One More River

"Claire" (Diana Winyard) is married to aspiring politician "Sir Gerald" (Colin Clive) but he's a bit of a brute. It's an incident with a riding crop that finally sends his wife on a cruise where she encounters "Croom" (Frank Lawton). Unfortunately, her husband cannot be seen to not have his wife at his side and so when she flatly refuses a reconciliation, he sets in motion a public divorce that will call the integrity of not just her, but of her new companion into question. Of course, though still entirely platonic, we know that the relationship between the two has burgeoned somewhat - but this isn't really a film about a romance. It's a rather sad indictment of a judicial system that still looked upon a woman as the property of her husband. Not in a feudal sense, but that she might accuse such a prominent and respectable man of ill-treating her was a charge that was always going to fall on deaf ears. It's the ensuing court hearing that brings this to life a bit, with some sparky sparring from lawyers "Brough" (Lionel Atwill), "Forsythe" (Alan Mowbray) and the inquisitive judge (Gilbert Emery) quite cleverly showcasing the one-sidedness of the whole affair. The film also befits from a great cast of supporting favourites who feature sparingly but add depth to a story of state-supported prejudice that Winyard holds together quite well.

"One More River" is a film that was adversely affected by the New Production Code. This is because the movie came out in 1934 instead of before, it would have been closer to the sordid novel. But because sadism was taboo now in movies, it was only alluded to and this, at times, made the story rather confusing.

The film begins with Claire (Diana Winyard) leaving a cruise ship. Along the way, she obtained a very fervent admirer, Tony (Frank Lawton). However, while she liked having him as a friend, she has just left her husband (Colin Clive) and was in no mood of beginning a love affair. And, through the story, Tony tries in vain to take their relationship to the next level.

The problem here is that when Claire returns to her father's home, she tells them that her husband was abusive. The whole sick sexual aspect of the violence was ignored. And, later, when the husband accuses Claire of having an affair with Tony, the reasons the wife left are NEVER discussed in court...something that really makes no sense.

So, despite this, is the film any good? Yes...mostly because the acting is so nice. Also, James Whale's direction and the cinematography were gorgeous. But with chunks of the original story missing, you can't help but wonder how good this MIGHT have been had it just been made the year before.

This is a superior film, but its impact is attenuated by the great changes in social attitudes toward sex and divorce which have occurred since the time it was filmed. The conflicts and tensions in the story could only occur today in third world nations or very religious communities. Thus, most American viewers can wonder what all the excitement is about.

Diana Wynyard is a revelation. When the film began, she appeared a bit on the plain side. However, she became enchantingly beautiful as the movie progressed. Her soft, pleasant, kind features and the exquisite shape of her head and body impressed me more and more, as did her calm manner and then her assertive testimony in court.She became irresistible.

Universal gave this a veneer of a prestige production. It looked like it was shot in England, except that most of the English performers were already old Hollywood hands. Jane Wyatt wisely didn't try for an English accent. Whales' direction was seamless, but not as flashy as his more famous horror productions. He kept things moving briskly.

A woman finds herself sued for divorce by the brutish husband who beat her with a riding whip. The kind of situation that would be unthinkable today but which was probably considered to be quite saucy back in the 1930s, despite the terribly proper tone of R. C. Sheriff's screenplay. When Dana Wynyard and Frank Lawton both gaze beyond the camera, and he says, ever so matter-of-factly, "You realise, of course, that I love you," it's impossible not to laugh. It's a pleasant enough watch, but it's tone is inconsistent and often inappropriately humorous

Saw this as part of Cinefest 2009 in Syracuse, and it was a revelation. Not that it doesn't stir high expectations: a Galsworthy novel, adapted by playwright R.C. Sheriff (author of the great antiwar play "Journey's End"), directed with great assurance by James Whale, and with a near-amazing cast. As an abused high society wife trying to wrench free of her extremely nasty husband, Diana Wynyard is ladylike and touching. A very young Jane Wyatt is her confidante, Henry Stephenson is a helpful lawyer relative, and Frank Lawton is the appealing young man who falls in love with her. All are upstaged by Mrs. Patrick Campbell, a formidable presence bellowing every line with relish, and she It's remarkably adult for its day, with a modern attitude about adultery (our heroine doesn't, but the movie seems to believe she should). It's literate and fast-moving, and sandwiched between Whale's "The Invisible Man" and "The Bride of Frankenstein," it's one of several examples of how assured he was outside of the horror genre.