jjnxn-1 In a part that was tailor made for Rosalind Russell but that she had to pull out of at the last minute Joan Crawford gets a chance to shade her diamond hard persona somewhat in this tale of remembered love. It's really a story of how we remember people and how time changes them. The part and Joan aren't a perfect fit but she does try and does a decent job of it. As in Mildred Pierce she and Eve Arden interact wonderfully and their few scenes have a nice snap. Actually Joan's casting isn't the only one that seems off. While Robert Young is fine as the conflicted college president Frank Lovejoy is wrong as the inquisitive reporter. He was a good tough guy actor but Robert Montgomery or Clark Gable would have been more suitable, the part is the second lead so neither would have considered it. Someone who is perfectly cast however is the wonderful Lurene Tuttle, as the seemingly simpleminded college chum of Joan. She is funny and touching and steals any scene she's in with ease. The film does have a message about being true to your ideals but is mostly a bittersweet romance and an enjoyable one at that.

Peter22060 SHAWFAN has the issue correct. The problem is that he does not have a full sense of history. This movie was made in 1951, and there was constant pressure on the motion picture industry to tone down hints of "radicalism".Joan Crawford's attack on the right wing trustee for forsaking the education of these college age students with "entertaining" motion pictures; prevents the message of the film she has brought to campus.Simply, without images, the result of letting the National Socialists destroy education in Germany from 1933-1945, resulted in hanging and executions of the teachers.The trustee in question expressed that buildings were more important than a good education.Yes, there are those gooey moments. They are not there because the film story has a need for it, but rather that the various "approval" boards would have forced the filmmakers to put it in to water down the content.Robert Young's role proves that he is just a weak person. Not the person to stand up for what is right. Even his mealy mouth response to the film being shown AND THE STUDENT'S APPROVAL over everyone's objections prove that.BUT, run this film with two others, THIS LAND IS MINE (1943) and PEOPLE WILL TALK (1951). Then the message of what the film is about comes through like a bell.IN OUR DEMOCRACY EDUCATORS MUST BE BACKED. When cities, states and even your congress-persons yell, CUT EDUCATION SPENDING, these are just three films with which you can relate.peter22060 PS Truth through learning, and a focus on history, should make these three movies text material.

bkoganbing Goodbye My Fancy finds Joan Crawford taking over a role popularized by fellow film star Madeline Carroll on stage as a member of the House Of Representatives coming back to her former college to accept an honorary degree. She's invited by college president and former boyfriend Robert Young.There's a lot of history here and this is the only degree she'll have from the College Of New Hope for women located in rural New England. Back in the day apparently Crawford was a wild child, at least wild by those standards back then. She got into a compromising situation with Young and she took the fall by herself and got expelled for it. In the interim Young in addition to rising to the presidency of the college married a woman who died and has a daughter, Janice Rule, who is going to be one of the graduates at the ceremony Crawford gets her degree.Crawford went into journalism and then politics. She's combining the two at this point having produced a documentary about the current social problems of Europe and how Fascism by curtailing free speech contributed mightily to them. She's hoping to show the film while she's at the college. Her opponent in this endeavor is the chairman of the board Howard St. John who also happens to be now married to Crawford's former roommate Lurene Tuttle. He's got the part that actors like Eugene Palette and Charles Dingle normally were cast in, the arrogant, self righteous right wing blowhard who thinks he ought to be controlling the educational process. Not that he's against free speech mind you, but he feels that kids should not be exposed to this kind of serious work. He in fact donated the campus movie theater and he'd like for them to show entertainment that he approves of, such as his favorites Abbott&Costello.Young's dependent on St. John's good will for his job. But one who isn't and is also a rival for Crawford is Frank Lovejoy, a Time&Life war photographer who is covering this event. He'll expose Young's timidity if for no other reason than to shame him in front of Joan.Goodbye My Fancy was written by Fay Kanin and ran for 446 performances on Broadway during the 1948-49 season and was directed by Sam Wanamaker who also played the Frank Lovejoy part. The college president was played by another former movie name, Conrad Nagel. The play took home a Tony Award for Shirley Booth who played Crawford's Congressional aide and has some really funny Eve Arden type lines. When the film came out the Eve Arden part was played by Eve Arden.The play draws heavily on themes expressed in James Thurber's The Male Animal. If anything it's more serious here because whereas in The Male Animal, trustee Eugene Palette objected to the content in reading Nicolo Sacco's letter in class, St. John just objects to the idea of material that is mind challenging in the classroom in general. What does this imbecile think they're going to college for. In fact there's a minor role played by Morgan Farley as a physics professor who is intending to leave the college because of the limits he's being put under and Farley plays it well.Coming out as it did during the House Un-American Activities Committee days and after Joe McCarthy started finding Communists in all kinds of places, Goodbye My Fancy was quite the courageous project for Warner Brothers at the time. It's a timeless tribute to the value of free speech and the marketplace of ideas that a university is supposed to be.This is a film that I think needs a remake. Can you see some trustee on a university today throwing his weight around and maybe filling the campus cinema with reruns of Saturday Night Live in order that students not concentrate on serious issues?I think it could be done.

MartinHafer The basic plot in this movie isn't bad. A lady makes it big and comes back to her alma mater to be adored. But, despite good acting by Robert Young and Eve Arden, the movie is a mess. The blame for this I place on either Joan Crawford or the director or both, as her performance is just awful. Instead of being a real person, she does a wonderful impersonation of a deer caught in the headlights. In other words, she stares off into space and has a "golly I am SOOOO stunned" expression. After just a few minutes it really became annoying for me. Now this is certainly not the only Crawford film I dislike for her performance, as she had done more than her share of overacting--in films such as JOHNNY GUITAR or many of her later films, such as BERSERK! My advice is to try a different Crawford film--there certainly were better.