1946 'Deception' recap: Bette with gun & shoulderpads, conductor Claude killed, & Paul Henreid as a jealous cellist! |
I
often watched 1946’s Deception, a
twisted triangle set to classical music, on the afternoon movies while growing
up. This Warner Brothers melodrama seemed very grownup to a ‘70s high school
kid.
After
not seeing Deception for decades, I re-watched
the sudsy drama recently, and managed to make it half way through, before
giving up in exasperation.
Claude Rains steals 'Deception' as the catty conductor, Alexander Hollenius. |
Deception
has a dazzling cast—Bette Davis, Paul Henreid, and especially Claude Rains—tangling
with one another in a jealous triangle that leads to murder. The acting is
fine, but the trio is done in by a premise that is patently unbelievable.
Bette
Davis is Christine Radcliffe, a struggling pianist who lost her lover, cellist Karel
Novak (Paul Henreid), in Europe five years ago to a concentration camp. Relocated
in post-war NYC, Christine rediscovers Karel after the war, when she sees his
name in a concert review. Speaking of names, Christine tells Karel that she
took Radcliffe as her “professional name.” I guess Christine Sarah Lawrence
sounded too pretentious!
Bette Davis and Paul Henreid as musical lovers reunited in post-war NYC. |
Christine’s
first line is as declarative as only Davis can be: “I thought you were dead!”
Equally subtle is when Karel takes her hand, and Christine holds both up: “No
rings.” Reunited, they return to her apartment. On the way up the stairs,
Christine tells Karel that she struggles to make ends meet as a pianist, by
giving lessons. Unfortunately, once they walk through the door, her apartment
is actually a luxurious loft. Hanging up his jacket, Karel notices several fur
coats in the closet. Looking around the loft, the cellist sees lots of lovely
paintings and sculptures. Christine soft pedals all this obvious luxury. However,
Karel is not just a cellist, but a jealous cellist! He attempts to choke her to
stop her barrage of non-stop lies.
After
apologies, Henreid’s Karel decides the best thing for them to do is marry as
quickly as possible. Bette turns her big eyes away from Henreid, and pops them
for the camera…uh-oh.
The deadly...dull triangle that is 'Decption.' |
You
see, Bette’s been living large due to a beau, egomaniacal maestro Alexander
Hollenius. And the maestro is mad as hell about getting dumped by Christine, on
her impromptu wedding day, practically. Despite Karel telling her that it
tortures him when he feels she’s not telling the truth, and with numerous
opportunities to do so, Christine refuses to fess up.
What
transpires is a prolonged cat and mouse game: Can Christine keep piling on lies
to pacify jealous and insecure Karel? Can she keep equally jealous and
self-centered Hollenius from spilling the beans? Can Christine keep the cellist
and the conductor from killing each other as they collaborate? About half way
through, I decided I didn’t care anymore and ditched Deception.
The most fascinating part of 'Deception' is the loft, that Bette's pianist tries to tell Henreid is paid for by giving lessons! |
I’m
pretty good at suspending disbelief and not imposing today’s social mores onto
old movie conventions and morality. Here’s the big problem I have with Deception: the premise makes ZERO sense.
This was also the critics’ problem with Deception
over 70 years ago. Why should Christine try to hide a lover from Karel?
They weren’t married when the war separated them. She thought he was dead—for
five years! Was she supposed to become a nun? First off, Christine’s living
situation is suspect. Also, all the people that she invited to her and Karel’s
wedding know…because they were her and Hollenius’ friends! What’s to keep any
of them from spilling? Plus, the maestro crashes the couple’s reception and
acts absurdly jealous. Finally, Hollenius threatens to tell Karel from the
get-go.
Paul's Karel is constantly jealous; Bette's Christine endlessly lies! |
Most
importantly, Bette’s character has NOTHING to feel guilty about, even by 1940s
standards. Still, many film write-ups I’ve read about Deception refer to Christine as the conductor’s mistress. According
to good old Merriam-Webster, a mistress is a woman who is having extra-marital
relations, usually with a married man. Neither character was married during
their affair. Yet Davis’ Christine lies her head off, just to keep two hot-headed
men appeased.
Specifically,
I gave up after Deception’s famous “dinner
scene.” Claude Rains as Hollenius has a field day here. The conductor treats
the couple to dine at a fancy French restaurant and proceeds in taking great
delight in showing off his talents as a gourmand. The maestro’s game becomes so
protracted that Karel becomes unglued—perhaps he was just “hangry.” Though
devilishly performed by Rains, and with increased agitation by Davis and
Henreid, the whole scene feels as forced as the film’s premise. There’s no
story to go forward, so Deception is
just all snarky cocktail party chat.
Joan loved to talk about Bette's B.O.! 'Deception' was Davis' first 'disappointment'for WB, and the beginning of her box office slide. |
If
you can get past the major plot obstacles—there’s fun to be had. The three
leads, who all worked together in far better films, do well with the rather
unappealing characters they’re playing. The dialogue is sharp—especially the
digs by the catty conductor. The sets that depict upscale NYC life are
marvelous, especially Bette’s loft with a skylight that covers the entire
living room. The classical music and film’s score, by Erich Wolfgang Korngold,
set the mood.
Bette's character tries everything to soothe Claude's maestro...even grovelling! |
Claude
Rains does a delicious turn as Alexander Hollenius: childlike, sexy, jealous, devilish,
sarcastic, egotistical, spiteful, and funny. Despite an intense performance by
Paul Henreid, his character frequently comes off as peevish. Even with fits of
violent jealousy, he ultimately just stews. In the original play, the Henreid’s
character rises to the occasion and kills Hollenius. Wait just one minute! Since
this a Bette Davis movie, where nobody is as good as Bette when she’s bad,
Davis gets to do the dirty deed. Even so, Christine is a thankless character
and Davis can’t do much more than to work herself up in a dither of denial.
Irving
Rapper, who always seemed good with actors, does what he can with his
collaborators, and gives Deception a
smart visual style. The screenplay moves heaven and earth to compensate with occasional
sharp dialogue to make up for the lack of story. My favorite credit for Deception is Jack Daniels listed as dialogue
director—indeed!
Bette Davis as Christine, with a Rita Hayworth pompadour! |
Bette
Davis often played older and in period pictures. But when Bette essayed modern
roles, she kept her look simple. Here, for the only time in her career, Davis
sported shoulder pads, a hugely popular but short-lived trend. In fact, in the
climactic scene, Bette sports a white fur over her shoulders, and I thought of
Carol Burnett’s “curtain dress” take-off on Scarlett O’Hara. And through most
of the movie, Bette sports a WWII-era pompadour, with an uncharacteristically lush
mane that Rita Hayworth would have envied.
Bette Davis prays that Ernest Haller's noir-style lighting hides all that's going on off-camera! |
Perhaps
Bette overcompensated because she wasn’t looking her best. Davis’ character is
amusingly described as a music student when she met the maestro four years
earlier—struggling and taking “rich, untalented students” to get by…and pushing
40! Pregnant and ill during Deception,
plus her new marriage was to jealous, violent artist William Grant Sherry—life
imitating art? Davis’ favorite cinematographer, Ernest Haller, did what he
could. Note that in certain scenes, especially evening shots, Bette’s face is
totally surrounded by shadow. Bette admitted later that she wasn’t at her best
here. Perhaps driving Davis was that Joan Crawford was following up her Mildred Pierce comeback in a romantic
melodrama with a classical music backdrop, Humoresque.
Neither films were smash hits, but Joan’s came off better and also turned a
better profit, since Bette ran up her film’s budget by her pregnancy, plus emotional
and health issues.
Deception
isn’t a dud, just an exercise in style—great style, for sure—but no substance.
FYI: I put all the movie overflow on my public FB movie
page.
Check it out & join! https://www.facebook.com/groups/178488909366865/
Many, MANY moons ago, I was thrilled to stumble upon a brand new VHS of "Deception" for $1.00 and I could barely wait to watch it. Then I was quite bored by it. I have never given it another chance (though I do still have the VHS somewhere!) It surprised me, given the cast and the era, that I wouldn't be enthralled, but I just wasn't...
ReplyDeleteIf you can get past the totally unbelievable premise, it might be enjoyable: it's beautifully shot by Ernie Haller, the sets are exquisite, the 3 leads are very good, against a classical music setting. And yet, if you don't buy the absurd set up, it's silly. I was talking back to the TV: "Tell him, for chrissakes!"
ReplyDeleteCheers, Rick
Oh, I love this one, and Bette gets both Henreid and Rains, two of her best costars...not as amazing as Skeffington but very very entertaining...need to see this again soon!
ReplyDeleteHappy New Year, Rick!
- Chris
Well, if you get TCM, it's on Thurs, Jan 4 @ 6 pm/ET.
DeleteCheers, Rick
I thought the film was very good Three great movie stars of their time in the same film was and is a blessing. All of this complaining about the plot and certain things being believable or not. It sure beats the crap they call movies today by far.
ReplyDeleteHi, these three great stars, as I wrote, are the film's saving grace. I just agreed with the critics that there was basically no story. And I agree with you about today's movies, at least mainstream films. I seldom go to a theater anymore...
DeleteThanks for writing, Rick
Love Bette, love Paul even more.
ReplyDeleteFun movie, little Noir.
What’s not to like, music is great, it’s a movie, just enjoy it.
Hi, it's quite watchable. My favorite part is Bette's loft! Rains steals the movie. The story is absurd, but the stars are always worth a look. Cheers, Rick
DeleteI agree that Davis's character had done nothing wrong in having sex with the Raines character and thus all of her lies about it don't ring true and instead ring rather ridiculous. However, and despite Merriam-Webster, I don't agree that the word "mistress" applies only when the man is married. I mean, now it may, but definitely not before the year 1900, and probably not in the 1940s, when nonmarital sex was much more condemned than it is now. Single men in the nineteenth and early twenties centuries often financially supported women who in return provided them with sex, and these women were always called "mistresses".
Delete