Exclusive“Mr. Skeffington” (1944): Love, Vanity, and the Beauty That Time Cannot Take Away

Myself, I shall love her If I persist in gazing In gazing Myself, I shall adore If I persist in gazing In gazing Myself, I shall adore If I persist in gazing Of course, here I am, chattering on about myself. Fanny, what have you been doing? Oh, nothing very much, Mother. Have you seen Johnny Mitchell? Yes, I've seen him. How is he? Oh, he's just fine. Who do you suppose I've been seeing? Who? Job. Father? Yes, he just sits around all day staring at me with those soulful eyes of his. Oh, you mean you've been having hallucinations? Is that what they are? When did this begin, Mother? During my illness. One day, I shut my eyes, and he suddenly appeared. And then, as time went on, even if I didn't shut my eyes, he appeared, standing beside me, or in front of me, just looking. Fanny, I wish you'd write your father and tell him to stop. I find it most disconcerting. Have you heard from him lately? No, Mother, and I'm worried about him. I've written him three letters and haven't had an answer. Naturally, he couldn't possibly have had time to write. He's been much too busy staring at me. No matter where I go, or what I do, there's Mr. Skeffington. I'm Rebecca Brennan. I'm Tiffany Brennan. Welcome to Real Thoughts on Cinema. About eight years ago, we started watching a lot of movies with Claude Rains after seeing him in the 1943 Phantom of the Opera. He had a very interesting career because he played a lot of different types of characters. He might pop up as the lovable father, the villain, or even the title character. A lot of people might not know this, but he was the favorite co-star of famous actress Bette Davis. Perhaps because of this, they made four films together. One of these was Mr. Skeffington, from 1944. In 1914 New York, Fanny Trellis is the most sought-after young woman in high society. She has a constantly rotating group of suitors proposing to her, but the only man whom she really loves is her younger brother, Trippie, a rather shiftless young man. One night when Fanny is giving a dinner party, Mr. Skeffington, who is Trippie's boss, shows up at the house and gives her some distressing news. Her brother has been stealing from the firm. Fanny is able to charm Mr. Skeffington into agreeing to not taking any legal action at this point while she sees if she can possibly manage to pay him back with help from her cousin George. Fanny decides the only way to save Trippie, their finances, and their good name is to marry Mr. Skeffington. However, she doesn't let their marriage interfere with her busy social life and continues to have constant suitors, which is of course very distressing to her husband, who truly loves her. The only truly good thing to come out of their union is their daughter, young Fanny, whom Job loves dearly. When the couple eventually divorces, he takes his daughter with him when he goes to Europe, and Fanny continues with her busy life. However, she might find out that Job was the man she really needed all along. This movie was produced by Warner Brothers. It was produced by Philip G. and Julius J. Epstein, twin screenplay writers. It was directed by Vincent Sherman. The movie starred Betty Davis, Claude Rains, and Walter Abel. Although the title of the film is Mr. Skeffington, it really is all about Fanny, played by Betty Davis. That's right, and although this movie was one of four which Claude Rains and Betty Davis made together, it's the only one where they actually play the lead couple together. That's right, it's the only time he was her leading man, although she's not really in love with him, they aren't married, and he is really her main love interest. It was actually upon Betty Davis' insistence that he got this part, because he was one of her favorites. That's right, I know Paul Henride was one of many actors considered for the part, and of course the two of them starred together in two other movies she made with Claude Rains, Now Voyager and Deception. And this film really wouldn't be what it is without that star pairing of Betty Davis and Claude Rains, although they don't have a traditional love story in the film, and she has nothing but disdain for him for a lot of it, the fact that they did have this great respect and love for each other I think really shines through. It's one of the most impressive facets of Betty's performance is that she can act like she's not just crazy about him. Now Betty Davis was noted for playing really dramatic characters who could be either very sympathetic or quite loathsome, and she also was noted for making great physical transformations either in a positive way or in a negative way, and she wasn't afraid to look bad. You see that from her earliest hits, like of Human Bondage in 1934, she gained a lot of acclaim while ending up looking like she's dying of some wasting disease. And throughout her career she would often look rather ghastly. So she begins being very beautiful, the toast of the town, but then later in the film she doesn't look so good after she's been ravaged by diphtheria. And that's one of the defining characteristics of this part, the fact that she goes from being so beautiful to just a shadow of her former self, which is quite like her punishment because she's so vain and selfish. And she was not the first choice for this role either, probably because the role is all about that she's so beautiful and Betty was never really there for her looks, she was there for her acting. She's an attractive woman, but she wasn't just a real Hollywood beauty. I know Hedy Lamarr was one of the actresses they considered, obviously very, very beautiful. But I feel like, like you said, Betty was willing to look bad, so I think maybe because the other actresses they were considering turned it down. So a lot of people were like, well, I'd like to be her at the beginning, I don't want to be her at the end. So I think that could have had a lot to do with why she ended up playing the part. And the transformation is very remarkable. She sort of ends up looking like, well, she goes back and forth between looking a bit like she looked in The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex as the elderly Queen Elizabeth. And then when she's wearing all this makeup to try to cover up that she doesn't look as good anymore, she looks a little bit like she looked in her famous 1960s movie, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? It's interesting because that, I think, is a performance that a lot of people know of hers now. It's a very famous image of her in that. So if you're familiar with that film, this will sort of remind you of that. And I guess they did a good job of aging her accurately in this because that's actually what she looked like. Yeah. One thing that I've always noticed about Betty Davis is the way she colours her voice. She always had a rather extravagant, over-the-top way of speaking, which she would change from role to role. And it's sort of the charm about her. She's just so over-the-top in this part, but it's very believable because that's the kind of person who Fanny Skeffington is, or originally Fanny Trellis. She is a legend in her own mind, and she wants to create this world, and all these men admire her, partly because of this world she creates, which is one reason why she never really seems to love any of them. But she does care about Trippie, and that's the one thing that gives her character some sensitivity. That's true. Although she is selfish for most of the story, when she marries Job Skeffington, it's actually sort of a selfless action because she does it for her brother. There are other men she might like a little more than Job, and certainly other wealthy men. He's not the only wealthy suitor she has, but it is because of Trippie. In many ways, she reminds me of the character of Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffany's, in that she's this... Yes, that's such a good comparison. I didn't think of that. This party girl, self-centered, has got a lot of suitors, but that she genuinely cares about her brother, and a lot of her action is sort of motivated by wanting to protect him. And we see, in both those cases, it's because the parents died when they were quite young, so the sister almost has to take on the motherly role. The only way she can really care for her brother is by providing for him with her beauty to get a good suitor, or something like that. Well, their cousin George, who's a bit older than both of them, is almost like a father figure to them. Yes, yes he is. Or an uncle. Yeah, he is more like an uncle, even though he's their cousin. This was based on a book of the same title, and the interesting thing was that in the book, you never saw the character of Job Skeffington, if you can see a character in a book. But I suppose it's that there never was a scene with him. So they just talked about him. That's right. And in the movie, that could have been an effective way to go. Yeah, I've seen a few films like that. There are notable films that have this unseen character. Even the title character. Yes. You've got the Alfred Hitchcock film Rebecca, the Spencer Tracy film Edward, My Son. But it was very effective that Mr. Skeffington became a character, because it would have just been all about this selfish woman. It's much more effective that we see him, and then we see how he relates to her, and how he changes because of being married to her. Sometimes the effect of an unseen character is very good. Being a title character, you have to tread that line very carefully. It can end up feeling kind of empty, like you're only seeing half of a story. Yes. So Job Skeffington really is the heart of this film. Yes. Even though it does something that's interesting. It's called Mr. Skeffington because she gets more screen time. She's more the central character. He really is the character with whom you connect emotionally. And you feel his emotional journey, even though there's a large portion of the film where he's no longer really in the picture. After they've divorced, he's been in Europe, we don't see him for an extended period of time. But that's the part where it's like the book, I imagine, that they're talking about him all the time. He's always the topic of conversation. He's always kind of there. His presence you're aware of, even though he's not in it for a good portion, like the last part of the film. And that's actually how the book begins, with Fanny as she is aged and no longer beautiful, and she begins hallucinating, seeing him around in her room and just imagining his presence. That's how the book begins, and then it does sort of a flashback to talk about why they got divorced and then fill us in on all their life together. And in making its way to the screen, this film had a few different challenges in terms of subject matter. Right. I suppose the first could be the fact that there's some infidelity in their relationship. Mm-hmm. She has these numerous suitors while they're married, and he's fully aware of it. He says it doesn't mean anything, so I think he thinks it's just she likes having them around to sort of pet and admire her, not actually like an affair. Yeah, especially because they usually come over to the house while he's sitting downstairs and say, oh, marry me, Fanny. Now, later, by the time he gets to the 1920s, we do see her actually going out with this gangster, so that's more like it could be an affair. It's never that clear. And then, in that same passage, we find out that he has been going out with various secretaries of his, and that was something in the book as well, although there are more of them in the book, like seven of them, and she knows about them before the last one. It's more like she puts up with her husband's affairs, which is sort of a different element, instead of that she discovers he's been going out with these other women, so then she immediately divorces him upon finding out. Okay. And I think, in so doing that, they shifted the focus off he's actually having affairs to maybe he's just going out to dinner with them. We don't know. But ultimately, the point of it is... He never would have looked at another woman if she had shown him any love. Exactly, and that she's so... Hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, and I think it's interesting to see it going the opposite way, because most often you see that a man has affairs, and then if he finds out his wife is having an affair, well, that's not okay. It's interesting to see it going the other way, that she just says the entire time they've been married has been had all these men around, and that's perfectly okay, but then she finds out he's been, you know, sticking the company of another woman, well, then that's... I can't stand for that. Yes. And her cousin George really sees it as now you think you can get out of this marriage and your conscience is clear, because you have a good reason other than just you've never loved him, and you shouldn't have married him in the first place. And the other difficult topic is the fact that Job Skeffington is depicted as Jewish, and it was more accepted during World War II and afterwards to actually depict Jewish characters, but even then, there still was a bit of sensitivity on the part of the filmmakers, because they were Jewish, not wanting to depict Jews either in a positive or negative light, because they just weren't sure how it would be perceived by the largely Gentile America. What I think is interesting is how they've... It feels like they're getting more and more comfortable with the topic as the film goes along. Yeah. Because at the beginning, just the first time you see him, the way he comes in the house, he seems a little bit tentative. Almost like he feels like he shouldn't be in this privileged household, because although he's wealthy, he came from very impoverished means as a simple son of immigrants, which is the complete opposite of the Trellis family. They're this really well-regarded old family, but they have no money anymore. Their fortune has been squandered, maybe by Trippie, but they still have this good background and social position. And they're able to keep up the appearances of looking like they're wealthy. And Trippie says that he won't talk to him, and it's just like, I hate him. I hate his type. And he almost says some things, and then Fanny kind of cuts him off, so he doesn't actually get the point of it. It's not until close to, if not past the halfway mark of the film, when Job is having a very serious conversation with his daughter, because he wants her to go with her mother, and she wants to be with him. And he says, I'm Jewish, and your mother is not, and if you go to Europe, people will see you as being different. If you stay with your mother, you'll never have to experience that. Yes. So that's when they really speak about it the most openly. Yeah, they just make enough of a reference at the beginning. And there were some concerns in the making of this film that it would depict that Job Skeffington is like this ruthless businessman, as many people thought Jewish people were. And also that Americans, gentile Americans, but Americans in general, would be depicted as very, just centered on money and extremely materialistic and prejudiced. That was kind of a concern at the time, right? That was a concern. Well, particularly because the film would be shown in Europe. And they didn't want to show exactly what the Germans and the Axis said was true. Yes, it's all about money and that there's no heart behind it. And with the help of the Production Code Administration, which enforced the Motion Picture Production Code at the time, I think this film managed to keep those central messages while eliminating the potentially controversial things that could be viewed unfavorably by Europe. This film was actually set in England originally. Really? But they changed the setting to America, which kind of negates the whole point about the prejudice of Americans. Because that kind of aristocracy and old money versus new money could exist in any country besides one that had just the most rigid caste system. Being as it is something of an epic, because it was two and a half hours long, which is longer than usual for the day, it covers so much time. Yes, it does. It lasts, well, a good 20 years at least. Right. It almost feels like more than that, but they keep you aware of how long it's been. Their marriage only lasts 12 years, but it seems like it's been longer than that. So it begins in 1914 and it ends around 1934 as the Nazi party is coming to power in Germany. Really? It's not the 40s yet? It's only been 20 years. World War II has not begun by the time the film ends. Because they've been talking about Nazis in concentration camps and stuff, I thought. Well, that makes sense, because in America they wouldn't have been talking about things like that in 1934. There are only a few passing references in the 1930s to Nazism. So that's why she doesn't seem to fully understand when the president is telling her about the trouble in Europe. And young Fanny says that she was scared by what was beginning to happen, but he wasn't. And that was true of many Jewish people. Some people immediately feared for their lives and fled, but others waited too long or left later in the 1930s. But Hitler came to power in 1932. Okay, wow. I should have figured that out, but that's good to know. Yeah, and so it ends ten years earlier than it was made. It was made in 1944, but it really is only in 1934 when it ends. So even though it is, obviously 20 years is a long time, but I think the 20 years in question were such turbulent times, all the way through. They really were. Just constant change. You see these really different eras even just reflected in the clothes. Fanny has quite a wardrobe, and seeing her changing styles throughout the years, it really kind of keeps you centered. Okay, now I know what time period this is. That's right. It's fascinating, starting out with the very opulent clothes of the teens, just like the tail end of sort of the Victorian era. Yeah, the Belle Epoque. Right, that new look had started to come in, and then moving through to then the 20s, that very distinct style, and then into the 30s. Which honestly... It gets a little blurry at the end. It kind of looked like the 40s, that's what you were thinking. Yeah, they take on sort of the 40s style. It's going into that sort of World War II era feel, even though it's not World War II America yet. My outfit is based on the first costume which we see Fanny wearing, which is an opulent Belle Epoque white dress with a lot of lavish jewelry, a fancy headpiece, and a handkerchief. My outfit is inspired by a simple one which young Fanny wears on the day her mother comes back from the hospital. It's a simple tailored white blouse, very much of the day, with a 30s length mid-calf skirt, a simple belt, and in her final scene in the film, she wears a large brimmed hat like this. Yes, the movie begins the day before World War I starts, and then it depicts how at first America wasn't that involved, but it did affect the stock market, and then how America did eventually become involved as several of the characters serve in World War I. That's right. And then, like you said, we see definitely the Roaring Twenties and the Prohibition, there's a speakeasy. And so it's interesting to see this depiction of it, which is quite realistic because it was quite recent after that. Yes, it shows something of the styles and sort of the climate, social, political, so forth, of the days without getting too stereotypical about it, and I think to your point, it wasn't as old then, so I think some of the stereotypes about the 20s that we have now weren't really around as much. They began more in the 50s, 60s, and beyond. If you're familiar with classic films of this day, you'll recognize a lot of the supporting actors. Absolutely. But it is interesting that there really is only one big-name star in it, Bette Davis. Even though he was the title character at the Academy Awards, Claude Rains was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role in this film. That's crazy. Which is probably why he didn't win. It really isn't a supporting role. It's not, yeah. But on the other hand, he never really was considered Best Lead Actor. Just like... I don't know if he ever got top billing in a film. That could be an overstatement. I think he did in his first couple of movies. That's true. The first film where he was really the star. But once he kind of settled into what we were talking about, that gray area sort of between character actors. And he began being in bigger films. Yeah. As opposed to being the most important person in more of a B film. Then when he was at Warner Brothers, he was in some very important films. Yes. Often times playing more of a supporting role. It's interesting how this one and then he was also in the film Here Comes Mr. Jordan. In both of them, he's the title character but not the main character. Which is kind of interesting to see. That sort of defines his career. Yeah. He played him in the opera as well. Yes. That's very true. He's not like the leading man. Now in Mr. Skeffington, he is, but it's so much about her and her kind of self-centered life that it's almost hard to define as really the leading man. I guess I can see why the Academy was kind of iffy on that point. Because it begs the question, if he isn't, who is he? Who is? Right. There is no other man. If he is not the lead actor, there is no lead actor. Right. There's just a lead actress, which can be the case. If it had been like Paul Henry, I'd say, I think he would think of him as more like, oh absolutely, he's the leading man. But because he wasn't usually that tight, it seems almost like there isn't a leading man. In a film of this type, you'd think there would be the young man, the young man she really wanted. There isn't any one man who takes that role. Like we said, it's sort of her brother. Yeah. Who was not a very important actor or character, and he was only in it in a little bit. I don't think I've seen him in anything else. He's British, right? He is British. He's trying to be American, but he is British. I heard that he was considered for some other part. I feel like it was Mr. Skeffington, which wouldn't have made sense at all. But he isn't that big of a character in terms of screen time, but he's very important in terms of his presence. Right. And the performance that he gives in his brief amount of screen time is very good, very powerful. Yes, it's very moving. But it really is Bette Davis's picture with a very strong supporting performance from Claude Rains. And then Walter Abel, who you see in movies like Holiday Inn, as well as a lot of other films, plays a very serious, important part here. I'm pretty sure this, I'd only seen him in Holiday Inn before this, and so it was kind of striking to me seeing him in this really serious part. He's kind of comedic in Holiday Inn. But he's really, really strong in this and very, he's sort of like a rock. You know, he's a very solid character. He doesn't get too involved in all the crazy emotions going on. He's just kind of always there. He tries to support Fanny because he does love her, but then he also has a lot of regard for Jobe and thinks it's quite shameful how she treats him. There's a really touching relationship between father and daughter in this film. Yes. As she's first a very young toddler and the first time we see her, but then as she's a 12-year-old girl you see how much her father loves her and how much she loves him. And that's very sweet to see how Claude Reigns, who had a daughter himself, really is very tender in that fatherly role. The scene with the two of them in the restaurant is a standout moment from the film. It's very, very touching. I think one reason why this movie seems so emotional and dramatic is the score. Yes. There's this Frantz Waxman score that is so dramatic at times you could imagine even if Max Steiner, who was Betty Davis's favorite composer, had scored it, it would have been lighter at times. Like in the scene when Betty Davis, Fanny, has come back from her illness, she's talking about how she's been seeing Job. I could almost imagine Max Steiner having, dare I say, playful music there. There's something almost comical about the performance that Betty is giving in that moment. That's just kind of her nature. She'd be like I could hear it being more like plucked strings or that distinct Steiner style, but instead it's like horror film music, which is kind of Frantz Waxman. Every score has a little touch of horror. There's a bit of Russian Prokofiev or Shostakovich about this style. And I think it's really fascinating that he uses leitmotifs, which is something that I think has become more common in film scoring in more recent years. Like John Williams. Like each character has his or her own theme. Yes, that's not something you see or hear rather that often. No, it could be more like there's the main theme or maybe a different scenario or party has a scene. But yeah, there's that kind of, the main theme is really sort of fannies. And then there's this lovely solo violin. It really has this feel of like a Yiddish lullaby kind of thing. Sort of like Schindler's List kind of thing using a more modern reference. And that's Job's theme. And so you hear very strongly associated with his character and also with Fanny. Young Fanny. So yeah, the score definitely I think gives it a different character. If you took the exact same cut of the film and put different scoring over it, it would definitely change the mood of certain scenes particularly. Near the end of the film especially. The scene when Fanny's going through the house and surrounded by the mirrors and just seeing herself all around. She's giving an amazing performance. That would be effective in total silence. But it really it's frightening with that music. Why do you think that this movie would be either a good introduction to classic films, someone who doesn't know them as much, or just something that younger audiences or more modern people could enjoy? Well, I wouldn't recommend it to just any random person on the street necessarily. I think I would recommend it to certain people. I know I would say if you're interested in history, specifically American history of the 20th century, like we talked about, it's so fascinating how this covers all those different eras. And that period between the wars. Right, I think you could appreciate it even if you don't really know anything about that time. It covers enough of the bulletins. There might be some things, oh yes, of course, there was the market crash and this war and so on. So I think if you're interested in American history of that era, I think this could be quite fascinating. If you are at all familiar with Betty Davis, I feel like she's still pretty well known now. It's a real showcase for her, so if you just sort of know of her and you really want to see her shine, she really does in this film. Like I said, it's reminiscent of whatever happened to Baby Jane, so if you're familiar with that film, this kind of relates to that. And people seem to really like epics nowadays. That's true. So many movies are so long. I feel like people really get a kick out of that, which is interesting and dark, which is interesting because at the same time in today's culture, it's like there's no attention span anymore, but people also sit through a four-hour movie. So I think they will like that. I think some people think that all classic films are kind of silly or light or fluffy. This definitely goes against the light. It's going to go against a lot of preconceived notions you might have. It deals with some very heavy subject matter, so if you're looking for a very mature, serious film, this is definitely it. And it has that great Warner Brothers style of being primarily very dramatic, but throwing in just enough humor, just enough light moments. It's kind of interesting. There's a running — not a joke, but a running thing that throughout the film, Fanny says to Mr. Skeffinger, she keeps saying, I always feel that you're laughing at me inside. And I feel like that's such a great description of Claude Rains as an actor. He has this quality of he's always having a little private joke with himself. And even though this is a very — you really feel sorry for his character. He really is almost pathetic at moments. He has that in him, which makes him a strong character. He never is dominated by her, even though she has so much more screen time. She's really the bigger character. He really holds on to that title character status by having that quality. This movie is available in clear black and white copies for rent or purchase on Amazon Prime Video and on YouTube. You can also buy it on DVD. It's fascinating to see great performers when they were young. And as many great stars started as child actors, one often has the opportunity to do so. Join us next time as we talk about a little-known 1930s musical which stars three quite famous actors who would go on to be contemporaries, although at this point one of them is just a child while the other two are already established stars. Thank you for watching. Goodbye.