The Searching Wind (1946) User Reviews (8)

Fancy High-flown Talkfest

[rfkeser · 6/10 · 13 July 2000]

Hal Wallis lays on a posh production, complete with tinkling crystal chandeliers, gilded ballrooms and wall-to-wall violin accompaniment, all so that journalist Sylvia Sidney can reproach diplomat Robert Young for his cowardice in not denouncing fascism [while they toy with rekindling their youthful affair]. Lillian Hellman's script boots them all across Europe, from Mussolini's takeover of Rome to the bombing of Madrid to the signing of the Munich Accord . Meanwhile, Young's wife [Ann Richards] entertains assorted brownshirts and blackshirts because she's a shallow socialite, while their war-wounded son [Douglas Dick, in Montgomery Clift's star-making Broadway role] stays home to sort out his own objections to the family's appeasement policies.

For mainstream Hollywood, this idea-driven story was an honorable attempt to dramatize issues of conscience and responsibility [though criticism of official silence about budding fascist regimes was surely a bit late by 1946]. However, everyone gets to face a moral crisis here, from crusty Grandpa [Dudley Digges] down to a waiter who pauses to deliver a lecture on Woodrow Wilson, and marrying its serious ideas with an uncompelling love triangle seems contrived.

Hellman writes literate but non-stop dialogue, making everyone mouth the same high-minded generalities ["Whenever people talk about not taking sides, they've already taken one," or "People who know what they want don't wait to get it."] After an hour of politely listening to such unlikely repartee, we gradually grow weary, then dismayed, and finally exasperated. Was Hellman paid by the word, like Dickens?

This torrent of talk leaves no room for the film to breathe, so all of William Dieterle's fluent staging produces only claustrophobia. Also, while Lee Garmes' exquisite lighting and Hans Dreier's cavernous interiors mark a high point in Hollywood gloss, the decor is so fancy that we in the audience can only goggle in awe at the dilemmas of these privileged power-brokers, surely not what Hellman intended. Still, as James Agee noted, "People as highly civilized as these are seldom seen in the movies, and are still more seldom played with understanding." True, but one is tempted to throw buckets of ice water on the cast to stop their debating.

A Brave Attempt To Explain The Unforgivable

[theowinthrop · 7/10 · 30 April 2005]

Lillian Hellman was a committed political animal. Many in her day and since have attacked her for being too committed, and for being too left of center - and she was. However the majority of her most vituperous critics were also committed political animals, but too far to the right. Whether or not this includes Mary McCarthy and her famous comment that nothing Hellman said was true (including prepositions) I cannot say. But Hellman and her lover Dashiell Hamnett were blacklisted by people following the likes of the Joseph McCarthys and Roy Cohens and Edgar Hoovers of our society. While I don't agree with a full-speed ahead left of center philosophy, I think this world has seen enough of a full-speed ahead right of center philosophy. In comparison to Hellman and Hamnett, how much damage did McCarthy, Cohen, and Hoover accomplish (i.e., how many lives did they destroy).

Hellman had looked at American isolationism in WATCH ON THE RHINE (1943) in the Washington, D.C. household of Lucille Watson (widow of a Supreme Court Justice). The then European war is brought straight into her safe household due to her two son-in-laws, Paul Lukas (anti-Nazi) and George Coulouris (collaborationist). Watson, in the end, awakes to the threat from the right in Europe that can reach us here. But the cost is that Lukas has to return to the charnal house in Europe to carry on the struggle (until we get involved ourselves).

Here, in THE SEARCHING WIND, Hellman looks at the various events from the end of World War I to Munich. Her "hero" is Robert Young, in possibly his most uncertain, fitful performance (not to knock his performance - he is trying to be a diplomat who is uncertain about what to do, so he is performing the part properly). Young, married to Ann Richards, is intelligent and questioning, but easily swayed to being placid. After all, what does he care about the situations in countries like Italy, Spain, or Czechoslovakia. None of this should appear to effect the U.S. We are across the Atlantic after all. His wife, who likes to swan with the elite of these countries (frequently right wing types) helps keep her wavering husband from stirring up bad feelings. Only that reporter (Sylvia Sidney) would try to stir up Young's more troubled feelings - but he is mentally and spiritually too weak to really confront the danger.

Interestingly enough Young's diplomatic career resembles a more notorious (now notorious) figure from our diplomatic corps of the period. This was Breckenridge Long, a descendant of a distinguished Kentucky political family, and a total anti-Semite. Long began as a diplomat in Italy, and was a total supporter of Mussolini's fascists. Subsequently he apparently fully supported Hitler's rise to power in Germany and Central Europe. He made certain that there was little help from the State Department for Jews to get into this country (outside from unfair quotas) in the 1930s. Young is not as vicious as Long was (he is simply ineffective and timid), but one wonders if Hellman based his character in part on Long.

My only point against the film is the business regarding Young and Richard's son, and the secret he tells them to devastate them at the end. His physical problems might still have occurred even if Young had acted in a more determined manner in warning the U.S. government about the rising threat of the right in Europe - after all, final government policy was still determined in Congress, and it was heavily isolationist until Pearl Harbor (then it became politically suicidal to be isolationist). This would suggest that we would still have gone to war, even if Young had spoken out. So Young's son might still have the physical problem no matter what. But Hellman was still commenting on the willing blindness of our diplomats, so this is a minor quibble at best - the film is still on target.

And has anyone noticed ...

[PeterWarnes · 7/10 · 12 October 2006]

And has anyone noticed the way the Sidney and Richards figures in this film anticipate Fonda and Redgrave in "Julia"?

The film itself is very handsome, in a less-than-dynamic sort of way. (How could any film with Robert Young and Ann Richards as 2/3rds of its central trio be described as "dynamic"?) The screenplay is good, though, and Sidney is first-rate.

The theatrical version of Hellman's story was notable for a flashy early appearance by Montgomery Clift (as the ambassador's son). Not a huge success, but acclaimed nonetheless. Frankly, the writing's better for the screenplay.

There's a lot, too, to be said for the sort of noir-flavored, female-centered drama that Hal Wallis and (frequently) William Dieterle produced in this era. "Love Letters," for instance, "The Accused" ... That plus the Hellman style make an intriguing (as well as intrigue-filled) combination.

Complicit in wartime horrors

[jarrodmcdonald-1 · 4 June 2016]

This is a Hal Wallis production. His films tend to be meticulously crafted affairs, made with big budgets, and they feature extravagant sets and backdrops. Wallis and director William Dieterle are in no hurry to start the story. They want us to soak up the atmosphere and tease us about the tale to follow.

Characters refer to the past- and you just know a large flashback is going to follow, which it eventually does. But this is delayed in order to establish Wallis' new discovery, Douglas Dick.

He plays Sam Hazen the young son of the lead characters. Sam's situation is revealed in modern-day scenes that take place after the war- he came home a cripple; and he is withdrawn and angry. Wallis and Dieterle intend for us to become familiar with Douglas Dick and the character of Sam. This pushes the film's running time to almost two hours, when it could easily have been told in ninety minutes.

Once the preamble is out of the way, and the flashback occurs- we get a very interesting story about Sam's father Alex (Robert Young), an American diplomat who lives in Europe at the onset of war with Sam's mother Emily (Ann Richards).

Because of an isolationist point of view, Alex turns a blind eye to the encroaching fascism in Italy and other neighboring countries. THE SEARCHING WIND is based on Lillian Hellman's award-winning stage play of the same name, and she wrote the screenplay. In her story, Miss Hellman is drawing attention to the ignorance of the bourgeoisie. But do not assume she's writing only about war and government politics.

She is also presenting a woman's melodrama. Early on we see that Emily Hazen is an artificial sort of wife whose main goal is to rub elbows with royalty and important heads of state to promote her husband's career. But while she's doing that, Alex is distracted by another woman named Cassie Bowman (Sylvia Sidney). Cassie is a political correspondent, and she just so happens to be Alex's long-lost love.

They were once engaged to be married, but Cassie's career took priority. As a result, Alex decided to move on and marry Emily. A short time later Sam was born. But despite having a trophy wife and an obedient son, Alex has never gotten over his feelings for Cassie. And Cassie hasn't gotten over her feelings for him either.

The romantic triangle between these three takes center stage while various atrocities and betrayals occur in the background. Eventually Cassie comes to reject Alex, because as a journalist, her investigations have led her to realize his complicity in the on-going horrors of war in Europe. Her ultimate rejection of Alex sends him back into the arms of his wife, an individual who is much like himself.

In the present day, Alex learns a horrible truth about his son's injuries in battle and how he may have been responsible. Hellman brings it all full-circle, and the pay-off is dramatically satisfying. But of course, Wallis and Dieterle have paced it so leisurely, especially the early scenes, that a tighter more economic brand of storytelling is out of the question.

There is another important character we meet during the course of Hellman's story, and that is Moses (Dudley Digges, in his last screen role). Moses is a retired newspaper owner whose company employs Cassie. Complicating matters and increasing the soap opera value, is the fact that Moses is Emily's father.

Moses is not quite comic relief, but he does bring an airy lightness to an otherwise somber motion picture. His moments on camera are usually quite entertaining. Moses is a bit more human than Alex and Emily, providing emotional support to Sam when Sam returns from battle as a cripple. Moses' concern for his grandson causes Alex to redirect his focus and help Sam, too.

When THE SEARCHING WIND concludes you realize something. Not all films provide immediate gratification. Some of them take longer to play out on screen, and they might make viewers work a little harder. But if the audience's thought process has gone in a slightly more profound direction- like Cassie Bowman's does- then perhaps it's all been worth it.

Talky and dated melodrama.

[beebee-4 · 3/10 · 9 January 1999]

American diplomat Robert Young is married to wealthy Ann Richards but loves reporter Sylvia Sidney. The three react differently to the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany. Sidney opposes it, Richards is indifferent, and Young is torn between his dislike for it and his fear that opposition will involve America in war. A talky and dated melodrama.

A diplomat's dilemma, caught between conscience issues and reality necessities, and between two women

[clanciai · 10/10 · 28 January 2018]

This is an extremely fascinating discussion of vital issues of conscience and demands of reality. Robert Young as a trusted diplomat is faced with a reality he cannot handle as everything in it goes against him, but he cannot do anything about it. He marries the wrong wife while he continues to love the girl he never can get, who handles reality more straightly as a journalist seeing and writing the truth. Difficult issues of journalism also enter the discussion, as the diplomat's father-in-law (Dudley Digges, the best character in the context) runs the paper she is working for - and abandons it at the rise of fascism in Europe, refusing to take any further responsibility for reality.

Also the form of the film is a fascinating composition, starting at present time (1946) as all the protagonists gather for the first time in many years to enter a serious discussion none of them really desires, which brings them back to another day when they all were together in Rome as Mussolini took over power... and then comes an hour of flashbacks through all the traumatic convulsions of Europe between the two world wars, from the rise of German Nazism to the Spanish civil war and the controversial peace treaty of Munich.

I loved this film all through from the first moment to the last, the dialogue is replenished with intensive importance all the way, the characters couldn't have been acted better, there is no flaw anywhere, it flows organically on like taken directly out of reality, it's intelligent and important and well up to the same level as William Dieterle's other excellent films at the time. And through it all flows also Victor Young's gorgeous music, to make it even better...

Not suitable for young children, or anyone else for that matter!

[JohnHowardReid · 4/10 · 6 June 2018]

Copyright 3 May 1946 by Hal Wallis Productions, Inc. New York opening at the Paramount: 26 June 1946. U.S. release: 29 August 1946. U.K. release: October 1946. Australian release: 19 December 1946. Sydney opening at the Prince Edward: 29 November 1946 (ran 3 weeks). 9,669 feet. 107 minutes.

NOTES: Lillian Hellman's original stage play opened on Broadway at the Fulton on 12 April 1944 and ran a most satisfactory 326 performances (her 1941 Watch on the Rhine ran 378). Herman Shumlin produced and directed. Dennis King played the diplomat, Montgomery Clift his son, Dudley Digges the role he repeats for the screen. Cornelia Otis Skinner, Barbara O'Neil, Arnold Korff and Joe De Santis were also cast. This was the movie debut of Douglas Dick in the role originated on Broadway by Montgomery Clift.

COMMENT: A bore. The only decent actor in the entire cast is Albert Basserman who makes his brief scene as an aged German diplomat a tour de force - maybe it only seems so in comparison with the tepid portrayals put up by the rest of the cast. Robert Young has his usual role (as the indecisive and vacillating hero who means well, but can't see what's going on around him) which he plays with considerably less than his usual sparkle; Sylvia Sidney looks aged and tired as a nosey reporter; while Shirley Ann Richards (who is made up, costumed and hair styled to look like Barbara O'Neil - who played Sylvia Sidney's role on Broadway!) proves she is just as bad an actress in her American films as she was in her Australian efforts! Cornelia Otis Skinner had the Richards role on Broadway, while Dennis King had Young's role.

In the role of "Sam" on Broadway was a young actor named Montgomery Clift. But did Wallis sign up Clift for the film version? No, sir. Instead he signs up a young lad named Douglas Dick whose later career was as lackluster as the performance he gave in this film. The only player in the Broadway cast to repeat his role for the film version was Dudley Digges who blusters his way through it in a phony, over-theatrical manner.

In fact, theatricality is the film's main besetting sin. You can almost hear the curtain slam down between the acts and beyond the interpolation of newsreel footage and a few brief continuity scenes, little attempt has been made to open out the original play.

The direction doesn't help either. I don't think I have ever seen Dieterle direct with such little distinction. I wouldn't mind betting that a great deal of the film was directed by Herman Shumlin - either actually present or certainly in spirit.

Other production credits are likewise dull and uninteresting with the exception of the music score - that, especially the corny bringing up of "America, America" just before the fade-out, is a bit too much, even in the context of such a dated and blatant piece of proselytizing as this is.

Production values are moderate. I can't say that the film would be much improved by cutting as it's all so indigestible, nobody would have the stomach to sit through any of it.

Almost unbearable to watch

[jelinek-20124 · 3/10 · 11 March 2022]

If it weren't for Sylvia Sidney, and my love for her, I don't think I would've watch this film through to the end. What a group of miserable and unlikeable characters. Even Sidney herself doesn't go completely unscathed, with her ridiculous and illogical love for Robert Young's pathetic character. And it's this romantic angle that's realky tough to stomach. It seems completely out of place and inappropriate in this film of war, death and questionable motives. I couldn't be more disappointed in a film that I'd been dieing to see for quite some time.