Forever Amber

Kathleen Windsor's racy best-seller lost some of its punch in transition to the screen--mainly because censorship restrictions forced a complete whitewash of Amber St. Clair's exploits in bed-hopping. What is left is mild compared to today's graphic depiction of sex--but since the story unfolds against an interesting historical background in London during the reign of Charles II, it is worth viewing. Linda Darnell was not the first choice for Amber--Peggy Cummins began the role but after filming several scenes was dismissed as being too immature. Linda makes a voluptuous, willful Amber. Cornel Wilde is excellent as Bruce Carlton, her true love--although an unrequited one by the film's end. George Sanders does a terrific job as Charles II, spouting some of the film's wittiest dialogue and clever in his cat-and-mouse game with Amber. Richard Haydn as the Earl of Radcliffe gives perhaps the most interesting performance in the entire film, particularly during the fire sequences. The London fire is staged with authority, as are the scenes involving the Black Plague. David Raksin's musical background is a sumptuous, richly textured score (now available on CD from Marco Polo records). A film full of rich details under Otto Preminger's direction--but not as strong because of censorship restrictions and the inability to tell the story the way Windsor wrote it. The ending is entirely too abrupt in the video print with the original lengthier ending missing for some reason. Fans of Linda Darnell and Cornel Wilde will especially like this one.

The novel "Forever Amber" was wildly popular after debuting in 1944. But it also was banned in 16 states as well as abroad! Why? Because it was essentially a historical where the leading lady, Amber, sleeps her way from obscurity to the mistress of some of the most important men in the land. Today, it would be seen as somewhat tame...but in the 1940s it caused a sensation.

Now this brings up a serious problem In the Hollywood of 1947, the Production Code made it virtually impossible to film the script unless huge changes were made in the story. Well, apparently Twentieth Century-Fox STILL didn't sanitize the story enough...and the Catholic Legion of Decency condemned the film. The movie was quickly withdrawn from theaters, scenes were re-shot and it returned to theaters....where it was wildly successful. Despite a huge price tag of $6,000,000, it went on to be the top grossing film of the year. I wonder how much of the Catholic Legion of Decency hubbub actually ended up HELPING the film!

Linda Darnell stars as Amber St. Clair, a young girl from a good middleclass English family who lived during the Restoration period (when the monarchy was invited back to rule after the death of Cromwell in 1660). Amber is NOT a normal lady by any standard of the day and her family shocked when she not only refuses to marry the man they picked out for her but she then runs away to make her fortune. This essentially consists of sleeping her way up through the English gentry....with a brief period in which she slummed it with a highwayman. Throughout all her many affairs, she is most devoted to Bruce Carlton (Cornel Wilde)...though they never seem to connect up for long.

When I watched the movie, I could tell some cuts had been made in a few places. One was odd, as she suddenly ended up pregnant...and you really weren't sure what happened there and it remained that way through much of the picture! Well, she obviously slept with a guy....but who? And, after the baby was born you don't hear any more about the baby until late in the story. Was the tike misplaced somewhere or perhaps taken by aliens and then returned? Who knows?!

As far as the film goes, in many ways it's like a reworking of the Pre-Code film, "Red-Headed Woman"...in which Jean Harlow's character sleeps her way up through the social ranks. But of the two, "Red-Headed Woman" is the better film in many ways....mostly because it was much more open about the character's sexuality and the movie ended with the character receiving neither punishment nor learning a thing along the way! But with bowing to the Legion of Decency's demand for cuts, the film comes off as more episodic and confusing about Amber's sex life! Plus, let's be honest, the film is a lot less entertaining when it's less sleazy. As far as the production goes, it looks nice in rich Technicolor...but is also a tad stilted and dull after a while.

Overlong, overwrought romantic epic that lacks chemistry between the leads. Linda Darnell is passable as Amber -- if not stunningly talented, then at least gifted with screen presence. But Cornell Wilde is as flat as a wet blanket, dousing the fire out of every scene where it might possibly have ignited. Most errors in movies of this type can be overlooked if the attraction between the two lovers is palpable. Sadly, there is no indication that Wilde's Carlton even likes Amber, let alone finds her alluring. Production code aside, there were plenty of movies of this period that portrayed believable epic love, and this isn't one of them.

The real highlight here is George Sanders as the licentious Charles II, a part he was born to play. I have no doubt that Vincent Price, considered for the role, could have done well (he gave the best performance of his career in another Preminger movie, "Laura"), but Sanders brings so much dripping wit and irony to everything he does that he makes every scene he's in come alive. He's not in it much, however.

The production itself is pretty good, some great costumes and sets. The swordfighting scene (with thankfully little dialogue) was excellent and far too short. The story itself is a little choppy. The first scene was a non-sequitur, promising a potentially interesting plot device that never came. And the ending was a complete disaster - abrupt, unresolved, unbalanced, and worst of all, unsatisfying. Overall, the movie leaves a sour taste in the mouth, as if the decadence that was portrayed somehow got hold of the people making it and caused them to focus more on the image than on the story.

I tried reading Kathleen Windsor's famous novel but found it too long and full of excess baggage. It didn't capture my attention the way that other famous historical novel, "Gone with the Wind" did.

And while I can't say I liked this film as much as GWTW, it was nevertheless very entertaining and held my interest the way the book couldn't. There was enough history, drama, romance and intrigue to make it worthwhile, without going overboard and getting bogged down with unnecessary detail and incidents.

What was most interesting about Amber (Linda Darnell at her best) was how you can understand her motives without having to agree with them, like her unwillingness to give up on Bruce, who had more than one opportunity to make an "honest woman" of her but didn't want to take them. At times, she does what she has to do, at others, she chooses her options. Her ambitions and schemes never get her what she truly wants, despite her rise in social position and material wealth.

Cornell Wilde gives a good performance as Bruce Carlton, the love of Amber's life, who prefers his freedom, at least where she's concerned.

I also liked George Sanders as King Charles II, who falls for Amber's charms, yet won't be anyone's fool.

Very entertaining!

Back in the days when the Roman Catholic censorship body, the Legion of Decency, had an unwarranted share of influence over the major Hollywood studios and their product, Darryl F. Zanuck, head of production at 20th-Century Fox, found himself embroiled in plenty of hot water with the L. of D. militia over his plans to film Kathleen Winsor's wildly popular succes du scandale "Forever Amber." We can be grateful he braved the fulminations of the clerics and their cohorts and lavished class "A" production values on this entertaining spectacle. Of course the more salacious aspects of Miss Winsor's story are toned down and softened, but there's a rather bitterly astringent tone to the proceedings, nevertheless.

The cast performs ably under the legendarily tyrranical Otto Preminger, whose direction of some sequences does seem a bit perfunctory. Linda Darnell is gorgeously gowned and lovingly photographed in three-strip Technicolor by Leon Shamroy, at his professional best. (I will agree that some scenes, especially at the beginning, seem a bit underlit, possibly due to an inferior VHS video transfer...I have never seen this on a big screen.) Miss Darnell holds her own against the likes of George Sanders, giving one of his wittiest performances as King Charles II, and her line readings, spoken in that delicious speaking voice of hers, ring true for the most part. The always reliable Richard Haydn, as the loathsome Earl of Radcliffe, convinces us that his grisly fate is well-deserved. And even the usually laconic Cornel Wilde convinces as a suitable object of Amber's steadfastly unrequited passion.

Best of all David Raksin's score achieves near-operatic grandeur, lending a sensual sweep that underscores one of Twentieth's really memorable costumers. Alfred Newman, head of Twentieth's music department, masterfully conducted Raksin's music, back in the days when the major studios employed full-time orchestras of musicians whose talents rivalled the players of the best symphony orchestras of the day and, perhaps, even now. Of course the video's audio track doesn't do the musical score the justice it deserves and it may be that in the late Forties when this was made, only the Warner Brothers studio sound technicians achieved full sonority on the optical tracks on which were recorded the scores of Korngold and Steiner and the other masters who worked at that rival studio.