To start off with the positive aspects of the film, I will say that I really did enjoy watching this film, at least the first half. The story is watchable and captivating from the beginning, and the production values are solid. There are undoubtedly some interesting class dynamics throughout the film. It also provides a very frank and interesting look at a non- traditional family structure, where the parents are separated for a number of years but remain on good terms and are not jealous or possessive. Both parents seem to respect that their love for each other as husband and wife no longer exists, and they are mature enough to understand that being controlling about each other's possible new relationships helps no one. It's refreshing and surprising to see this in a film from 1937. Barbara Stanwyck gives a very good performance as Stella, though her character's actions become somewhat ridiculous toward the end of the film (as I will discuss further below). She nails Stella's genuine desire to better herself and to rise above her low-class roots, but she doesn't overplay her social ambitions so much that the other aspects of her character, like her humor and hedonism, are lost. Later in the film, she portrays her deep love for her daughter well without turning her into a one-dimensional martyr. John Boles is a bit plain as Stephen, but it's appropriate for the role. Barbara O'Neil gives a warm and understated performance as Helen. The weak link of the cast for me is Anne Shirley, who gives a mannered performance of almost no nuance or complexity as Laurel. Hers is one of the lesser Oscar-nominated performances I've seen in her category.
WIth that being said, the one element I could not get past was the plot. I found the film's plot to be extremely frustrating, and it is the film's fundamental weakness in my opinion. As a few other reviewers have commented, there are some extremely illogical and just plain baffling character and plot developments, especially later in the film, that I could not get over, even accounting for the fact that the film was released 75 years ago and social norms were different back then. There is a scene late in the film, a catalyst for the film's conclusion, where Stella parades around a resort wearing the gaudiest outfit imaginable. When she finds out that she's hurting Laurel's social standing or whatever, she decides that she needs to disappear from her life, apparently never to see her again. There is no explanation as to how her self-conscious young lady at the beginning turns into the most oblivious woman possible (how can she not realize how ridiculous she looks, honestly?) She actually gets LESS refined as the movie progresses after marrying into the upper class! So instead of simply toning down her out-of-nowhere garishness and working to understand how it might affect her daughter, she concludes that there is no other option but to mislead her daughter, the love of her life, into thinking that she doesn't love her but just wants to marry her washed up drunk friend, "Uncle Ed" (Alan Hale) and move to South America. She is apparently totally fine with letting her daughter, who seems to be her only reason for living at that point, think that she doesn't love her and doesn't want her. And we're supposed to be touched how noble her self-sacrifice is. By the end, I found myself deeply annoyed at the way things played out.
All of this might seem like nitpicking, but the fundamental point of the film is how Stella loves her daughter so much that she's willing to sacrifice everything for her happiness (including their entire relationship, apparently). In the end, Stella is portrayed as the quintessential self- sacrificing mother, but I couldn't help but wondering, was it really necessary to cut off all ties in order for Laurel to have happiness? I think the answer is no, and that is the film's fatal flaw for me.
WIth that being said, the one element I could not get past was the plot. I found the film's plot to be extremely frustrating, and it is the film's fundamental weakness in my opinion. As a few other reviewers have commented, there are some extremely illogical and just plain baffling character and plot developments, especially later in the film, that I could not get over, even accounting for the fact that the film was released 75 years ago and social norms were different back then. There is a scene late in the film, a catalyst for the film's conclusion, where Stella parades around a resort wearing the gaudiest outfit imaginable. When she finds out that she's hurting Laurel's social standing or whatever, she decides that she needs to disappear from her life, apparently never to see her again. There is no explanation as to how her self-conscious young lady at the beginning turns into the most oblivious woman possible (how can she not realize how ridiculous she looks, honestly?) She actually gets LESS refined as the movie progresses after marrying into the upper class! So instead of simply toning down her out-of-nowhere garishness and working to understand how it might affect her daughter, she concludes that there is no other option but to mislead her daughter, the love of her life, into thinking that she doesn't love her but just wants to marry her washed up drunk friend, "Uncle Ed" (Alan Hale) and move to South America. She is apparently totally fine with letting her daughter, who seems to be her only reason for living at that point, think that she doesn't love her and doesn't want her. And we're supposed to be touched how noble her self-sacrifice is. By the end, I found myself deeply annoyed at the way things played out.
All of this might seem like nitpicking, but the fundamental point of the film is how Stella loves her daughter so much that she's willing to sacrifice everything for her happiness (including their entire relationship, apparently). In the end, Stella is portrayed as the quintessential self- sacrificing mother, but I couldn't help but wondering, was it really necessary to cut off all ties in order for Laurel to have happiness? I think the answer is no, and that is the film's fatal flaw for me.