Daisy Kenyon (1947) User Reviews (51)

Love triangle with rich noir shadows

[imogensara_smith · 7/10 · 13 May 2008]

The Preminger Paradox has often been noted: Otto was a notorious tyrant on the set, but his films are like courtrooms in a good way. Everyone gets a fair hearing. The keynote of Preminger's movies is moral ambiguity; they never turn on a simple axis of good and evil, and they feature few characters who are entirely sympathetic or unsympathetic. And despite his legendary tantrums, he consistently drew subtle, tamped-down performances from the actors he terrorized. DAISY KENYON displays all of these virtues and uses them to complicate what would otherwise be a conventional love-triangle plot. The film is impressive in its nuance, complexity and ambivalence. It's not completely satisfying, but perhaps that's the point. By the end, you realize that no possible outcome to the story can really be a happy ending.

It's trite but tempting to say that this is a Joan Crawford movie for people who don't like Joan Crawford. Despite her central, eponymous role, Crawford as Daisy is never as interesting as the two men in her life, Dan O'Mara (Dana Andrews) and Peter Lapham (Henry Fonda). Neither Andrews nor Fonda wanted to do the movie, presumably feeling that they would be playing second fiddles to the female star, but they outshine her. Crawford wanted desperately to do the movie, and it's easy to see why: at 40-something she gets to play an attractive young career-woman being fought over by two very attractive men. (Some predicament! I guess that's why they call this a "woman's picture.") However, girlish dresses with lace collars don't make Crawford look any younger, and the shadowy lighting allegedly designed to hide her wrinkles only adds to the inappropriate sense that she might be about to reach for a carving knife. Crawford is great in MILDRED PIERCE, SUDDEN FEAR and POSSESSED, all made around the same time. Here she's not only too old but too strong and too alarmingly intense for a character who should be softer and more likable.

Daisy is a successful commercial artist involved with a married man. She loves him but knows it's a dead-end relationship, so she agrees to marry another man whom she doesn't love, but who needs her badly. This is pretty standard stuff, but in detail it's oddly persuasive. Dan O'Mara is a glib, high-powered lawyer, spoiled and overconfident, a man who cheats on his wife and treats her with cold contempt. He's a heel—and yet Dana Andrews makes him not only sexy but somehow sympathetic. (This was the third of four films Andrews made with Preminger, a quartet that gave him his best roles and made brilliant use of his gift for ambivalence.) Everything comes too easily for Dan; he knows he's smarter than the people around him, and his charm is irresistible, despite his slick habit of calling everyone "honeybunch" and "dewdrop." His daughters adore him, his secretaries adore him, maitre-d's adore him. Then everything goes wrong: he loses the first case he ever really cared about (defending a Japanese veteran dispossessed of his land), he loses his daughters to divorce, and then he loses his mistress. The bleakness that comes out in his face feels like it was there all along, under the smirk. Dana Andrews had the most haunted eyes in Hollywood. Here they're haunted by self-knowledge.

Peter Lapham is a lonely, psychologically wounded veteran and widower. He's gentle and low-key; his vocation as a yacht-designer hints at something graceful and fine in him. But there's something creepy about him too; he declares his love for Daisy on their first date, then forgets to call her, then sets up surveillance and follows her home. "The world's dead and everyone in it is dead except you," he tells her unnervingly. Peter is obviously the more deserving man, but his method of pursuing Daisy is sneakily passive-aggressive, and they are never as convincing a couple as Daisy and Dan. You can't tell up to the last minute which man she will end up with, or even which one you want her to end up with, which is the film's triumph.

DAISY KENYON has been released on DVD as part of Fox's Film Noir series, which is misleading, but there is something hard to place about the film. The look is typical forties high-gloss (Daisy lives in a ridiculously palatial "Greenwich Village" apartment, which her lover refers to as a "hovel," on an eerily deserted studio street), but the shadows are as dark as any noir. And there is an undercurrent of unpleasantness throughout the film—nightmares, child abuse, racism, adultery. This too is typical of Preminger, who did more than anyone to force Hollywood to grow up and face the facts of life. The shadows aren't only in the cinematography; they don't just fall across the characters but spread from inside them.

A womans' movie where the men are not dopes

[rontaube · 8/10 · 11 September 2002]

I liked this film a lot because it's a rare movie where Joan Crawford doesn't overshadow her male co-stars and here she is pitted up against two fine male actors who match her emotions and intelligence. Dana Andrews was never better stepping out from his usual good guy roles to play a heel with compassion. Mr Andrews acting is both subtle and emotinaly strong. Coming off his strong performance a year earlier in the Best Years of Our Lives he was clearly at his peak at this time. There is a lot going on in this film from suggestions of child abuse on the part of Ruth Warrick to an interesting spin on the theme of infidelity where the most sympathetic character is the "other" woman Daisy Kenyon. I can see why this role would have appealed to Ms. Crawford having played variotions on it in "The Women" and "Rain" among others throughout her career. She is the wise one here and it makes the movie very interesting for that reason. I won't say who wins her in the end but it leaves a nice smile on your face and you have a little laugh to boot.

Surprisingly Excellent

[Yxklyx · 8/10 · 14 March 2008]

I've seen about a dozen Preminger films and this is my favorite. I wasn't expecting too much once the movie began because it seemed I had seen this all done before but Preminger's characters (as is usually the case) are much more realistic than typical Hollywood movies of this era. The characterization actually compares favorably to foreign films of the time, like for example Quai des Orfèvres from the same year; this movie could easily have been a French production. I'm not much a fan of Crawford or Fonda but this is probably the best I've seen Fonda; and Crawford was just fine. Dana Andrews is superb - probably his best movie! What made this movie for me was that I could relate to all three main characters - in many ways they are more ideas (or philosophies) than actual people but the odd thing is that the line was so blurred that even though I knew this was the case I still enjoyed them as people. What puts this above the other Premingers I've seen is the very tight script, the fast pacing, and three fully realized characters that came across not only as real but as themes in themselves. Add in a memorable supporting cast and everything just blends together to make a perfect concoction.

A love triangle that keeps you hoping the best man will win.

[gregcouture · 29 September 2003]

This one may seem quite turgid to a modern audience's sensibilities but, for its time, it was fairly strong stuff, with solid performances by its three leads, Crawford, Fonda and Andrews, under Otto Preminger's brisk direction. Dana, who never really achieved the recognition he deserved for the subtlety of his work, in an extremely difficult role, gives it all the shadings one could wish for. Nice production values and one of the talented David Raksin's best scores enhance a very watchable story with an outcome that isn't as predictable as it seems, come the final clinch.

Preminger and Crawford at Fox

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 6 February 2010]

Joan Crawford is "Daisy Kenyon" in this 1947 film about a woman torn between two men - one, a married, successful man (Dana Andrews), and the other, a returning soldier and widower (Henry Fonda). Directed by Otto Preminger, it's a good noir, better than "Dark Angel" but nowhere near "Laura." Andrews is married to Ruth Warrick and has two daughters who need him, as their mother, when unhappy, tends to be abusive. He has a long-time relationship with Daisy, who is a successful commercial artist. The situation isn't ideal for her, but she's in love. One night she meets a soldier who wants to build a life with her. Can she break from Andrews - and will he let her?

There are several striking things about this film. One is the casting. In order to play the lead in "Grapes of Wrath" in 1940, Darryl Zanuck forced Henry Fonda to sign a 7-year-contract, for which Fonda never forgave him. One can see an example of why here. In this film, he has to share leading man duties with Dana Andrews in what is, in fact, a Joan Crawford movie. To me, Fonda's role in this seems very inauspicious and one where a lesser star could have been cast. Just an opinion. He's excellent as a lonely, unhappy man who falls for Daisy - Fonda at this point still had some traces of boyishness.

The second striking thing for me was the subtlety of the acting. There is a scene in which Dana Andrews, returning from an 18-day-trip, can't get the usually reliable Daisy on the phone, so he goes to see her. It's a scene that should be shown in acting schools - full of atmosphere and subtext, so little is said in dialogue; so much is what lies beneath the surface. Both Crawford and Andrews give wonderful performances.

The third striking thing is the Greenwich Theater, which I had no idea was torn down until now. There was indeed a restaurant across from it, too. That's also my old neighborhood, and it was a delight to see. I believe I went to the opening day of "Fargo" there.

Throughout the film, the symbolism of a New York cab is used: if you were staying where you were, you let the cab go; if not, you asked it to wait. The theme reinforces the ending of "Daisy Kenyon" very well. A good movie.

Starts off well but becomes predictable

[preppy-3 · 7/10 · 3 June 2006]

Commerical artist Daisy Kenyon (Joan Crawford) is in love with married Dan O'Mara (Dana Andrews). She wants him but realizes he'll never divorce his wife (Ruth Warrick). She instead marries a man she doesn't love (Henry Fonda) to break it off with Dan completely. But things don't turn out all that well...

This starts off as a very interesting Crawford movie. It's beautifully shot in a film noir style which gives an appropriate tone to the film. She plays a woman who wants to move ahead but can't because of her love for the wrong man. The direction is good, the dialogue sharp and the acting is great by Andrews (never more romantic) and Crawford (never stronger). But it falls apart completely at the halfway mark and turns into a dreary romantic triangle. The ending especially was SO predictable it had me rolling my eyes. Still this is worth seeing for the direction and acting alone. Also there's a strong subplot dealing with child abuse! So this is worth seeing. I give it a 7.

One of Joan Crawford's best films from the 1940's

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 26 November 2009]

This film is a great vehicle for Joan Crawford, and one of my favorites from the middle portion of Joan's career . In fact, I can't imagine any other actress in the lead. Daisy Kenyon (Joan Crawford) plays a commercial artist who is the strong independent type. She has fallen in love with a married man of means (Dana Andrews) who has a clingy and emotionally unstable wife (Ruth Warrick) and a couple of daughters that he knows he will lose access to if he gets a divorce. In other words, he is permanently married and he and Daisy's relationship is going nowhere. Enter Peter Lapham (Henry Fonda), a widower recently back from World War II. Both men love Daisy, but only one can "do right" by her - Peter. Unfortunately, he is not the man she loves.

The resulting love triangle, the idea of any of this being particularly scandalous even to someone aiming for public life, and in particular the then quite backwards divorce laws of the state of New York might seem quaint to a modern audience, but the private situations and emotions of the characters still ring true. Who does Daisy choose in the end? The man willing to give her up. I'll let you watch the film and find out which of the two men that is.

back street is over

[dbdumonteil · 6/10 · 17 February 2008]

This is a love triangle but it's not the melodrama of the thirties where the abandoned woman had to die alone ("Back Street") or to become a businesswoman ("Imitation of life" ) or to do both ("Only yesterday").Now the mistress has a good job and she does not want to renege on love.that said,the story is derivative and it is too bad that the Andrews/daughter relationship should only be skimmed over ,and that the part of his wife should be so underwritten.The three leads ,Joan Crawford,Henry Fonda and the always reliable Dana Andrews make the film ,if not a winner, at least something watchable. It is not to be ranked among the great Preminger's works though.

Joan Crawford Is Sensational

[ZenVortex · 8/10 · 2 March 2011]

This is a well-crafted "love triangle" movie in the visual style of film noir, but without the plot development typical of film noir. No murders, gangsters, or cops. The cinematography is excellent and Preminger shows his mastery as a director, eliciting stellar performances from Joan Crawford, Dana Andrews, and Henry Fonda.

Crawford in particular shows her star quality with superbly nuanced articulation and facial expressions. Her opening lines are amazing to listen to, her voice quavering nervously to show that she is under tremendous emotional pressure.

Dana Andrews gives probably the best performance of his career as the cheating husband who really wants to make things work, but is torn between his neurotic wife, his adorable kids, and his mistress.

Henry Fonda gives a brilliantly understated characterization of an eccentric war-torn hero hiding behind a veneer of gentleness and innocence, who cleverly but compassionately manipulates the situation in order to bring about a satisfactory resolution.

There a few plot twists and a happy ending. Highly recommended.

Good Crawford, but not don't expect another Mildred Pierce

[nickandrew · 7/10 · 27 August 2001]

A lot of Joan Crawford titles are the actual characters she plays such as SADIE McKEE, LETTY LYNTON, MILDRED PIERCE, HARRIET CRAIG and this one. Made in 1947, two years after she won the Oscar for MILDRED and during a period where she was making some of her best films at Warners (she was loaned to Fox for this). However, this is one of the weaker ones during that time, but not a bad one. It's a typical, glossy soap opera with Joan in a love triangle with married lawyer (Andrews) & soldier (Fonda). It's rather predictable and drags towards the end, but Joan gives a good, solid performance. 2.5 out of 4.

Daisy Kenyan- The Fireworks Are Missing **1/2

[edwagreen · 5/10 · 26 April 2010]

Benign affair with Joan Crawford really being unable to make up her mind who the man for her actually is. Should it be married, successful lawyer Dana Andrews or the rather dull widower Henry Fonda? Crawford chooses the latter, but a phone conversation with Andrews where he professes his love for her,is heard by his vicious wife and some fireworks start but never become blazing.

Ruth Warrick is excellent as the wife of Andrews. The daughter of a wealthy man who is Andrews' law partner, she is an embittered woman who leashes her fury out on her younger daughter. I really thought there would be a tragedy there and I was glad that I'm wrong.

The ending is predictable because that's the way the film should have ended. Missing here is an excitable Joan Crawford capable of anything. To disagree with other writers, this is certainly not one of Andrews' best films. To me, he will always be endearing as that soldier returning home in "The Best Years of Our Lives."

Daisy, Daisy, Tell Me Your Answer, Do

[robert-temple-1 · 8/10 · 5 August 2008]

This film is the latest release in the Fox Film Noir DVD series. Although it is not a noir film at all, but is instead a potent emotional melodrama, this does not matter. We don't complain, do we, when splendid DVDs of classic films are released under any pretext from those perfectly preserved negatives sitting in California archives crying in unison: 'Release me! Release me!' Anything directed by Otto Preminger is welcome. He may have been a nightmare as a person, but his films were terrific. This film is beautifully directed, and the lighting by Ken Shamroy and the sets by art directors George David and Lyle Wheeler all combine to give tremendous atmosphere to a film which could so easily have had none. Shamroy's lighting is not only good because of the shadows, but the subtle ways he picks out the faces and the eyes. Those were the days! Who can do that so well now? The Hollywood stars then knew how to play to their lights in order to deify themselves to still higher celestial orders. In those days, facial surgery took place by lighting methods, and there was no need for the knife. I am far from being a Joan Crawford admirer, but although she was an even worse nightmare than Preminger as a person, she can act with fantastic, mesmeric power when she wants to. And she does so here. The story is about a confused 'independent woman' of the immediate postwar era who is a mistress of a self-absorbed cad and the wife of a perversely self-denying idealist. Which shall she choose? She dithers with all the uncertainty of a woman in love who is not sure with whom. Does she go for the strong and cruel one, or the weak and adoring one? (Animal instinct always urges the former, on the premise that it is a better breeding prospect for the species that the strong, however cruel, should procreate.) Dana Andrews, usually a nice guy in films, here does a very good job of being a real jerk. Henry Fonda always found it easy, with his relaxed, gangly walk of a hillbilly, to be Mr. Nice Guy, since after all, only nice guys walk like that. He doesn't have a lot of acting to do, but what is needed is there. (No need to chew gum or 'baccy' this time.) This love triangle is greatly aided by a spectacular performance in a supporting role by Ruth Warrick as a harridan wife of Dana Andrews, although the fact that she is a child abuser who beats up her own little girl is severely down-played in the film. There are some wonderful small touches: a garrulous taxi driver reciting endless boring statistics about his trade, and a glassy-eyed couple who descend the stairs and do not say hello, the woman surprisingly being former silent film star Mae Marsh! Yes, it is a pity about the Greenwich Theatre being gone, not to mention Pennsylvania Station, of the interior of which we get a glimpse. This is a powerful soap opera story raised to a higher level by the talent involved.

Pretty good, but for Crawford perhaps a bit too familiar...

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 19 September 2010]

This is a pretty good film, so when I make the following criticism, I still think it's worth seeing. My problem with the film is casting Joan Crawford as a woman having an affair with a married man (Dana Andrews). That's because she had previously done this exact same sort of role many, many times--particularly in the 1930s. It's just too familiar, as is her later regrets and decision to live a more honorable life. Apart from, perhaps, Kay Francis, no woman played 'the other woman' as often as Joan!

The movie begins with Crawford trying to break off her relationship with a married attorney (Andrews), but she supposedly 'can't help but love him'--a bit of a clichéd start, certainly. However, soon she begins casually dating a returning soldier (Henry Fonda) and eventually he asks her to marry him. Well, she has to either choose the life of a slut or an honest to goodness married woman, and she chooses Fonda. But, unfortunately, there are a lot of complications and things don't go as smoothly for everyone as she'd hoped.

The film is a soap opera with many familiar elements, but it's all filmed and acted so well that it's hard not to still enjoy the movie. While far from the best of the leads or director Premminger, it's still worth seeing and does offer up a few surprises...just a few.

Those Old New York Divorce Laws

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 7 August 2006]

A lot of what goes on in Daisy Kenyon may not be understood by today's audience without knowing about New York State's divorce laws. New York had a law in which the only ground for divorce at that time was adultery, something that had to be proved. People still go to Nevada or Mexico for a quick divorce, but not as much any more.

The title role in this woman's picture is played by Joan Crawford, an artist living in Greenwich Village who is involved in an extra-marital affair with Dana Andrews, a high priced attorney in a white shoe law firm.

Andrews is most unhappily married to Ruth Warrick who is the daughter of the firm's senior partner. Warrick's been down this road before, if you remember her movie debut was in Citizen Kane as the unhappy first wife of Charles Foster Kane. She's a mean woman who takes her frustration out on her kids.

Crawford in the mean time meets Henry Fonda who is a recently discharged soldier who designs yachts. He's a man of simple values who just wants to earn enough to live on. Crawford marries Fonda when it looks like Andrews is unattainable.

Warrick however begins a divorce case in New York on adultery charges for the sole purpose of hurting Andrews. This is when it gets good and ugly.

Daisy Kenyon is a throwback to the kind of films that Crawford was doing in her MGM salad days. Some of what she did at MGM far outstripped this one. Not to mention Mildred Pierce at Warner Brothers.

Fonda and Andrews go through the motions as her two men, they're well aware this is Joan's show. Warrick does a nice turn however as the wronged wife.

I guess only the viewer can judge if Crawford missed MGM at this point in her career.

A Wonderful, complex and engrossing character study with tremendous performances, writing, music and directing

[mauricebarringer · 23 August 2011]

I wanted to respond to a few comments about this wonderful film (which was a strong and highly effective character study). Dana Andrews received billing over Henry Fonda because Andrews was at the peak of his career with A WALK IN THE SUN, LAURA, THE FALLEN ANGEL AND THE BEST FILM OF 1946, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIFE. He was a superstar at that time and held on to stardom until the early 1960s but in films of lesser quality as the years went by. He was an excellent and underrated actor.

Henry Fonda, whose first starring role was in 1935, was in the middle of his long career, not in the early stages as one writer said. Fonda, after serving 3 full years in WWII, had a difficult time maintaining his stardom, was never a strong box office star but was an outstanding actor. Fonda did not make any films after 1948 until MR. ROBERTS in 1955, his comeback. He constantly did fine and critically acclaimed stage work. Peter, his son, said he was gray-listed because of his liberal political views also. Fonda worked in major films with lead roles in films and on television until his death in 1982.

Fonda was under contract and was forced to perform in this film by his studio. Andrews liked working with Otto Preminger and did so 4 times. Andrews was easy to work with and the autocratic Preminger liked Andrews because of his professionalism, easy going personality and outstanding acting ability.

I was surprised that something more was not said or done about Dana Andrews' child torturing wife. Andrew shed a tear but did not report this beast to the authorities. (She yanked on her child's ear until the ear bled and the child had a significant ear ache.) That, even in the dark ages, should have been enough to have the child removed from her care, wouldn't it?

"Look who you married -- the son of Dracula."

[utgard14 · 6/10 · 18 May 2016]

Joan Crawford soaper, directed by Otto Preminger, with a familiar plot of Joan being torn between two men (married lawyer Dana Andrews and returning soldier Henry Fonda). Joan made these sorts of love triangle melodramas all the time in the 1930s. Despite the hackneyed romance, this is actually a pretty interesting film. For one thing, it has more of a noirish look than those earlier Joan melodramas. For another, it deals with some pretty adult material for a movie of its time, like child abuse, divorce, and even an easy-to-overlook bit about a civil rights case where a Japanese-American soldier had his farm taken from him while he was fighting in the war. Finally, it's well-acted all around and each of the stars gets some good material to work with. Yeah, Joan's style from this period (shoulder pads, heavy eyebrows, and general masculine femininity) can be a little distracting at times, but Preminger does a good job of making the rest of the picture so attractive you are able to look past that. It's worth a look if you are a fan of the three stars or the director, but it isn't the best any of them have done.

"You cook like you paint, honey: fast, colorful, and glib..."

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 22 March 2010]

Elizabeth Janeway's novel becomes depressive soap in the usually-capable hands of director Otto Preminger. Had Preminger not also served as the film's producer, I might guess this melodrama was foisted upon him as a contractual obligation (it certainly doesn't seem like material he'd be attracted to). New York artist Joan Crawford, living in a rather elaborate 'hovel', marries ex-soldier and widower Henry Fonda as a response to lover Dana Andrews constantly putting his wife, children and business affairs before her. It is apparent that Andrews and Crawford are having a sexual relationship, yet Joan doesn't act like a fallen woman; she strides about during an argument, cleaning up her apartment defensively until Dana takes her in his arms (where she melts, like a pushover). Fonda and Crawford do seem like the better match (he calls her "Deezy" and she calls him "Peetah"), but the circles these stuck-in-a-rut characters go around in quickly become tiresome. Preminger doesn't have many surprises in store for us (except Andrews' scorned wife, who takes her frustrations out on her youngest daughter), although Andrews' penchant for using terms of endearment towards both women and men is amusing, and the design here is tidy and attractive. **1/2 from ****

Too bad they don't make them like this one anymore...

[doghouse-8 · 9/10 · 19 September 2001]

This movie was surprisingly good.....I watched simply because I usually like Joan Crawford movies, but once this film began I was completely hooked. The performances were all first rate, and the script was excellent. Joan Crawford, Dana Andrews and Henry Fonda were equally great in their respective parts, in fact, I thought it was one of Henry Fonda's better early roles.

Good Cast, Poor Script

[kenjha · 6/10 · 26 December 2012]

A woman becomes romantically involved with a married man and an army veteran. Given the talents of the star trio and the director, this one is a disappointment. This seems to be an attempt at another "Mildred Pierce," but falls far short. The main problem is the screenplay, which is little more than a soap opera. Crawford has to choose between rich but married Andrews and decent but dull Fonda. There is no exposition, with Crawford and Andrews having a tiff in the opening scene even before we get to know the characters. The dialog is mostly pedestrian. The goings on are mostly mundane until the latter stages, when it starts to become somewhat interesting. There's not much here beyond star gazing.

But What Happened to Tubby?

[Handlinghandel · 8/10 · 8 September 2005]

In the early scenes, Crawford has a dog that looks like a border collie. His name is Tubby and she appears to dote on him. Suddenly, he disappears.

That said, this is one of Crawford's very best movie's. Twentieth Century Fox, and Otto Preminger, did beautifully by her.

So many things to say ...! It takes place in the neighborhood where I was born and still live. The Greenwich Theater, where Joan attends a movie, was a staple of Greenwich Village. When it was twinned it started showing less interesting things but it was still a landmark. Then it was torn down and in its place stands a health club.

The diner where Henry Fonda waits for Crawford while she's at the movie is still there. The curtain in its window looks the same -- almost 60 years later.

Crawford and Dana Andrews make a somewhat unlikely torrid romantic duo. But they work well together. The same can be said for Crawford and Fonda. Their romance is a bit more implausible but, again, they are directed beautifully and advance the plot admirably.

In a sense, this is Fonda's closest brush with film noir. He is a vet who has also lost his wife. The scene in which he thrashes around a nightmare is brilliantly staged. The background music there, as elsewhere, is excellent.

Most of the characters speak in a sort of Henry Higgins manner. "Hurricane" is pronounced just as Eliza Doolittle was taught to say it: "hurricen." Crawford always had that quality -- "syew" for "sue," "cahn't" for "can't." But the movie withstands these petty issues. It's exciting and it is beautifully cast. Ruth Warrick is superb in the small role of Andrews's wife. Peggy Ann Garner is too, as one of his daughters. So is the girl playing his other daughter. And Crawford's roommate, whose name I don't recognize, is convincing as well.

This is one of the lesser known vehicles of all three of its stars and not one of Preminger's better known, either. But it's fascinating and deserves kudos for all concerned.

Not quite Humoresque

[xan-the-crawford-fan · 7/10 · 20 June 2021]

Seems to be a typical love triangle, from what the poster shows. It really isn't. The characters are too well developed for a typical love triangle. They all get together and have inteligent discussions. There is also a lot of talking on the telephone, but it sounds like actual telephone conversations. Basically, the characters are too well developed for the script.

Several reviewers have pointed out that Joan Crawford is too old for her role as Daisy, an artist who is having an affair with- Dana Andrews's judge, I believe. I disagree. It's more plausible that the character of Daisy Kenyon would be woman of 35-40, versus a young girl. Having Daisy as someone who was very young (like what the reviewers here seen to want) would make Dana Andrews's character seem like a creep. Joan Crawford looks very good for her age, and this was probably the last movie in which she had a flattering hairstyle. She plays her part very well, but her male costars are good enough that she doesn't stomp all over them.

Dana Andrews is good in his role as well, but I see him and all I can think of is that he should be romancing Gene Tierney (think Laura) instead of Joan in some spots. Henry Fonda is good is the war veteran Peter Lapham (I'm sorry, I forgot the name of Dana Andrew's character), but him and Crawford have bare minimum chemistry. Just enough to make their romance passable on-screen, but maybe I'm spoiling myself with all of Crawford's Clark Gable pairings. And yes, the screenwriters seem to have completely forgotten about Daisy's dog Tubby in the second half of the film. The woman who Daisy appeared to be close friends with has also gone from the script by the second half. It's almost like two different films. The scene at the end with Daisy in the car is just plain implausible- I know, movies are supposed to be exaggerated portayals of life, but the fact that she was completely uninjured after rolling her car off the road-- yet manages to see her life in a completely new light and do the right thing!- it's just not good. Not good at all.

So while this film is no Humoresque or Possessed (which was released the same year), it is probably in Joan Crawford's top five Warner Brothers films- I believe she was loaned out to 20th Century Fox for this one, but I'm not 100% sure. Well worth a watch, especially if you like mature dramas where the characters are equally developed. It's falsely advertised as a film-noir, however. Maybe because of Andrews and Crawford (I don't know if Henry Fonda ever made any film-noirs- the only other film I've seen him in is The Farmer Takes A Wife with Janet Gaynor).

Solid 6.5/10 from me. I don't think I'll watch it again, but I liked it.

Do You Enjoy Watching Paint Dry?

[JohnHowardReid · 4/10 · 25 September 2008]

What is film noir? Perhaps it's easier to answer this question by detailing what it is not. Because film noir is currently flavor of the month among cineastes, many DVD companies are issuing almost any old black-and-white film from their libraries as film noir. A notable case in point is the 1947 movie Daisy Kenyon directed by Otto Preminger. Now I'll admit that Daisy Kenyon does have some noirish elements, chiefly in the dark photographic texture imposed on the picture by Leon Shamroy (who presumably disliked working with Joan Crawford because he often seems to go out of his way to capture her close-ups from unflattering angles). And there's also a court case in the movie. And two auto accidents. But the court case is a divorce proceeding, not a criminal suit, and one of the car accidents occurs off-camera before the story even commences. It's true too that the Andrews character is a heel, and that Fonda's soldier is both battle-scarred and neurotic, and that Daisy herself presents as a terribly mixed-up kid. But aside from Daisy's consistent indecision, these elements are under-played. Instead, as the title implies, aside from a few forays into the glum two-timing Andrews household, the camera's focus always remains firmly fixed on Daisy. Is she emotionally unstable? Not really! She does admittedly suffer one major breakdown, but then recovers with remarkable celerity. Is she hemmed in by forces she can't control? To some extent, but only to near breaking point on one occasion (the cross examination) and to an actual break at the climax. Is she depressed, disillusioned? No more than most of us, and probably less rather than more. Is she ever in any danger? Only in one short sequence, and that strictly from herself. Threatened? Never! Does she ever feel she has no way out? No.

Above all, is the prevailing mood of the movie downbeat? Dark? Black? Answer, despite all Shamroy's efforts to indicate otherwise, no!

Therefore Daisy Kenyon, although it possesses a few noir elements, is not film noir. Personally, I found the central character unconvincing. Her reactions are those of a dime novel heroine rather than a real life person. True, Joan pulls out every trick in the actor's handbook to bring this impossible caricature to a semblance of reality, but is defeated by the slow-moving mechanics of the impossibly stodgy plot. As for the two male characters, I found them both distinctly unsympathetic.

What I did like about the movie were the incidental touches that producer Preminger introduced (Garfield, Runyon, Lyons and Winchell at the Stork Club). The main game from director Preminger, alas, was dead dreary from go to whoa! Any picturegoer who couldn't figure out which man Daisy would choose five minutes into the action was obviously unacquainted with the Breen Office's inflexible requirements. And as the whole plot revolves around this question, the movie is totally pointless. Why make such an enormous issue of Daisy's choice, when we all know what will satisfy Breen almost as soon as the picture starts? And yet for 99 minutes this is dragged out. Incredible, but true! All told, Daisy Kenyon is a picture strictly for patrons who enjoy watching paint dry.

Romantic triangle

[Ishallwearpurple · 9/10 · 29 September 2002]

One of the most enjoyable of the genre. Joan Crawford as Daisy is at the peak of her '40s films. Henry Fonda in a quirky romantic role, a returned service man with a few issues to get through. Dana Andrews as the cad, never better. In fact of the 3 leads, his is the most interesting interpretation - of a brilliant man who is unable to keep his family man and Romeo side affair balanced. When it topples, he is the one left in a heap of rubble. A most satisfying ladies matinee film (and I mean that as a recommendation.) I give it a 9/10.

Jane

Lost Love

[kidboots · 7/10 · 17 May 2012]

In ten years Joan Crawford went from being "box office poison" to winning an Oscar for "Mildred Pierce" to almost winning again for "Possessed" - most critics felt she should have won but Loretta Young did for "The Farmer's Daughter". Both director, Otto Preminger, and star, Henry Fonda, wished to forget "Daisy Kenyon" later in their careers and it was a film that opted for mushy romance over psychological drama, elements it had in abundance.

Commercial artist Daisy Kenyon (Crawford) is being given the runaround by her married lover Dan (Dana Andrews). Initially he comes across as a brash charmer juggling mistress and family but in reality his wife is a neurotic who takes her frustrations out by abusing younger daughter Marie (Connie Marshall)!!! But Daisy is getting fed up with always coming second and the endless waiting by the telephone, so when she meets Peter (Fonda) who impulsively asks her to marry him she says yes.

This movie could have gone in so many directions rather than down the road to romance. There was the child abuse angle - Marie was always a bundle of nerves at the thought of being left with her mother and even turns up at court with a bandaged ear but Dan seems oblivious to everything but his own happiness. At the end he even indicates that both mother and daughter would get used to each other in time but he had to be free!! Again, another sequence shows him accepting a brief (he was a lawyer of course) that dealt with a Japanese man who had won the Purple Heart but returned to find his home had been seized. Dan was told accepting this case would make him feel more worthwhile and not just a society lawyer. He takes the case and loses but you only hear about it, by this time the movie is really the Daisy and Dan story!! Oh, and Peter has some psychological problems stemming from the death of his first wife. He often wakes up at night with horrible nightmares. His problems, too, are miraculously righted and the end of the movie shows the three of them snowed in at a mountain cabin where Peter and Dan, like in a court case, put forward their cases as to why they are the best person for Daisy.

Peter Fonda comes off best (probably because he is a better actor than Dana Andrews) but his pacing and demeanor are so dreamlike, it was almost as though he was in a different movie - he probably wished he was!!

She's good at stringing her men along.

[michaelRokeefe · 5/10 · 30 July 2011]

The revered Otto Preminger directs three well healed actors, Joan Crawford, Dana Andrews and Henry Fonda. This drama features Crawford as Daisy Kenyon, a Manhattan commercial artist that is being squired by Dan O'Mara(Andrews), a high dollar lawyer, married with kids. Daisy has had O'Mara on the string long enough and she expects hims to divorce his wife Lucille(Ruth Warrick). The attorney pussy foots the idea and just can't bring himself to do it. Meanwhile Daisy is also keeping company with an army sergeant Peter Lapham(Fonda) actually hoping to make Dan jealous. Both men argue over her, but when she nearly kills herself in an auto accident Daisy realizes she truly loves Lapham. By this time Lucille has overheard a phone call made by her husband professing his love for Daisy...divorce proceedings will soon be underway. Two men on a string, but does she even deserve either one? Making cameo appearances at New York's fabled Stork Club are John Garfield, Walter Winchell and Leonard Lyons. Other players include: Roy Roberts, Victoria Horne, Connie Marshall and Martha Stewart. Soap opera on the big screen.