THE BEST OF EVERYTHING
US, 1959, 121 minutes, Colour.
Hope Lange, Stephen Boyd, Suzy Parker, Martha Hyer, Diane Baker, Brian Aherne, Robert Evans, Brett Halsey, Louis Jourdan, Joan Crawford.
Directed by Jean Negulesco.
The Best of Everything is the kind of soap opera that was very popular at the end of the 1950s after the success of such films as Peyton Place, A Certain Feeling, Bonjour Tristesse. It has a large star cast and was directed by Jean Negulesco who also directed some of these films. He had directed some action films and thrillers in the 1940s including The Mask of Dimitrios and Johnny Belinda. With the coming of Cinemascope he made a number of very glossy films including How to Marry a Millionaire, Woman’s World and Three Coins in the Fountain.
This is the world of big business in the late 1940s – a world in which the executives could get away with sexual harassment in a way they could not in later decades! The film follows the fortunes and misfortunes of four young women who have ambitions, who end up going the wrong way, who look for a good man, or who make the best of everything. The stars were the young hopefuls of the period. The men, on the other hand, come out very badly. Stephen Boyd is alcoholic, Louis Jourdan, suave and cruel. Robert Evans is another of the men – at the beginning of a career which led him into production at Paramount and an ambivalent reputation (with documentary insight into his career as actor and producer, The Kid Stays in the Picture).
The film also has Joan Crawford in a supporting role, as the businesswoman who presides over business and the fate of the young women. It is pointed out that her husband, Alfred Steele, the president of Pepsi- Cola, died while the film was in production and that when Joan Crawford took over, art imitated life in terms of her taking control and giving orders to everyone.
1. Why are melodramatic films like this so enjoyable for audiences? What retains the interest: plot complications, the characters, the modern environment, political and emotional relationships, the lush style? Critics call films like this ‘Trash'. Do you agree? why?
2. How important for films like this are colour, widescreen scope, the stars and their personalities, the music, fashions and decor, title song?
3. How successful was the screenplay: in its drawing of characters, use of situations, stock situations and cliches? Did the film explore situations and people or did it remain on the surface? The film is described as 'slick'. Is this accurate?
4. What human. values do films like this stand for? Or do they merely exploit the response to sensational situations and characters?
5. How attractive a heroine was Caroline? The contrast between her at the start and the finish? What changed her? Did she change for the better? Trace the change in her character from a romantic young girl, waiting for her fiancé, ambitious, hard-working, timid, moving through promotions, helping others, falling in love with Mike, becoming harder? Her wanting to be her own mistress and not anybody else’s? Could the audience identify with her and focus the other characters through her? Was the audience satisfied with the happy ending for her?
6. How well portrayed were the other girls: Mary-Agnes? and the typing pool and her chatter, Gregg, April, Barbara? How did they contrast with Caroline and with one another?
7. Was Gregg, a credible character? As a melodramatic actress, moody, ambitious, obsessed? The pathetic nature of her love for David Savage? Why was she not helped more by her friends? Why couldn't she communicate? Was her death believable or too melodramatic?
8. How attractive a girl was April? From Colorado, naive and nice, enjoying life and parties and whatever was offered? Her pushiness, especially towards Dexter? Was it obvious that she would be seduced and used? Was the escaping from the car and her miscarriage credible or contrived? Was it credible that she and the doctor would find true love? Are there girls like April with such stories?
9. How interesting was the character of Amanda? As the strong and severe woman, her bitchiness in treatment of the other girls, their response to her? Did the film say that she was nice underneath: her leaving and the nature of her return? Was there a danger that Caroline would grow into a type like Amanda?
10. Were Barbara and her plight well explored?
11. How good a hero for the film was Mike? His background comments, his drinking, disillusionment? His love for Caroline and continually telling the truth to her? As a kind of chorus for the proceedings?
12. Why was Shalimar introduced into the film? For comedy, the older generation, his attitude toward sex, work? His helping of others? his fear of his job being taken?
13. How conventional a villain was David Savage? Louis Jourdan's suave portrayal? Success as a playwright, his callous attitudes in his affairs, his disregarding Gregg, the impact of her death on him?
14. After this discussion how ironic was the title? The irony of its portrayal of modern America, New York book firms, the modern world of enterprise and success? What values did the film stand for? Are films like this an image of life as lived? The melodramatic and glossy surface of life as lived?
