A Bill of Divorcement (1940) User Reviews

While it's already been done right on, why not give other actors a chance to exercise their thespian muscles?

[mark.waltz · 6/10 · 6 April 2013]

And that's what they do. Maureen O'Hara, Fay Bainter, Adolph Menjou, Dame May Witty, to name the ones who stand out, taking over for Katharine Hepburn, Billie Burke, John Barrymore and Elizabeth Patterson in the original 1932 version. Many studios remade their films that were less than a decade old, and since Hepburn had moved on, first back to Broadway and then to MGM, her old role was ripe for the taking. O'Hara may not be the first candidate I'd think for taking on the role of this loose cannon, a young lady who may or may not have inherited her father's (Adolph Menjou) side of the family's mental illness. He's been in an institution for years, so he is unknown to her, and when he comes back right after his wife (Fay Bainter) has gotten a divorce, all hell breaks loose.

Bible spouting aunt Dame May Witty is having a spiritual heart attack over her sister-in-law's divorce and impending marriage to Herbert Marshall, and O'Hara has no qualms about telling this old lady where to go when she begins to interfere in her plans. I'd have seen the other Irish Maureen (O'Sullivan that is) in this part, but surprisingly, Ms. O'Hara is quite effective, certainly far bolder than her dainty ballet performer in "Dance Girl Dance", and her explosions of anger are actually quite scary because they come out of nowhere, just like someone with a mental illness. Menjou is perfect in this part, ironic considering his film appearances with Hepburn not long after the original version was released. Bainter plays her role with great restraint and dignity, while Witty's aunt is not nearly as annoying as Patterson's. She actually makes more of an impact in the part than Patterson did. Herbert Marshall and C. Aubrey Smith also appear but in roles not as showy as the others.

Still, while it's almost identical to the original version, you can't help but compare the two. For this reason, I highly recommend the original and give this version a moderate thumbs up. There's nothing new to tell here even though it is well done, extremely well acted, and certainly worth watching.

Seemed to Ramble on at Times

[Uriah43 · 5/10 · 12 September 2015]

From what I understand this film is a remake of an earlier picture produced in 1932 which starred notable actors like John Barrymore and Katharine Hepburn. Now having never seen the previous movie I cannot honestly say how well the 1940 version compares with it. That said I can only render my opinion based on what I have seen. Be that as it may, in this particular movie Maureen O'Hara stars as a young woman named "Sydney Fairfield" who is engaged to be married soon but gets some very unpleasant news when her father "Hilary Fairfield" (Adolphe Menjou) comes home after escaping from an insane asylum. Her mother, "Margaret Fairfield" (Fay Bainter) had been granted a divorce a year earlier but now her subsequent remarriage in just a few days is also put into question. At any rate, rather than reveal any more of this movie I will just say that I found this drama to be rather mediocre in that some of the scenes seemed to ramble on at times and the ending left much to be desired. As matter of fact, I honestly believe that this movie would have been slightly better if it had been converted into a comedy instead. But that is just my opinion. In any case, all things considered I rate the film as about average.

Worth watching for the STARS though the story is dated

[mrcaw12 · 7/10 · 18 December 2023]

Never knew there was an alternate version of this movie from the Katharine Hepburn version.

I enjoyed this movie. You have to accept that the topic of insanity in a family back in the day was extremely taboo. People just didn't talk about it.

That being said, the earlier version from the early 30s, still in the early period of talking pictures, would have been received better by audiences, given the same storyline, since it was then still all so new, both talking pictures and have mass media productions (i.e. Movies) covering a topic like this.

By 1940, however, the material would definitely have aged even then.

This 1940 picture does come off as if it were made in the late 20s or early 1930s.

What makes it more of a success then it should be is the quality of acting.

Recall, Ms. O'Hara was still practically brand new to movie audiences in 1940 with only a couple of movies under her belt. I think she was only around 20 in this movie by the way.

I enjoyed the movie because all the stars were great really demonstrating WHY they were stars. And Ms. O'Hara held her own alongside these Hollywood veterans.

Probably the only sore point from an acting perspective was that of young Patrick Knowles in one of his earlier roles. He's incredibly bland and wooden but thankfully he doesn't get much screen time.

If you're a fan of old movies, I can't imagine your not enjoying the movie even if the storyline deals with the topic of insanity in such a melodramatic way. Of course, nowadays, there would be scenes of a doctor actually attempting to treat people...lol...here it's just, the I wont get married and have children approach.

So you have to accept that handling of the subject matter. If you do, just sit back and enjoy seeing these stars do their thing.

It's fun going back in time and seeing the world from a different perspective.

And let's not forget the opportunity just to check out the set. The house where 90% of the film is set is super cool!

Solid remake

[jarrodmcdonald-1 · 3 August 2022]

Katharine Hepburn's motion picture career began when she was cast in the ingenue role of the 1932 version of A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT. Based on a play that had been a hit on both sides of the Atlantic, it did well with audiences and turned a tidy profit for RKO. It is not surprising the studio decided to remake it in 1940 as a showcase for its newest star, Maureen O'Hara.

After watching the 1940 version, it occurred to me that perhaps Miss O'Hara is better in the role of Sidney Fairfield than Katharine Hepburn. In my view Hepburn has a tendency to hide in her characters and exaggerate them to the point that they come off as too all-knowing. But O'Hara doesn't do that. She seems to understand the main conflict and applies empathy and full-bodied pathos to the role in a constructive way.

She is not hiding in the character or hiding the truth about the character from the audience. Also, unlike Hepburn, O'Hara radiates a lot more sincerity, so when Sidney Fairfield is struggling with a mental health crisis, we believe it to be an honest and sincere form of struggle that she can overcome by doing the right thing in the end.

In addition to having the Irish-born O'Hara take the lead role, it also helps that so many of the supporting cast are British, since the story takes place in Britain. One of the reasons I was eager to look at the remake is because it features May Whitty in the role of the domineering aunt.

Miss Whitty was just as good as I expected her to be. She elevates her character's bible thumping to a whole new level of viciousness...but skillfully prevents the character from coming across one-dimensional. It feels like the aunt's highly judgmental nature is balanced by obvious concern for the Fairfield family.

Meanwhile Patric Knowles shines as the jilted love interest. Like O'Hara, he plays his role sincerely...we believe that he is deeply in love with her. And that they would have a great future together, if she didn't feel compelled to break off their engagement due to fears that their children might inherit a gene for mental illness.

Adolphe Menjou is the one that I expected to be miscast, since I normally associate him with more comical performances, or at least lighter characters in serious fare. But he rises to the occasion, and I think he succeeds at playing the more volatile aspects of Hilary Fairfield, a man who recently left an institution. Unlike his predecessor in the role, he does not bring all kinds of extra baggage to the screen the way John Barrymore does. So this seems like a more professional acting job.

In the role of the wife, we have Fay Bainter. She infuses her character with gravitas, which helps put this melodrama across strongly. We feel her anguish when she is torn by loyalty to her ex-husband and daughter, with the chance to start anew with a close friend (Herbert Marshall) who wishes to marry her.

What makes the story work is the way the three women under one roof are not entirely united. The aunt's loyalty is with Menjou's character, keeping up the facade of a decent and respectable clan. She chastises Bainter for having gotten a divorce while Menjou was locked up, a controversial decision that's had lasting ramifications on O'Hara.

The relationship between the women is a focal point in all of the screen versions as well as the play. The original play was authored by Clemence Dane, a British playwright and novelist that was often a source of amusement for Noel Coward, who supposedly based the eccentric medium character in 'Blithe Spirit' on her. One wonders how much of the Sidney Fairfield character was autobiographical in nature.

Also, it's interesting to read that while the play was first produced in 1922 in London and New York, it was set in the future of 1932...which is when RKO produced its first film adaptation. Probably Dane set it in the future because it was still not permitted in 1922 for a woman to divorce her husband on the grounds of insanity.

The original London production of the play featured C. Aubrey Smith in the role of the wife's fiancé. And here he is in RKO's second version in the role of a doctor. I also read the play was revived many times in various touring productions during the 1930s and 1940s, so it remained very popular for a long time. In addition to the live performances and films, it was adapted for radio more than once.

In some ways, the story is just as relevant today as it ever was. For decades, scientists have believed that some forms of mental illness are hereditary. While this drama does not exactly specify what type of illness, Whitty's character declares that poor Hilary's shell shock after the war only triggered a condition he already had, which another member of the family suffered from as well.

During the emotional train station sequence near the end, O'Hara tells Knowles that one female relative was not sent to an institution like her father, but was hidden away in a bedroom inside the house and is remembered for her mad ravings. Back at the house, her father seems to become increasingly erratic when the clock in the main hall tolls the hour.

Today there is discussion about how conditions like autism, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and severe depression may run in families. This film can still shed light on the psychological struggles that occur in multi-generational households.

As I finished watching the remake of A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT, I thought about how this story reminds me of ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS where Jane Wyman's character is shamed about moving on with her life after her previous marriage had ended.

Fay Bainter's character is going through the same thing in this story. The audience for these types of melodramas in the 40s and 50s needed to feel reassured that a woman could still have fulfillment in life despite a set of irreversible circumstances that might rock the foundation of her family and home life. Here we have O'Hara making the ultimate sacrifice.

After some brief happiness, she breaks things off with her handsome beau, and she lets her mother go off and start a new life, offering to look after a father whom she knows she is very similar to, in outlook and temperament. The remake ends the way the earlier film version ends, with father and daughter at the piano coming up with notes for an unfinished sonata that he had created. The song may never be fully finished, but together, they can tune in on what most affects them.

This Bill Has It's Moments But Doesn't End Well

[daoldiges · 4/10 · 23 December 2023]

There are some very solid performances here with O'Hara and Menjou leading the way. May Witty is also on-point as the overly pious, self-righteous, miserable old windbag that everyone will love to hate. The story is very old-fashioned but never-the-less it does still kind of work. Sure, it's a little bit slow but there are enough moments that when put together almost makes it worth your time until . . . The final section comes. The fact that John just gets up and walks away never to be seen again with absolutely no protestions is quite a sham really. Did he ever really love her? I think he did and that is not how his character would have responded to that bit of news. And then the very ending between O'Hara and Menjou - was that supposed to be inspiring, uplifting? I have no idea what the viewer is supposed to feel but I found of completely unsatisfying.

Not one of Adolphe Menjou's best

[holdencopywriting · 2/10 · 16 January 2012]

I'm a big Adolphe Menjou family, but I didn't find this Never to Love/A Bill of Divorcement an interesting film. Everyone is so terribly overwrought and exaggerated. I lose interest in them. They don't seem like real people. I don't care anything about them. When blank-faced, monotone Herbert Marshall shows up as the lover and he seems to practically vibrate with suppressed emotion...well, I could barely watch the rest. I feel the same about the 1932 Katharine Hepburn/John Barrymore version, although, thankfully, Maureen O'Hara as the daughter does not have the awful, strident, harsh voice in this version that makes listening to the 1932 film so painful.

Unnecessary...plus a terrible ending.

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 22 April 2024]

"A Bill of Divorcement" is a remake of the 1932 film of the same title. The original is better and after watching the 1940 version, I can't think of a good reason to have made it in the first place.

The basic story is confusing and about as probable as Elvis returning to Earth aboard a UFO! Shortly after marrying, a man loses his mind and spends the next 2+ decades locked in a sanitarium. During this time, we are expected to believe that his loving family just never found the time to visit him. And, after more than 20 years, he escapes and shows up at his home just a few days before his wife, I mean 'ex-wife', is about to get married again. He had no idea his wife was going to remarry or that she'd divorced him. In addition to this awkward situation, he finds his daughter all grown up (Mauren O'Hara) and anticipating getting married herself rather soon.

As you can see, the set-up for this film is VERY difficult to believe and what follows isn't any better. To make it worse, the ending...wow is it a mess and apparently what had happened to the father is a guarantee the same will happen with his daughter one day! Now HOW did they come up with this?!

The bottom line is that so much of this story just doesn't make any sense. The actors try their best...but sometimes that just isn't enough. Overall, a ridiculous story that also seems a bit disgusting as no one seems to really care about the mentally ill father.

It Has Moments

[finial12 · 8/10 · 16 August 2007]

Maureen O'Hara, aka the tempestuous queen of technicolor, helpmate and sparring partner for John Wayne, (or is it John Ford?), was still finding her way tentatively after being plucked from obscurity by an astute Charles Laughton. Her introduction to worldwide audiences as the benighted gypsy girl in the masterpiece of Hollywood storytelling, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" brought her fame for her sensitivity and astounding beauty.

Here, hampered by the unimaginative direction of John Farrow and hammy acting of Adolphe Menjou, she attempted to make audiences forget Katharine Hepburn's still moving portrayal of the same character. But then, aside from an intense talent, Hepburn also had George Cukor behind the camera to guide her and a chastened John Barrymore giving one of his better late career moments.

You can glimpse the makings of a thoughtful actress in O'Hara here, who might've shone brighter if she could've had more opportunities to display some of the inner turmoil that made her remarkably beautiful face so haunting long after the technicolor prints of more bombastic films fade. It is worth a look for that alone.

Is insanity running in the family really something to bother about?

[clanciai · 9/10 · 1 March 2024]

Maureen O'Hara and Adolphe Menjou make marvellous performances in this rather confused play of confused relationships, where in the beginning everything seems all right as the mother is going to marry Herbert Marshall and Maureen has found her John, an Australian, they are in love and are going to be happy, and no one bothers about the creaking old aunt and her puritan objections to everything, but then something most unexpected happens, like a shocking surprise: the father comes home after having escaped from his asylum. He claims he is all right, but nothing can be all right any more from that moment on. Everyone's circles are upset, and the only way out of the sudden imposture of complications seems to escape. Here is entered a hornet's nest of complications and considerations, as the father's insanity is regarded as hereditary and incurable, there have been others in the family suffering from the same predicament, and this falls like a doom on the family. You will have objections to the credibility of such a plot, the matter of insanity in the family becomes like an obsession if not a superstition of a fixed idea, and those who just run away appear the sanest. But the acting is wonderful on all parts, there is lovely music as well, which actually plays an important part in the intrigue, this is a chamber play at its best, and it is enjoyable all the way.