The Guilt of Janet Ames

I'm surprised THE GUILT OF JANET AMES is not better known; I find it a very affecting film, even if the fey whimsy is a little overdone in the dream sequences. From its opening moments the movie has a palpable post-war atmosphere, a melancholy feel that must have resonated with audiences at the time, many of whom had suffered grief and loss due to the war. The movie also demonstrates the increasing prominence of psychoanalysis in American culture at that time. I will not rehash the plot in detail here, since other reviewers have already done so. Suffice to say that this is the story of two people scarred by the war and how they help each other to heal. It is a story about forgiveness, new beginnings and the possibility of new love blossoming from the ashes of death. The film rides on the great talents of Rosalind Russell and Melvyn Douglas, two of classic Hollywood's finest actors. Russell, so well known as a comedienne, excels in the dramatic psychological role of the suffering war widow Janet Ames, and Douglas is imposingly brilliant as the depressed alcoholic journalist Smithfield Cobb. Look out for a young Sid Caesar portraying a stand-up comedian (not too much of a stretch there!) and Hugh Beaumont (Beaver's dad on LEAVE IT TO BEAVER) as another one of the war comrades whom Janet visits in a dream sequence.

An interesting storyline of a grieving war widow could have been a much more satisfying film. The story is told in imagery of what her husband's war buddies might have been like, but it would have been harder edged if we had been shown the real individuals. The underlying message of don't grieve too long for loved ones killed in the war through their own bravery is clear, but it falls a bit flat.

A surprising little gem of a movie. Articulate dialog, a realistic view of the impact of war, the best performance I have seen from Melvyn Douglas, good (and awfully tough) role filled by Roz Russell. Some of the fantasy went a bit too far and I'd love to know why one of the five surviving soldiers was not shown (his wife was). I always wondered about the buddies I lost and whether I've been a good representative for their sacrifice. This show was creative and touching, some hints of film noir and an occasional light moment. I've seen over 4,000 films, probably two-thirds of which I cannot remember even with prompting. This one stands out for being different and effective. Too few like this.

This movie started with such promise...then....yuck! It begins with a wonderful premise. Rosalind Russell plays a woman who is seeking out five men that lived due to her husband's sacrifice during WWII. He died so these five men might live. However, what exactly she plans on doing when she sees all of them is unknown, as she is hit by a vehicle while crossing the street to see the first man! An alcoholic news reporter (Melvyn Douglas) learns about this accident. However, his decision to see the injured lady is because he was one of the five names on her list--as he'd been saved by her husband. So far...a wonderful premise.

When Douglas enters the hospital, the film starts to go downhill. First, the doctor firmly declares that Russell is able to walk--even though she insists she can't. This is odd, as she seems to have just been brought in to the hospital after the accident--and yet the nasty doctor yells at her and tells her she is okay! This might have made sense if she'd been in the hospital a few days--plus despite being hit by a car, she seems to have no injuries!! But, it gets worse, as with Douglas' help and a few pills, Russell starts to have out of the body experiences where she magically meets the families of the five men who were saved--and sees how their lives impacted the lives about them. Seeing the extended impact of the man's sacrifice is a nice idea--but doing an out of the body traveling gimmick really was dumb. It came off as preachy...very, very preachy.

Now I am NOT insensitive to the sacrifices made by people in war. And, I do appreciate the other reviewer, as the film was very personally touching to them. But it just came off as too weird, too contrived and silly--when, using the same basic story idea, it could have been wonderful. Too bad...I think the film makers' intentions were good--but the script was just strange and, at times, a bit ridiculous.

The other IMDb reviews, positive and negative, make valid points about the virtues and flaws of this obscure 1947 film. It grabbed my interest immediately in the title sequence. Russell and Douglas, almost always cast up to then in comedies(romantic or otherwise),in a dramatic film. (Easy to know it was a drama from the title and from the title music.)

And the music, all through the film--gorgeous, moving, and like no 1940's score I've ever heard. By George Dunning, it was straight out of the mid to late 1950's. A minor revelation to me, a film soundtrack buff.

Back to the fascinating cast: Betsy Blair (Gene Kelly's surprisingly wafe-like wife, who I'd only seen in "Marty"), Nina Foch (a talented, skilled "serious" actress, who made too few films), Sid Caesar (before his genius TV comic career).

Once into the film,I was grabbed by Melvyn Douglas's masterfully realistic and believable performance, not a hint of acting with a big A.

Can't say the same for Russell--she hit the right emotional notes, but always seemed to be ACTING.

One more grabber was the extended, purposely and artfully artificial trance sequences, playing out the heroine's mind. Very effective though obviously done on a low budget.

As of this writing, in Nov. 2017, the film is uploaded on YouTube in murky but watchable 15 minute segments. Definitely worth a watch.