Letter from an Unknown Woman

Discussion of programming on TCM.
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: Letter from an Unknown Woman

Post by JackFavell »

That was beautiful, both of you. For me, the movie shows me the flip side of leading an artistic life, the waste of a life spent in one's own internal universe, rather than in the real world. As a movie fan, I find the movie extremely personal and painful, because the temptation for some of us is to live in that dreamland a little too much.
User avatar
CineMaven
Posts: 3815
Joined: September 24th, 2007, 9:54 am
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Contact:

Re: Letter from an Unknown Woman

Post by CineMaven »

[u][color=#8000BF]Jack[/color][/u] [u][color=#8000BF]Favell[/color][/u] wrote:...As a movie fan, I find the movie extremely personal and painful, because the temptation for some of us is to live in that dreamland a little too much.
Hey, like that old 90's song went: "Don't wake me, I'm dreamin'."

* * * * *
[u][color=#4000BF]King[/color][/u] [u][color=#4000BF]Rat[/color][/u] wrote:I'll just have to agree with the comments from Ro, Maven, and JF. Letter from an Unknown Woman is one of my favorites. If you get a chance to see it on the big screen, do..."
If the TCMFilmFestival showed it, I'd be there ( w/Kleenex in hand - for the buttered popcorn and my tears. ) Fontaine gave a great performance.
"You build my gallows high, baby."

http://www.megramsey.com
feaito

Re: Letter from an Unknown Woman

Post by feaito »

I only want to say that I have been reading with utter interest all the exchanges between Ro, Tess and Wen Re. this one of my top five films of all time.

....and you know what? You have made me want to watch it for the fourth or fifth time... :D
User avatar
rohanaka
Posts: 255
Joined: April 30th, 2009, 1:00 pm

Re: Letter from an Unknown Woman

Post by rohanaka »

Well HELLO again, Miss Maven,

I have to say, after re-reading through this thread.. and then reading your comments from today (along with Jackie's too) I just want to say thank you again, for the great tip on such an intriguing film. I appreciate your kind words regarding my post from last night too and will look forward to answering you more as I go along here.. because WOW.. after reading through all this again, everyone had so many good insights into the story, the characters.. and the director too! I am just happy to get a chance to read it again and chat with you all about it.

So OK.. sit back.. bear with me.. ha. I apologize in advance because this will be a bit of long post (ha.. when oh WHEN have I ever been accused of posting long comments??) ha. But did I mention Wowsa?? There is just so much to say. (and PS: I will ask those who may not have seen this film to think twice before continuing on with me here.. because there is a LOT of spoilage. Just no other way to talk about all this without it, so read on at your own risk)

Way back at the beginning of this thread.. several years ago in fact.. my beloved Neighbor Nancy wrote:
Louis Jourdan is a guest in my house tonight! (hubba-hubba!)
Ha.. hubba hubba INDEED! Oh my golly.. he sure was 'purty" wasn't he? :D But really.. this whole FILM had a huge case of the "purties" ha. It really was about as gorgeous to look at as it was heartwrenching to watch. (how can something be so beautiful on the outside.. and so tragic on the inside.. hmmm.. We'll get to that later)

ChiO says:
With each viewing, Stefan gets emptier -- not merely a womanizing scoundrel, but a cipher. Stefan's shrouded-in-mist recollections of Lisa at the end are not fond or bittersweet memories, but glimpses of her only at their initial meetings that started each episode. No memory of a night at the carnival or a departure at the train station or her final visit -- only the meetings because, for him, a meeting was the important event, the start of a game of conquest and their actual time together was not worth a memory.
And Knittie also said:
M. Jourdan's Stefan was not so much a scoundrel as he was just a pitiful shell of a burned out romeo. The practiced seduction, studying himself in the mirror, and yet the seeming sincerity when he left Lisa the first time, all made me wonder if she was truly in love with him, or just the idea of him.
Oh, I would say it was the "idea" of him that she was most in love with.. but will get to that a bit later. But I will agree with both of you that "empty" or "shell" is a terrific way to describe him, He was just that... an empty, shallow kinda guy.

And yet.. at the end.. he gets that rare gift seldom afforded to truly shallow people because he truly SEES what he missed out on all those years ago. And he gets to see thing for what they were. And in the end, it turns out he is NOT so shallow after all. Regret is an emotion that doesn't often lend itself to shallow people. But he is awash in it, by the time it is all over. And I guess I have to go a little easy on him because to me his guilt (in ignoring someone who LOVED him so much) is likely only in that he just loved HIMSELF too much to see anyone else. When it came to women, he always had one close by, didn't he? And they were pretty interchangeable. The only real requirement was that he find them attractive (and interesting) and that they be enamored with him.

Did you notice how all the people in his "regular' hang-outs knew him.. knew what he was doing..(same thing, different girl) even knew what sort of flowers he would buy. (OR would he?) Boy was that flower peddler lady surprised when he chose a different color for this latest girl.

At any rate.. I think he'd had lots of practice just being "wonderful" to women and he was only interested in the 'pursuit" and the relationship "of the moment". And then as soon as someone more interesting.. or intriguing.. or convenient (whatever) showed up, he just lost all focus and went the other way. In fact ,he literally does this with her as they are walking one way down the street, (the first time he notices her)and then he turns them both around and goes the other way and says something to that effect like he "never ends up where he is supposed to be going" or something like that.

But who can blame him? He is just so doggone wonderful, (ha) and he has women looking at him and wanting to be with him everywhere he goes. So he just goes wherever he pleases (literally and figuratively) and sooner or later, there will be a girl waiting for him when he gets there. That is how I saw him anyway.. at least most of the way through the story.

But you know.. having said all that.. I DO think he was intrigued by her enough that it MIGHT have led to something... had he come back as he said. If he had not left at all. Perhaps he COULD have fallen in love with her. Maybe. (because he DID see that she was a different sort of woman than what he was used to)

But then again, maybe it was like "LOVE OVERLOAD" ha. Because I think she would have overwhelmed him and probably even smothered him eventually. At the very least she would have made him NUTS bowing and scraping to him after a while (even if he felt like he was worthy of her worship). Because you know.. a false god with clay feet can really only stand so much worship, and then he'll either get so full of himself he will go out of control and explode.. OR he will just flit and fly off to spread the joy of knowing him with others.. and let THEM worship him instead. Why shouldn't he?? No sense keeping all this "greatness" tied down too long)

So who knows.. maybe they COULD have had a future together. But I don't know (at least if they had stayed the same throughout the story) if it would have lasted. But boy.. he really did enjoy her fawning over him for at least a little while, didn't he?

And yes.. I know.. I am sounding pretty harsh about him at the moment. But stick with me. I am hoping to get somewhere with all this.. eventually. (ha) Because somewhere in all this, there is a measure of deep sympathy to be found for him. (no.. I really mean it!) :)

Feaito says:
Joan Fontaine gives what one can easily be, the most wondrous, poetic, performance, she ever gave, including "Rebecca" and "Suspicion"...Here she simply is at her very best, close to perfection...just as Jennifer Jones, gave (IMHO) THE performance of her career in the aforementioned "Portrait of Jennie". She convicingly grows from an "innocent" adolescent who falls deeply in love with an artist (Louis Jourdan), looking him, following him, listening to him, "in hiding", "in the shadows", quietly, living her life only "for/because of him"... although he's unaware of that. This obsession of hers with this man, reaches to a point where nothing makes sense to her without him. It's platonic love & adoration, taken to extreme limits, almost to the boundaries of insanity, yet so disarmingly naive and true
She was SOMETHING wasn't she? I have to say I am with you, sir. I believe this will go down as my favorite performance for her so far. (though I do confess I am maybe not as knowledgeable about her career as some. Still it is hard to argue that this was NOT one of her best performances, ever) She really shines.. in an albeit horrible, tragic way. So pathetic.. so self-destructive. And yet.. so endearing. You WANT him to love her.. you WANT him to notice her and see her. She loves him so much, she DESERVES for him to know it (if not love her in return) But alas. it was not meant to be. You are right using the word "obsession". It is absolutely the correct word to describe what he becomes to her, very early on and more or less throughout the entire story.

ChiO notes:
This film is Max Ophuls and his camera. It approaches Murnau's DER LETZE MANN as the gold standard of pure cinema. Turn off the sound and be swept away by the camera...and you'll still figure out all that's important in the story.

Ophuls' camera -- beyond its obvious lyricism -- does add meaning to what otherwise would have been the worst sort of weepie. It struck me that despite all of the interiors, there are remarkably few solid doors; however, the film is replete with barriers: windows, railings with grillework, iron gates and fences with bars, french doors, curtains. Those barriers enable Lisa always to see the other side, creating a separation, but allowing a vision as to what is on the other side and thereby making the separation even more heartrending both for her and the audience
And Feaito comments:
Max Ophüls really made a work of art, out of this movie...which by the way, I read somewhere, had a similar plot than the 1933 "Only Yesterday", which marked the debut in the american cinema, of that gorgeous actress, Margaret Sullavan; although Ophüls' film, is by far superior...'cos it "trascends" the "Tearjerker" status; it has an ethereal quality all of his own.
To me that is one of the most amazing things about this film.. that it could be that beautiful and yet SO tragic all at the same time. I know next to nothing about filmmaking and directing, etc. And I know even less about the director for this film. But I know how a movie looks can very much influence the mood it conveys. And this film does a wonderful job of capturing it all.. from the inside out. (because you get to FEEL the emotions while you are watching them play out on screen.. the beauty of love.. and the despair of obsession. The depth of passion one person could have for another.. and the shallowness of a singular desire to only please one's self.) And ChiO I have to say, I loved your comments about the barriers. She was always on the outside looking in with him. (even when they had their brief time together)

Kingrat says:
In a discussion at TCM City about Letter from an Unknown Woman, two posters stated that they wanted to slap Joan Fontaine. Though I don't feel that way, it's probably because I remember being a romantic idealist as a teenager.
Ha.. well I am embarrassed to admit that I have been guilty of such statements though I tend to say things like I want to throw BRICKS at the tv, or take a STICK to characters when they make me mad.. ha. (Never let it be said that I don't take my movie characters seriously) :D But I am not much of a slapper.. ha. And I doubt this time it was me saying it, since I had not seen this film when you wrote your post here, (so maybe I am off the hook, ha)

Jackie says:
For me, the movie shows me the flip side of leading an artistic life, the waste of a life spent in one's own internal universe, rather than in the real world. As a movie fan, I find the movie extremely personal and painful, because the temptation for some of us is to live in that dreamland a little too much.
And see.. that is the beauty about how subjective films really can be. Because you and Kingrat are taking your own personal points of view into account and getting one sense of Lisa's struggle and then someone like me comes along.. and I may have a completely different TAKE on it.. but I still get emotionally involved as well. Because I DO tend to take my movies personally sometimes too. I can totally understand a person being drawn to Lisa and seeing the "why" for what she did. Though I must confess, I was likely the polar opposite of the "romantic idealist" as a teen. So I like that we can both see the same movie and have our own spin on what makes it appealing.. or why we think the character did or didn't do what they did, etc.

And I confess, sometimes I am too practical, I think. So for stories like this one it always makes me mad or frustrated to see a character with SO much depth to her (as Lisa) to just make her whole life so completely messed up over (to borrow the word used earlier) her "obsession".

So.. ha.. I MAY have entertained those thoughts about "slapping," ha. Because I admit that, as much as I liked this film, stories like this get me all frustrated.. ha.. because I WANT them to be love stories, but MOST of the time. love has nothing to do with it.. really. But that doesn't mean I don't find sympathy for her, all the same. Because I DO see the tragedy in all the frustration. It is one thing to fall in love.. but it is a whole OTHER thing to invent a love life. And that is pretty much what she does. She creates her own little world where she is only driven by one desire.. to have Stefan.. to love him and belong to him, even if from afar. And how tragic it is that she spends her whole life never really understanding how sad that is.

Kingrat continues:
Actually, the film suggests that romantic idealism is fatal, and not just to oneself. As in many great stories, we can see both sides of the picture. Lisa (Fontaine) has her own concept of honor and is willing to make any kind of sacrifice for it. LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN tests the romantic notion "All for love." What happens when a girl falls in love and is actually willing to give up everything for love, even when she becomes a woman with a devoted (and rich) husband and an adoring son? Love at first sight and romantic ideals turn out to be destructive forces. The film manages the balancing act of showing us the beauty and goodness in Lisa and her ideals, but also the disastrous consequences. The logic of the film is quite ruthless, about as unsentimental as a movie can be.
And that is well said. You are right in that this film is very "unsentimental". It takes a completely different path, doesn't it? Idealism is seldom a good alternative to what is "real" even if it makes us FEEL better about whatever we are facing.. or whatever we wish we could see in someone else. Better to be real than to end up believing something that never was true. (no matter how harsh the light.. it is always better to have it shining if only to see where you are going when you start down any given path.) But then again.. that could just be that "practical" side of me talking. (because everybody's gotta have a dream now and then too) I think it is all about balance. If you swing one way or the other TOO far.. you'll end up missing out on something.

And thank you for bringing up The Earrings of Madame de... I thought of this film several times when I was watching LFAUW. There are some very similar themes in both films.. even though they are not so similar in other ways.

Elsewhere in another thread.. CineMaven asks:
is it taking if a person wants to give?
That is a GREAT question and one I think you have found the answer for in your further comments below:
Re-reading every one's accounts made me feel a tad sorry for Jourdan. ( A tad...just shy of a smidgen but more than a skoosh. ) I mean, if someone offered YOU their entire heart - soul - devotion - adoration - being - love in its purest - unadulterated - 150%-proof form, and you did not have to work for it, or earn it or return it and they laid it at your feet...would you not drink from that fontaine?
Ha.. nice play on words. And you are absolutely right.. he WAS a sympathetic character. (really, they both were) But for his part.. He had NO idea what he was missing out on did he? He more or less only gets to live a REAL life (with her) at the end of it all.. as he is reading her letter. He finds that he had this WHOLE other existence that he never even knew about before. I can only imagine he must have felt guilty.. at least in part. But do you also think he might have felt cheated? She kept his son from him. She kept her TRUE self from him.. he never had a chance to try to do the right thing.. so we never REALLY will know if he would have or not (as I mentioned earlier) Poor guy. And then to walk out that door and get in that carriage. Perhaps he just felt like he deserved it. I am sure he did. Poor guy, indeed.
The more and more I watch and love these great ol' classics, the more I've come to the conclusion that movies are about reflecting life back to us. Movies reflect the good noble right things we do..and the utterly foolish things we do.
They can be an excellent mirror to human nature sometimes, can't they? If a story is told well, we can see the best of ourselves.. and the worst of ourselves all at the same time, just by watching a movie. There are also times when you just want to "escape" and movies are good for that too. So I think it depends on the tale, ha. But I think stories like this one for sure really are good "windows" to the soul.. what IS it that will lead us to be TRULY happy. Is it better to just wish for something SO much that you lose all concept of reality and you devote your entire life (and the life of your child) toward a fantasy that you have only created in your own mind?? OR.. is a good healthy dose of truth better.. just splash that cold water on her and tell her to snap out of it, ha, right at the very beginning while she was swinging on the swingset listening to him play the piano. (but then.. it would have been a pretty short movie) :D
This movie shows me what it looks like when you do that. ( "This is what it looks like when a person doesn't face the reality of her situation." ) It shows me what it looks like rather than "this is what will happen to you if you don't yadda yadda yadda." I do hope I'm making clear the big difference in those two things. One shows us, and the other is judgmental
That is a great way to say it. It is an "object" lesson.. but not a finger-pointing "Listen up or else" kinda message. But still.. it DOES get the point across. And don't get me wrong.. sometimes a good "finger-point" in a story is just what is needed to convey the right idea (depending on the story) but for this film.. I think the approach is just as you describe it.

I am glad you liked my "Doobie Brothers" example. ha. I know that it may not be entirely the right comparison.. because she DID briefly have a "real" moment with him.. so it wasn't ALL made up in her mind. though they both still were completely unaware of who the other was as a human being.) And the implications of that moment with him certainly were NOT created equal (at least in terms of how they both saw their time together) And yet.. as the song said.. eventually.. never made him "think twice". (agh!) Even years later.. when she meets him again, she had this entire concept of who she thought she was to him. (or at least who she HOPED she would be.. once they were reunited) and then Whammo.. there at last was that splash of cold water for her that I mentioned. Again.... too late to do her any good.
What SEEMS to be, is always better than NOTHING."

I'd say don't settle for what seems to be or you will have nothing.
Ha.. that's IT in a nutshell. If only those "tragic heroine" type gals would LISTEN now and then. :)

Well.. that's about enough blabbage for now. My goodness me, I do tend to go on and on. (oh WHERE is a good "rambles thread" when I need one? ha.. did I mention this would be a long post??)

Thanks everyone for putting up with me. (and PS: thanks Kingrat for your kind comments too.. it's been fun hanging out here lately. I appreciate it.. OH.. and Feaito.. ha.. Four times?? Do you own stock in Kleenex?? ha. I would be an emotional wreck! :D But what a way to go.) :)
Last edited by rohanaka on February 20th, 2014, 6:51 pm, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Re: Letter from an Unknown Woman

Post by movieman1957 »

Look here. Nobody "puts" up with you. It appears you have no idea how valuable you are here. Like so many you bring a perception all your own. Besides look at the discussion you've renewed.

Stick around.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
User avatar
moira finnie
Administrator
Posts: 8024
Joined: April 9th, 2007, 6:34 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Letter from an Unknown Woman

Post by moira finnie »

Ro, your comments about this movie are so thought-provoking, you reminded me that I should go back and re-read Stefan Zweig's 1922 short story that inspired the film. I haven't read it in years, and I think, just as Ophuls film means more to me now, I'll probably have a different reaction to the story too. Zweig was a fascinating figure in world literature who really had a gift for dissecting our illusions--though he had empathy for his characters, despite their flaws.
Avatar: Frank McHugh (1898-1981)

The Skeins
TCM Movie Morlocks
User avatar
rohanaka
Posts: 255
Joined: April 30th, 2009, 1:00 pm

Re: Letter from an Unknown Woman

Post by rohanaka »

movieman1957 wrote:Look here. Nobody "puts" up with you. It appears you have no idea how valuable you are here. Like so many you bring a perception all your own. Besides look at the discussion you've renewed..
Well Mr. Movieman.. you are nicer to me than I deserve because in truth I just like to gab and blab.. ha. So I am glad folks are willing to gab along with me. But THANK you dear sir.. for those very kind words.
moirafinnie wrote:Ro, your comments about this movie are so thought-provoking, you reminded me that I should go back and re-read Stefan Zweig's 1922 short story that inspired the film. I haven't read it in years, and I think, just as Ophuls film means more to me now, I'll probably have a different reaction to the story too. Zweig was a fascinating figure in world literature who really had a gift for dissecting our illusions--though he had empathy for his characters, despite their flaws.
Thanks for the insight into the original story, Miss Moira. I would imagine reading the story gives you a deeper perspective on all the emotion both characters experienced too. It is always easier to "read" what is going on in someone's mind than it is to watch it play out on screen. But then again.. I think it depends on the actor or actress. I know that some are more talented than others when it comes to these sorts of characters.. like Miss Fontaine here for sure. She had such an expressive way of conveying those sorts of deeper emotions, I can literally almost feel the breath get knocked out of me with every "emotional hit" that she takes.

(aghh.. Feaito.. I may need to take out some of that stock in Kleenex TOO if we keep talking about movies like THIS one) :D
User avatar
Robert Regan
Posts: 290
Joined: June 12th, 2012, 3:59 pm

Re: Letter from an Unknown Woman

Post by Robert Regan »

Dear Friends, it is so gratifying to see one of my all-time favorites continuing to excite people and elicit fascinating and insightful commentaries. I first saw it as a child when all I remembered was that a little boy got sick on a train! Since then I have seen it more time even than Fealto, and like all really great movies it changes and grows with the passage of time, and familiarity does not breed contempt! Perhaps the main way it and I have changed is in my view of the idea of Romantic. Critics and fans often refer to Ophuls as a Romantic, but after spending so much time with this film and seeing virtually all his work early last year, I disagree. True, his style is Romantic, but his mind is not. Though sympathetic to all his characters, he never condones their Romantic illusions that damage their growth and sometimes destroy their lives.

Ophuls was not happy living and working in America. During his ten years here he was only able to make four films, but two of them Letter and The Reckless Moment are masterpieces that are at leas as good as anything that he made in France, Germany, Holland, or Italy. Furthermore, it was in the US that he really became Max Ophuls. The availability of the most up to date dollies and cranes enabled him to raise his stylistic preference for a moving camera to the level of great art.

An interesting cross-reference to his style and mode of thought is the 2004 Chinese version of the story written, directed, and starring the immensely talented Xu Jinglei. Setting the story in her homeland during the thirties and forties, she puts it in a different light. Not, perhaps, the masterpiece that inspired her, but a damn good movie.

There is an earlier adaptation of Zweig's story, White Roses made in Finland in 1943 by Hannu Leminen with Helena Kara, one of her country's greatest stars. Though it is only available on dvd without English titles, I'm thinking about going for it, as it has been suggested that it may have influenced Ophuls. I think I know the story well enough that I would not miss the dialogue.

Thank you all for restimulating my interest in Letter from an Unknown Woman and for inspiring to put it on my list for this weekend's cinematic pleasures.
User avatar
CineMaven
Posts: 3815
Joined: September 24th, 2007, 9:54 am
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Contact:

Re: Letter from an Unknown Woman

Post by CineMaven »

Ro, what's the link to the movie on YouTube. I can't find it. I need to revisit this film we've talked it up so much. Thanks.
"You build my gallows high, baby."

http://www.megramsey.com
User avatar
rohanaka
Posts: 255
Joined: April 30th, 2009, 1:00 pm

Re: Letter from an Unknown Woman

Post by rohanaka »

Robert Regan wrote:...like all really great movies it changes and grows with the passage of time, and familiarity does not breed contempt! Perhaps the main way it and I have changed is in my view of the idea of Romantic. Critics and fans often refer to Ophuls as a Romantic, but after spending so much time with this film and seeing virtually all his work early last year, I disagree. True, his style is Romantic, but his mind is not. Though sympathetic to all his characters, he never condones their Romantic illusions that damage their growth and sometimes destroy their lives.
What a wonderful way to describe things. I mentioned earlier that I know almost nothing about Mr. Ophuls, but I really like the way you have worded your comment on his "style" of filmmaking. I think you have said (in a much more succinct manner) what I meant earlier when I was talking about how the film looked by saying that it was was not a "romance" movie but that in many ways it was "romanticized" ha. You did a better job of explaining what I meant than I did! :)

PS: Miss Maven.. here is the link. It took some digging to find it the other day, and I almost didn't see it myself. The title is listed in Spanish.. so I was worried when I clicked on it, what I would find. But lucky for me, the movie is presented in English. (thank GOODNESS.. it has been WAY(way so very way) too long since my I took my 2 yrs in highschool/1 semester in college of Spanish classes.. ha. I am more than a LITTLE bit rusty) :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21873lk7HuE
Post Reply