LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN

US, 1945, 110 minutes, Colour.
Gene Tierney, Cornel Wilde, Jeanne Crain, Vincent Price, Mary Philips, Ray Collins, Gene Lockhart, Darrell Hickman, Chill Wills.
Directed by John M. Stahl.

‘Leave her to Heaven’ are the words of Hamlet when judgment is made on his mother, Gertrude. It is one of the myriad titles of films and plays taken from Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

The theme of the film is jealousy. Gene Tierney, cold and charming, portrays Helen who infatuates a young writer played by Cornel Wilde. They marry, but mysterious things, violent things seem to happen. He and the family discover the intense jealousy underlying Gene Tierney’s character.

Finally, there is a court case which involves the half-sister, played by Jeanne Crain at the beginning of her career. Also in the cast, Vincent Price.

The film is photographed in lavish Technicolor (as was Duel in the Sun at this time), Instead of a film noir in black and white, we have a film noir in extravagant colour. Leon Shamroy won an Oscar for his cinematography.

The film was directed by John M. Stahl who directed heightened melodramas in the 1930s including Magnificent Obsession, Back Street and Imitation of Life (all of which were remade lavishly in the late 1950s). He also directed at this time The Keys of the Kingdom and The Foxes of Harrow.

This is Hollywood film-making – all stops pulled out – at its best. Gene Tierney was nominated for an Oscar – but lost out to Joan Crawford in Mildred Pierce, a black and white film noir.

1. Was this a good melodrama? On what conventions do melodramas work? Are they a valid art form? What response do they gain from audiences?

2. How realistic are melodramas? Is it necessary for them to be realistic or to be heightened emotional confrontations? Why?

3. The significance of the title and its origins in "Hamlet"? Leaving Ellen to the justice of Heaven? As illustrating the theme of the film?

4. Comment on the structure of the films the flashback technique, the knowledge that Dick was in prison, not knowing who he was going to meet? Did this add to the suspense and audience curiosity? Would a straightforward narrative have been better? Why?

5. How did the film make Ellen central? the initial meeting on the train, her romance, the building up of her possessiveness, the details of her possessiveness of Dick, her father? How did she become a monster? Why was she so cruel? Could audiences identify with her and her feelings? Did she elicit any sympathy? Why was she so possessive and cruel? The effect on her father, mother, fiance Russell, Ruth# Dan, Dick? How many people's lives did she ruin? Are such jealous and possessive characters credible? Her device of wreaking vengeance after her death?

6. How interesting a hero was Dick? As a writer, infatuated by Ellen, marrying her, finding happiness with her, looking after Dan? The change of affections? The realization of her cruelty? Audience sympathy for him, during the trial? His telling of the truth? Was his jail sentence credible? Were audiences satisfied with his meeting Ruth at the end?

7. How attractive a character was Ruth? As a contrast with Ellen? Her support and love for Dick? As a victim of Ellen's anger and circumstances? The ordeal of the trial and audience sympathy?

8. How effectively communicated was the relationship between Dan, Dick, Ellen and their friend looking after Dan? Ellen’s removal of the friend and her decision to let Dan die?

9. The malicious impact on Russell and his memory of being jilted, his political pursuits instead of letting Ellen possess him, his defence of her?

10. The importance of Ellen's destructive power on her mother and father?

11. How did this melodrama rely on images for its impact: Ellen's scattering her father's ashes, the swim for Dan's death, the walk on the beach, her causing the miscarriage, letting the poison work in her and her death?

12. How do audiences respond to such films about jealousy? As the deadliest of sins and as a reality in the audiences’ lives?

13. Does this film now seem dated or is it still enjoyable as it was in the forties? How did it illustrate the film conventions of the forties?