Monday, June 06, 2022

Daisy Kenyon (1947)

Film: Daisy Kenyon (1947)
Stars: Joan Crawford, Dana Andrews, Henry Fonda, Ruth Warrick, Peggy Ann Garner
Director: Otto Preminger
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Throughout the month of June, in honor of the 10th Anniversary of The Many Rantings of John, we will be doing a Film Noir Movie Marathon, featuring fifteen film noir classics that I'll be seeing for the first time.  Reviews of other film noir classics are at the bottom of this article.

We're looking at film noir throughout the month, but with that, we're going to occasionally veer into areas that aren't really film noir.  Usually when you think of noir, you think of something to do with crime, likely murder, and there's at least one antihero detective at the center, and probably a couple of glamorous women who might be bad news (or might be there to save the antihero before the count is done).  Daisy Kenyon is not a film noir, but it is frequently billed as one (hence why it's part of this series).  During inarguably the most creative period of Joan Crawford's stardom (coming off of her Oscar win for Mildred Pierce, for much of the rest of the 1940's & early 1950's Crawford made most of her best movies, and got the remainder of her Oscar nominations), she made several films, including some noirs, but Daisy Kenyon by my definition is not a noir-it doesn't have a crime element, and while its center is certainly a glamorous woman, she's not really dangerous.  That being said, it is a fascinating film, and so I'm glad it randomly came up for this series.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is about Daisy Kenyon (Crawford), who is having an affair with Dan O'Mara (Andrews), a married lawyer.  After he stiffs her one too many times, she goes on a date with Peter Lapham (Fonda), a widower who recently got back from the war.  This sets in motion a bizarre love triangle, where it's not entirely clear whether or not Daisy loves Dan or Peter more (or, in a weird twist, which one is better for her given their marital status and this being 1947), nor is it clear which of the two men truly love Daisy.  Dan has deep feelings for her, but doesn't want to disrupt his life, and Peter seems at times to be more in love with his dead wife than with Daisy, dating her more because he expected to be married than because she's the one he wants to end up with.

Daisy Kenyon is famous today for its approach to its material.  Dan's eventual divorce in most films of this nature would be handled through melodrama, with his long-suffering wife Lucille (Warrick) likely killing herself or looking out longing windows rather than actually getting revenge on him, but Daisy Kenyon plays this straight.  It's a bit jarring to watch, and kind of hard to explain, but treating divorce, adultery, & romance in a level-headed (rather than overtly cinematic) way is very unusual to watch, and the film reads more like something you'd see in the 1970's or 80's than out of Tinseltown's heyday.  The realism, though, hurts the ending, because it's clear by the end of the movie that neither of these men are good enough for Daisy, or particularly good for her in general, and it'd be best if she just ended up alone.

As a result, I liked it, but didn't love it.  I think it's a fascinating thought experiment, though not everyone seems to understand the assignment.  Fonda is badly miscast here, bizarre as Peter & honestly making him feel too abrupt to believably pair with the confident Crawford.  Despite arguably being the least of the three (very talented) leads, Andrews comes across the best of the crew, giving Dan a realism that you wouldn't expect.  Dan is obviously in love with Daisy, but wishes she'd be less-complicated, and be the sex goddess he clearly initially fell for; he's obviously mad at himself for falling in love with her & not being able to move on to the next woman, but toxic masculinity is never going to allow him to blame himself for having feelings.  Sadly, even in 1947 this movie doesn't quite have the foresight to explore such complicated work from Andrews, and I think while this is good, it's not the reappraised classic some describe it as.

No comments: