career for her man. He ruins his respectability, and loses his life, for her. That leaves Irene Dunne and Margaret Sullavan. Neither benefited from an indulgent screenplay. They had to struggle with the schizophrenia of their character. Rae is clearly possessed of a gifted and independent spirit. She blazes her way in a male-dominated world. Then she squelches that spirit, renounces her freedom, sacrifices all to the tedium of being a kept woman.

Why? Why does Rae efface herself, consent to live a life of clandestinity, no career, no children, no family, no friends except the man who enters, occasionally, for his pleasure? Margaret Sullavan comes closest to making sense of it all. She had an incomparable asset. Only one thing can plausibly account for Rae's self-destructive obsession. Only one thing can make her, every time she tries to break clear, act like a ball on a rubber string and bounce back to the stick that hits her. The man at the other end of the string must be a supremely attractive force. Irene Dunne had John Boles. He was a good actor and attractive in his way. (I, if I had been the casting director, would have switched him out for George Meeker who played against type as the goofy boyfriend Kurt.) Susan Hayward had John Gavin; we won't go there. Margaret Sullavan had Charles Boyer. Nobody among Hollywood's leading men could be more exotically romantic. Nobody could be more insidiously romantic. His ingratiating manner, his voice with its whiff of the foreign, easily projected a fatal attraction. It could hold in thrall otherwise strong-willed heroines: Ingrid Bergman in "Gaslight," Bette Davis in "All This and Heaven Too," Olivia de Havilland in "Hold Back the Dawn." I'm sure Margaret Sullavan saw that quality. Reportedly, she was so eager to have Boyer play opposite her in "Back Street" that she willingly yielded him the top billing. She was wise. Walter Saxel is a cad. He must be a mesmerizing cad, to imprison her, to hold her believably under his spell. Nobody could make a cad hypnotic better than Charles Boyer. Nobody could play a tormented heroine ("Three Comrades," "Cry Havoc") better than Margaret Sullavan (except perhaps Ida Lupino). She turns it on here full force, in her desperate look as she watches the steamboat carry Walter away up the Ohio, in her frantic reaction when she's hijacked by Frank Jenks' loathsome lothario, in her forlorn features as she sits in her paid-for hotel room after Walter's calamitous demise. Put that pair together before the camera, have them sit against a haystack and talk about the clouds. It makes even a story like "Back Street" work. It is unashamedly a tearjerker. It grates against modern sensibilities. But the chemistry of Sullavan and Boyer lifts it, though it takes some effort, past those liabilities. "Back Street" is worth a look for two great actors at their peak. If only Rae hadn't missed that steamboat ...

Imitation of Wife

[lugonian · 9/10 · 25 September 2011]

BACK STREET (Universal, 1941), directed by Robert Stevenson, is one of the finer love stories from the "soap opera" school that owes its success to the popular 1931 novel authored by Fannie Hurst. Initially produced by Universal in 1932 starring Irene Dunne and John Boles, this latest edition not only improves in style and performance from the earlier tearjerker, but simply indicates how "great movies are not made, they're remade." Usually whenever an original product gets redone, comparisons are usually made. There's no question that the Dunne and Boles romancer proved highly successful, but in contrast, this edition benefits greatly by its fine scripting by Bruce Manning and Felix Jackson, believable performances by Charles Boyer and Margaret Sullavan, and most of all, its impressive and sensitive scoring by Frank Skinner.

Following the same pattern to the original, with few alterations along the way, the story gets underway in "Cincinnati, at the turn of the century" where Ray Smith (Margaret Sullavan) parades down the street with Curt Stanton (Richard Carlson), owner of a bicycle shop who later becomes an automobile manufacturer in Michigan. While Curt loves Ray and hopes to marry her, she very much prefers her carefree lifestyle and the company of various male suitors, especially Eddie Porter (Frank McHugh), a traveling salesman. While Ray bids Eddie farewell at the train station, he introduces her to Walter Louis Saxel (Charles Boyer), a Louisiana Frenchman and prominent New York banker arriving on a short stay before leaving on the next ferryboat. Not only do Ray and Walter become better acquainted within a few hours, but fall deeply in love. Having remained in town longer than expected, Walter makes arrangements to leave. Before he does, he confesses his engagement to marry and that they will never see each other again. The following morning, however, Walter, who cannot forget Ray, telephones her to meet him at the dock. Before her arrival, Walter makes preparations for a surprise wedding that's to take place on the boat between him and Ray. As Ray closes shop to meet Walter, situations occur preventing her from arriving at all. By the time she does gets there, she finds Walter gone and the ferryboat slowly disappearing from view. Five years pass. Ray, now a clothing designer in New York City, meets Walter again, now a prominent banker. Regardless of Walter now a married man with a son, the couple find they cannot live without each other. For the next 25 years (with its final chapter set in 1928), Ray lives the "back street" of Walter's life, passing herself off to others as his wife, Mrs. Raymond Smith. Problems take its toll as the middle-aged Ray is confronted by Walter's two grown children (Tim Holt and Nell O'Day). Having known of their father's illicit affair, they make ever effort of doing something about it.

The basic premise to BACK STREET is "what if?" What if Ray were able to meet Walter at the dock and marry him as planned. Would their lives have been happier? Possibly so. Had it worked out that way, then there wouldn't have been the classic story of complications as we know it. Essentially a Sullavan film, it is Boyer whose name heads the cast of such notables as Esther Dale (Mrs. Smith, Ray's stepmother); Kitty O'Neil (Mrs. Dilling, the kindly landlady); Frank Jenks (Harry Niles); Samuel S. Hinds (Felix Darren); Nella Walker (Corinne Saxel, Walter's wife); Peggy Stewart (Freda, Ray's sister); Cecil Cunningham (Mrs. Miller) and Marjorie Gateson (Mrs. Adams). There's also surprise casting of cowboy actor Tim Holt playing Boyer's son, and a more or less straight performance by funster, Frank McHugh.

Boyer, the romantic, is no stranger to motion picture love stories, with LOVE AFFAIR (RKO Radio, 1939) opposite Irene Dunne, being one of his best portrayals. However, his Walter Saxel is less sympathetic due to his selfishness for keeping both wife and mistress, and the way he takes Ray for granted. One such scene is evident as Walter spends an entire summer vacationing in Europe with his wife, with Ray waiting alone in her apartment for his letters that never come. Upon his return, days after the boat docks, Walter, without considering Ray's feelings, presents the news he's a father again. Ray, on the other hand, is strong willed except when it comes to Walter. Comparing the climatic showdown between father and son in both 1932 and 1941 editions, the soft-spoken Boles, best suited for faithful husband roles, presents himself as weak while Boyer's strong voice and forceful manner, especially when telling his son to mind his own business, is truly felt. Irene Dunne (Ray Schmidt) and Margaret Sullavan (Ray Smith), two different screen personalities, form their own interpretation of the same heroine, which works well on both levels for their performances.

BACK STREET proved favorable viewing with its frequent TV broadcasts throughout much of the 1970s, especially on WOR, Channel 9's "Million Dollar Movie" in New York City. In an August 1975 showing, BACK STREET was given a special broadcast without commercial interruptions. Interestingly, however, only the third retelling of the story, the 1961 modern-dress/ Technicolor version starring Susan Hayward and John Gavin was made available onto home video in the 1990s. In 2011, both 1941 and 1961 versions to BACK STREET have become available on DVD package through Turner Home Entertainment. A pity there wasn't a triple feature using all three editions to the Fanny Hurst tearjerker. Cable television history to 1941's BACK STREET consisted that of American Movie Classics (1990-1998), sometimes on the double bill with the 1932 original, and Turner Classic Movie (TCM premiere July 19, 2001.) While Boyer and Sullavan worked together again, this time in a comedy titled APPOINTMENT FOR LOVE (Universal, 1941), it's this version of BACK STREET for which they will be remembered best. (***)

Dated self sacrifice, but well acted

[theowinthrop · 7/10 · 20 May 2005]

This film (based on a Fanny Hurst best seller) is way out of date in the modern age. No self-respecting woman would be so willing to sacrifice her career for the prospect of being a millionaire's kept woman. No man, seriously in love with any woman, would put them through such a demeaning situation (they would consider divorce first of all, then remarriage). But there was supposed to be a sense of self-sacrifice by the heroine (Margaret Sullivan) that transcended the entire story.

It is the acting that saves this film. Sullivan gives another of her touching performances, like THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER and SING NO SAD SONGS FOR ME. Charles Boyer is as charming as ever, here as a potentially important banker who is going to marry his boss's daughter. Instead, he meets Sullivan and is captivated by her spirit and seeming independence. She has a number of male admirers (Frank McHugh and Frank Jenks among them). She's also something of a tease, leading on the others about dating them. Boyer and Sullivan gradually fall in love, but he is resigned (for ambitions sake) to marry the boss's daughter. But he sends word to Sullivan that if she will go to the steamboat landing where he is waiting, he would marry her despite his career. She gets the message, and tries to get to the landing. But she chooses to use Jenks as her "taxi driver", and he (recalling her promise to go with him for a jaunt into the woods), takes her miles in the opposite direction. When he hears her imploring him to turn around, and realizes that she has been teasing him all along, he tells her to get out of the buggy and walk back by herself. So she misses the steamboat, and Boyer (thinking she stood him up) leaves to marry the boss's daughter.

Years later, after having developed a career as a designer, she meets the married Boyer again, and he convinces her to give up her career and become his mistress. Subsequently, despite warnings from her friend McHugh, and her other boyfriend Richard Carlston, she does not give up her relationship. It lasts until the end of their lives.

All the performers are good. Among the minor performances note Tim Holt as Boyer's son who first reads Sullivan the riot act, but subsequently ends up sympathizing with her. Good cast and production, but the story is as dated as a dodo.

A well made but rather pathetic tale.

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 20 August 2020]

This 1941 version of "Back Street" is a remake of the 1932 version with Irene Dunne. In this newer version, Margaret Sullavan plays Rae, a woman who is swept off her feet by a handsome man, Walter (Charles Boyer). However, after a mix-up occurs, he thinks she's left him...so he goes on with his life and career. But it wasn't her fault that she missed the boat...and she also, figuratively speaking, misses the boat with Walter.

Five years pass. Rae has moved from Cincinnati to New York City. And, one day she bumps into Walter on the street. They pick up where they left off years before, though their reunion is muted when she learns that he is married and has a child. Now instead of them saying their goodbyes, she agrees to become his mistress. Years pass....and essentially, Rae just sits around her apartment to catch moments with Walter here and there.

What follows is a very sad story about a woman with very low self-esteem spending her life hiding in the shadows...only for the tiny moments she can have with her lover. Many years pass....and still she is his hidden woman. What's next? See the movie...or don't.

"Back Street" is a very slick movie. The acting is excellent, there are some nice supporting actors and the direction is lovely. The only problem, and it's a huge one, is that the story is all about adultery....and it makes for a rather wistful and pathetic one. I had trouble looking past this and felt as if Rae was just a sad chump...not someone I really cared about or could connect with in any way.

Never a thought for myself.

[ulicknormanowen · 7/10 · 29 December 2020]

This second version of Fannie Hurt's famous melodrama compares favorably with Stahl's earlier effort featuring Irene Dunne , Margaret Sullavan being at least as convincing as her peer ,her face always longing for a happiness which eludes her will move you.The ending was sweetened and we're spared the sordid details of Ray's fate in dire poverty in the book .

Rays's fate is a succession of missed opportunities: first she misses the boat ,and every time she has a way of leading a happy life ,something happens : Walter reappears and she throws away a possible safe future ,although he knows by doing so that she will always be an outcast : the apex of the movie is the New Year's eve celebration :whilst the crowds are singing "auld lang syne" ,she's waiting alone -never she seems more lonely than in this sequence- in her bedroom for her lover ...who has bad news for her :he is to leave for Europe.

Walter (French handsome Boyer) is not a bad man ;he does not even realize that Ray is sacrificed ;on her part, she thinks about his career, his wife -one only catches a glimpse of her- ,his son and later his daughter ; by and large the wife is the victim and the kept woman laughs behind her back when she's in her lover's arms;Madame Hurst had the guts to show the other side of the mirror: the mistress who ruins her whole life to be faithful to a man whose position in the world is at least as important as a dear lover .That's why the son's (Tim Holt) words hit so hard when he meets Ray on the boat .

A third remake ,starring Susan Hayward and John Gavin , betrayed and cheapened Hurst's book ; avoid this color version and stick with Dunne or Sullavan.

I guess my mistake was seeing the Susan Hayward version first.

[bayou52 · 5/10 · 20 June 2001]

I'm the rotten apple in the bunch. Everyone loved this version and blasted the 1961 super sudser. My comments will be brief. I just detested both of the main characters. Boyer's Saxel was a pompous boor at best and a downright t**d at worst. "Well, it's not as if I had a choice about taking this job!" paraphrase he exclaims haughtily when poor, poor Rae complains about his trip abroad. (Guess not...his father-in-law might have cut off his other... well, you know...and put it in his *other* jacket pocket) It was at about this point in the movie that someone needed to start slapping Rae about every 30 seconds or so. Someone called the Hayward version "unbelievable". That 1941-Rae would dump the oh so cute and sweet Curt in favor of that French aristocratic ass is the *height* of disbelief in my opinion. I mean, for crying out loud, Saxel not only left her for an indeterminate period of time but also took his wife with him, didn't tell Rae he was back for a week when he finally did come home and managed to pop off a baby girl Saxel with the little woman while on the boat. "You know how crazy everything gets when a new Saxel is born," <paraphrase> he tells her to excuse his tardiness (with an grudging "a"). Frankly, given his degree of romantic appeal, I'd have questioned paternity. Plot-wise, nobody is that stupid. But, Crazy Rae *still* leaves poor old Curt in the lurch to stand by her t**d. Now *that's* unbelievable. At least the Hayward character had the sense to get a job. In the 1961 version events were related pretty much as they happened...in this version, we are *finally* given an explanation of Rae's foolish devotion to Saxel (ah! now it all makes sense...well, no it doesn't) in so short a time that had I gotten up to yawn I'd have missed it. Saxel's lack of personality and superior attitude never was explained...chalk it up to a bad childhood in France. When the inevitable happened, I could only hope for lightning to hit the other end of the line. Well, I could go on but I won't. If ever a movie needed soaping, sudsing and completely dry cleaned it was this one and the 1961 Hayward/Gavin versions contained just the right brand of detergent. Put it on a hanger, slap it on the rack and tag it with a "00". I confess, in retaliation and outrage I voted the 1961 version a 10.

Finest version of the Fannie Hurst novel.

[Cdorothygale · 6 November 2004]

Two of Hollywood's greatest actors, Charles Boyer and Margaret Sullavan, starred in this first remake of the 30s tearjerker, and they

portrayed the star-crossed lovers with great restraint. Acting, writing and direction all combined to create the ultimate BACK STREET! Warners had their crime dramas, MGM had their musicals, Paramount had their comedies, and Universal had the best weepers. This may be the very best one ever! Even the supporting cast was hand-picked with care. Richard Carlson, ever the "other guy", does his thing once more, and we want him to win for a change, but in this case, true love ruins all. Frank McHugh, as Rae's friend, gives perhaps his best performance.

She hopes for the best but expects the worst, because she knows it's not real. It's Fanny Hurst.

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 17 February 2021]

Movies like this are never a reflection of real life, and they should never be considered a reflection of life in any era. The point is that they packed the audiences in, and if they didn't appeal today, people wouldn't be hunting for them. Classic literature and film is truly engaging when it shows people sacrificing for love and happiness in a way that their neighbors would probably disapprove of but secretly want for themselves. This is a remake of an already classic film made ten years prior, and it's ironic that that versions star, Irene Dunne, appeared in two films with this version's male lead (Charles Boyer) just two years prior.

An exquisitely dressed Margaret Sullavan takes over Dunne's part here, and she shows her independence early on by slapping Frank McHugh across the face for his inappropriate behavior. However when she meets Boyer right after, she is immediately charmed by him, and their love is a foregone conclusion. He's later married, ending up unhappily of course, and by honor and the code of the times must stay with his wife. Boyer and Sullavan are reunited five years later, and their love by now is too strong to blame on missed paddle boats.

You get to see Boyer and Sullavan setting up house with her being kicked out of Cecil Cunningham's home and moving into the house owned by a gregarious heavyset woman (Kitty O'Neil) who obviously knows what's going on and doesn't disapprove. exchange between her and McHugh is hysterical. Sadly though the holidays are all very lonely for Sullavan as social obligations keeps Boyer away from her, but she certainly didn't want to spend it with her ornery stepmother (Esther Dale, stuck playing another one of her opinionated buddies). The looks on Boyer's face though indicate that he is thinking of her.

This story works because it's like a novel with it series of chapters of the sequences in their life, showing Sullavan watching as Boyer rises in success and power, dealing with his now grown children and the ultimate conclusion. The two stars who also appeared in "Appointment With Love" the same year have tremendous chemistry, and are surrounded by a terrific ensemble of character actors mixing the drama with subtle comedy and a romance that no matter how hard it is on Sullavan isn't something she can easily end. It's obvious that she'd rather have 50% of him than no percent of him at all, and that makes this a love story for the ages.

Good But Not My Cup of Tea

[ldeangelis-75708 · 5/10 · 21 August 2022]

I'm no militant feminist and I admit to being a hopeless romantic, but this movie was just too much! I happen to like both Charles Boyer and Margaret Sullivan, but I can't say the same for the characters they play, Walter and Ray.

They fall in love, but Walter's engaged to another woman, whose father will be a big help to his career ambitions. Despite this, they plan to marry but circumstances prevent this from happening. When they mee again, after five years, both are successful in their careers, Walter's married with two children and that should have been that, except it wasn't. The next thing you know, Ray puts aside her career and her other aspirations, and becomes Walter's mistress. She loves and is devoted to him, there's nothing more important to her than him, but it's clear that Walter doesn't feel the same. While he does love her (or maybe I should say he loves her in his way), he wouldn't consider putting her before his career, social status, and the marriage that gave him both. In fact, he even told Ray at one point (when she was unhappy about how little she saw of him, especially after finding out he had returned from an extended trip and took his time about visiting her) that she had a place in his life, but only a place, whereas she had made him her whole life. Big mistake!

An even bigger mistake is when she returns to her hometown and reconnects with curt, her former boyfriend, who's still in love with her. He offers her a chance for her own life, a home and family, and she almost accepts him, then turns him down after meeting Walter again. Afterward, despite her limited time with him, despite gossip, despite the hatred of his children, who find out about the affair, Ray stands by her man (just not in public) until he dies, and she soon follows.

How pathetic! The movie should have been called "Back Seat", since that's what Ray took when it came to Walter. What a pity!

Somewhere there must still be feminists cringing

[richard-1787 · 5/10 · 6 July 2012]

Somewhere there must still be feminists cringing at the memory of this movie, and with good reason. It tells the story of an independent young woman, Ray Smith, played by Margaret Sullivan, who falls in love with, and is loved by, a visiting banker, Charles Boyer. Boyer wants to marry her but there is a misunderstanding - he thinks she has dropped him for another man - and he leaves town without Smith and marries the boss's daughter back in New York instead. Five years later Smith and Boyer's character meet again. He is still married, though evidently it is a loveless marriage. S and B start to see each other again. She realizes that she will never be the sole center of his attention, that she will always be a "back street woman," but even when she has a chance for marriage with another man, she remains with Boyer as his hidden mistress, for 25 years.

No, a woman's only happiness is not necessarily marriage and children. But this movie doesn't really - would not have dared, in 1941 - show that Smith has a happy, fulfilling life as a married man's other woman. So we are left with a strange feeling. Yes, Sullivan's character loves Boyer's and feels that she is loved by him, but she can never acknowledge that publicly. She spends 25 years in the shadows, and we never really have the sense that she is happy doing so, except perhaps at the end.

Of course, any feminist would say, and quite rightly so, that Smith should have gone for something more fulfilling.

So I am left to wonder 1) who was the intended audience for this picture?, and 2) how were they expected to react to the heroine's choices? A frustrating movie.

the old flavor

[Vincentiu · 7 August 2014]

the flavor from a lost period and manner to discover/invent reality, Charles Boyer in his classic character clothes,Margaret Sullavan looks, the drops of romance and drama, the pink crumbs and a decent acting are the pillars of that version. a version from the middle of war who use in smart manner the hope, love and a sentimental affair.maybe, it is not the best version. but it has a perfect cast for translate the story in right sentimental tone. that fact is really important because it reminds the flavor of a world. and the result is a kind of gem. not very precious, not exactly unique but nice at whole. a film for rainy afternoons and Sunday evening. like an old love song.

touching

[Kirpianuscus · 29 June 2017]

a moment. and its significance. love. and its force who change everything. and the need to respect the rules. one of the films who gives more than the flavor of old fashion cinema. but good performances, seductive - dramatic story, the bitter perspective about chance, choices and sacrifice, the opportunity to come back to a broken dream and the moral lesson who remains the perfect end. a love story who becomes game of memories. at the first sigh, this is all. but only the top of the iceberg. because Charles Boyer seems be perfect as the man looking for the true love. and he has the great gift to be part of beautiful cast who gives to story brilliance and profound roots.