bkoganbing
The Shining Hour was adapted from a Broadway play that ran for a few months in 1934. Not one of the better works I've seen but at that time the studios were still buying anything they could to have words for talking pictures.Joan Crawford plays a dancer and one good thing about The Shining Hour is that we get to see her dancing which is how she started in film. She's just married prosperous Melvyn Douglas of the Linden family of Wisconsin. The Lindens are farm folk, in fact Douglas is a lobbyist for said interest. Taking the new bride home to Wisconsin, Crawford arouses the interest in brother Robert Young, develops a friendship with Young's wife Margaret Sullavan and gets on the wrong side of the eldest, spinster sister Fay Bainter.Bainter's character rang true for whatever reasons she just dislikes Crawford and throws her the needle on all occasions. She's one of those miserable characters who minds everyone's business but their own.Sullavan's character is a lot like Melanie Hamilton in Gone With The Wind. Olivia DeHavilland made Melanie work in her film, but try as she may Sullavan's character came off as an unrealistic goody two shoes. In fact The Shining Hour in its dynamics comes off as the quadrilateral romance that Gone With The Wind does, but far far less effectively.Raymond Massey played Robert Young's part on Broadway. I really couldn't see that.Fans of the four stars should like this, but it's Fay Bainter who comes off best.
mark.waltz
When dancer Joan Crawford enters high society by marrying wealthy Melvyn Douglas, his sister (Fay Bainter) sends their brother (Robert Young) to try and pay her off. But Crawford stands tall, marries the brother (sans the rest of his family) and enters the social world run by the Mrs. Danvers like Bainter. Only Young's pleasant wife (Margaret Sullavan) likes her, and they become quick friends (which is a rare thing for Crawford, who admittedly despises her own sex). Bainter is passively aggressively chilly with Crawford, drops all sorts of innuendos of her disapproval, and finally, all explodes when Crawford (obviously attracted to the indifferent Young) convinces Douglas to move away, seemingly for an extended honeymoon. Before you can break into a chorus of "Burning Down the House", Bainter turns into Norman Bates' mother, and Crawford is ready to pack it in.Packed with major star power (four Academy Award Winners), "The Shining Hour" is a fast-moving camp classic where Crawford, pre-Crystal Allen ("The Women") gets to be pretty bitchy, but not nasty. It is Bainter who wins that title, giving a performance far from her kindly mother role which won her an Oscar for the same year's "Jezebel". (Working with Crawford AND Bette Davis the same year....) The following year's Best Supporting Actress winner Hattie McDaniel is amusing as "Belvedere", Crawford's faithful maid. The reason for Young's initial distaste for Crawford is never really explained other than being manipulated by his sister, although there is all sorts of interesting characterization development for Margaret Sullavan's sister-in-law who is seemingly overly noble but never sickeningly sweet.Worth repeated viewing for its cast, melodramatic performances and a few funny lines, "The Shining Hour" isn't a very sunny 79 minutes, but moderately enjoyable.
lasaltiedog
What a waste of talent. This film had such potential, the cast is excellent and the story idea is good. Glamorous city girl Olivia (Crawford) marries "country farmer" (who farms in suits?) Henry Linden (Douglas), from an old family. They move to Wisconsin to live with the Linden family, supposedly dour spinster sister Hannah (Bainter), lifeless brother David (Young) and his loving wife Judy (Sullavan).Before you know it, David and Olivia are apparently, passionately, in love. How did this love develop? Nothing real is shown; Henry and Olivia arrive in Wisconsin and suddenly, love! No tension, buildup, or even scenes between the two until suddenly, David proclaims it! And the great fuss that is made about Hannah's hatred of Olivia, it is not really shown and developed either, just some rather mild comments and barbs from Hannah, directed at Olivia. No tension between the characters at all. It is a jarring moment, during the fire, when Hannah looks gleefully on as the fire burns and then screams crazily at Henry. Next, the siblings are together and all is well between Henry and Hannah, she is smiling at him and nice to Olivia. What? It's all just out of the blue and doesn't fit.Sullavan's character Judy is the most interesting at first, she is realistic about her relationship with her husband David. She doesn't believe Hannah initially, that something is happening between Olivia and David. Why should she, the film doesn't develop any attraction between the two! In the end, Judy is the one martyred, as so many films then must have a suffering female. Yes, sacrifice her man, for love.And then the movie ends with Olivia joining her city friend who was only in the movie for a few moments? This movie is disjointed and has no real development of the characters and story lines. Terrible waste of talent and potential.
kinolieber
Everybody in this film talks about their feelings (or lack of feelings) in surprisingly articulate ways. The dialogue crackles and the actors are all in top form. Crawford and Sullavan have the best moments, but Douglas, Young and Bainter all create believable characters, too. Not a great film, but an interesting sexual, social and moral snapshot of the era. A must for admirers of Borzage and/or Margaret Sullavan.
AD
