Most people travel to escape from themselves. In 1929, Sinclair Lewis published Dodsworth. A year later, he was the first American writer to receive the Nobel Prize. He calls his awards speech “Americans’ Fear of Literature,” and states that Americans are afraid of all literature except that which extols everything American. (This is a very important explanation – the author of the original satirist, a world-renowned writer, he strives to speak and reveal the truth.) Sidney Howard adapted the novel first for the stage (1934) and then for the cinema (1936). The film is directed by William Wyler, who that year began working at Goldwyn Studios and made three films at once. The play and the film version are a great success.
About the plot. The problem of women’s desires is raised, more precisely, one standard desire – lust, which is often preferred to be called “thirst for attention.” Obedience to lust in the absence of “innate nobility” leads to the regression of an adult personality, or rather an adult individual who does not have a sufficiently strong adult personality. This theme of the social disguise of women’s desires and the tragic consequences of their reckless display is characteristic of American literature of the first half of the twentieth century, and the film was very modern at the time of release. Another thing is that he does not make much progress towards the logical question after posing the problem: society knows about its vices, but prefers to keep them silent. By tacit consent, people deprived of nobility and unwilling to grow up, as long as they do not openly violate moral norms, are considered decent citizens.
Fran satisfies her husband until she creates problems, and with a calm conscience he runs away from her to work, to “do great things.” On critical examination, such creative activity looks pathetic against the background of the fact that the hero for half his life refused to emphasize the possibility of disaster for the person closest to him. But the writer of history either gently ridicules these vices, or even glorifies them as true American values. Perhaps this is due to the notorious ban on “bad” endings, which was in effect during the Great Depression. I specifically noted Lewis’s sanity at the beginning, so it is quite possible that many sharp hints from the book did not get on the screen.
Devoting yourself to accomplishments, success, achievements and other simulacrums with the intention to take the family for granted for the rest of your life, which does not need to be given time and effort, are, in my opinion, rather dubious values. Also questionable seems to be the endorsement of the passing canvas through the film of the subject of divorce as a way of liberation. After divorce became a tradition like marriage, later American cinema became less optimistic about the practice. Well, the main theme of the work received much more adult interpretations. Of the extreme cases, we recall, for example, “The Eternal Sunshine of the Pure Mind” according to the script of the great Charlie Kaufman, where such problems are dealt with more clearly, honestly and modernly.
Interesting looks roll call "Dodsworth" with another famous film Wyler, "Roman Holiday". In both there are, excuse me, walking (well, entertaining) heroines. Only here the author sympathizes with the princess, and condemns the provincial. In both cases it is a rebellion against convention. Only here the young girl he is noble, and the aging housewife - vulgar. In this paradox, one can see the main flaw of American cinema of that time. Or even the whole branch of pompous cinema that existed before noir and then parallel to noir. The necessary themes are developed, simple values are glorified, the right things are affirmed, but all this is done with such self-forgetfulness that today works cannot seem serious to any critical viewer. Without a drop of doubt or a drop of real drama, for us they look like fairy tales, entertaining stories.
Let’s say that the style of storytelling is dictated by the director of the original book, and strategically he could not make any decisions. But the tactics remained entirely with the director and screenwriter. To get a strong satirical work (as the original conceived), you need to use irony carefully, accurately and at the right moments. In the film, no dialogue is complete without jokes, from which the speech seems mannered, unnatural; and the really important jokes of the author, embedded in some “serious” phrases of the characters, are woven with some banal humor. At a very decent level of the film, this is disappointing.
As Kindergarten correctly noted earlier, the film here, as in other Wyler films, consists of “moments”. If usually in a movie, several episodes are formed into groups with a certain general mood, so to speak, a common melody, and already within groups there are accented parts, then Wyler each scene has its own “melody” and its own mood, and scenes often fit together only plot. Characters are revealed mainly in dialogues. The film is not devoid of art, but the conversations in it are clearly abundant. Places without dialogue, in which only the film language sounds, are quite short. About how all this is good or bad, judge for yourself, according to your taste.
Very interesting seems the difference in the ratings on Kinopoisk and imdb. Our film seems to have been watched mainly by movie connoisseurs - they gave it credit, but no more. In the United States, this movie is a classic and enthusiastic audience appreciated it, as they say, with a heart. This fact once again confirms the demand for such a product among the masses. This is also confirmed by the presence of many modern analogues, superficial melodramas of much worse quality. My main idea: this film adaptation is less satire and more entertainment.
At the same time, I can not but praise the editing, shooting, staging (the Oscar did not go to Wyler that year, but this is already a major league) and the excellent performance of the main characters (especially facial expressions). This 1936 film is very pleasant to watch, it stands on a par with other later frivolous masterpieces. As a "cinema for rest" may not be suitable except that because of the lack of normal Russian voiceover.
And finally. The Nobel Committee is made up of “leftists” and awards are also given to “leftists” and idealists. Criticizing the philistines and the bourgeoisie, Lewis reduces the work to a charming ending, where the alternative to capitalism is considered without the slightest criticality, and the hero, in fact, does not change a bit. The work is good, but I'll be honest. This is a movie that criticizes flight, but at the same time created to help you escape into the world of values of the “successful citizen” or irresponsible naive, somehow considered “romantic”.