It is interesting to compare this drama of adulterous passions in the suburbs with a brilliant comedy of the late 1940s. In 1948 Cary Grant and Myrna Loy had problems getting a country house in MR. BLANDINGS BUILDS HIS DREAMHOUSE. A dozen years later we have Ernie Kovacs approaching architect Kirk Douglas on building him a private home in California, while Douglas is approached by Kent Smith with at least one or two major projects. Grant, in the late 1940s was complaining about spending at least $15,000.00 on the entire project. That represented at least one third of Grant's income. In this film Douglas is getting the princely sum of $5,000.00 for building a modern plant for Smith, and gets 10% of the total cost of the construction of the house for Kovacs. Today, of course, Douglas would be getting nothing less than $60,000.00 for his architectural planning, while the whole of the house for Kovacs would probably cost at least one million dollars. Boy, what does this tell us about inflation?
Evan Hunter's story STRANGERS WHEN WE MEET is set just when suburbia was becoming a permanent fixture in American society. The idea that the prosperity of the upper middle class could not bring true happiness was dimly perceived. The idea that one could be sexually starved, as Kim Novak is here by her husband (John Bryant), or that a decent wife like Barbara Rush could be pushed aside by her decent husband (Kirk Douglas) struck us as incredible. Yet we see that the suburbs contain passions that can explode. At best they are controlled like that of Novak and Douglas for each other - when they carefully plan to meet occasionally at distant bars and hotels. At worse you have marvelously interesting character of Walter Matthau. Apparently a conservative type (pipe smoking, hater of smutty jokes), Matthau actually is interested in sexual conquests all over the place - and actually tries to force himself on a humiliated (and alone) Rush when Douglas is out of the house. When Douglas reacts properly and socks Matthau, our Walter looks at him from the ground, smiles, and sneers, "How are we that different?" Douglas is now the one who is humiliated.
There is a hint at universal sexual desires here that are beyond marriage. Novaks mother (Virginia Bruce) has also apparently done something in her past that Novaks uses to silence her (unfairly) at times - but Bruce senses that Novak's relationship with Bryant is faulty because Bryant is such a stiff boy scout type (Novak tries to get him to go to bed with her at one point when he returns from work - wearing easy to rip off clothes to entice him. His reaction is to say he wants to change his shirt!). Even Kovacs shows a sexual urge that is not satisfied by a single lady - he has a series of different type of short-term girlfriends. But Kovacs is also wishing he could find a perfect lover.
The acting in this story is actually quite good. Douglas is convincing as adulterous husband, lover, penitent, and architect (the detail scenes regarding the construction of Kovacs' home, and the discussions with Smith of his two schemes for Douglas are quite convincing, with talk of studying terrain and such showing they know what a gifted architect actually would do). Novak's failure (despite having one of the most alluring of bodies in that movie period) to get a proper response from Bryant is fascinating (one recalls the reverse reaction she got from Jimmy Stewart in VERTIGO). One has to hand it to Bryant too in those scenes - a less than known actor he does show a tired husband who is truly tired. Rush manages to be convincing as a caring wife - she does not hesitate to be argumentative when she feels Douglas' career ideas are wrong (he wants to concentrate on his modern private houses, not on grandiose schemes). The sole weakness in the film is one of a debatable point. Having nearly been raped, she is aware the rapist based his views on Douglas' behavior - and she ends her best scene insisting he leave her and their sons and never come back. But in three minutes (supposedly after a couple of hours of crying) she is ready to beg Douglas for a reconciliation. Is this a sop to audience tastes to preserve a "happy home", or does Rush's character genuinely still love Douglas? A nice question to consider.
Then there is Ernie: Kovacs, the early television comic genius, made less than ten films in his lifetime. He only had two years left after STRANGERS before the auto crash and hairline fracture ended his remarkable career. This is his only really serious film in all of them. He was a western villain in NORTH TO ALASKA, but he was barely in control of events against John Wayne and Stewart Granger. Here he is not a villain, but a writer who is confronting a perennial problem: he has had great financial success with two best sellers that the public liked, and the critics panned. The novels are being turned into movies. Who can ask for anything more? Well Ernie does - he wants to write what he really feels, but he is uncertain if it will be successful or not. Kirk and he, both of whom share an artistic desire to excel, become friends in the film, and the latter pushes Ernie to write his heartfelt novel. Kovacs carries out the project, and is successful at the end with the critics. Here Kovacs had few chances to joke about as in a film like OPERATION MADBALL or THE FIVE GOLDEN HOURS. But he carries off his role well indeed. It makes one realize that his car accident not only took away a comic genius, but possibly a fine dramatic actor as well.
Evan Hunter's story STRANGERS WHEN WE MEET is set just when suburbia was becoming a permanent fixture in American society. The idea that the prosperity of the upper middle class could not bring true happiness was dimly perceived. The idea that one could be sexually starved, as Kim Novak is here by her husband (John Bryant), or that a decent wife like Barbara Rush could be pushed aside by her decent husband (Kirk Douglas) struck us as incredible. Yet we see that the suburbs contain passions that can explode. At best they are controlled like that of Novak and Douglas for each other - when they carefully plan to meet occasionally at distant bars and hotels. At worse you have marvelously interesting character of Walter Matthau. Apparently a conservative type (pipe smoking, hater of smutty jokes), Matthau actually is interested in sexual conquests all over the place - and actually tries to force himself on a humiliated (and alone) Rush when Douglas is out of the house. When Douglas reacts properly and socks Matthau, our Walter looks at him from the ground, smiles, and sneers, "How are we that different?" Douglas is now the one who is humiliated.
There is a hint at universal sexual desires here that are beyond marriage. Novaks mother (Virginia Bruce) has also apparently done something in her past that Novaks uses to silence her (unfairly) at times - but Bruce senses that Novak's relationship with Bryant is faulty because Bryant is such a stiff boy scout type (Novak tries to get him to go to bed with her at one point when he returns from work - wearing easy to rip off clothes to entice him. His reaction is to say he wants to change his shirt!). Even Kovacs shows a sexual urge that is not satisfied by a single lady - he has a series of different type of short-term girlfriends. But Kovacs is also wishing he could find a perfect lover.
The acting in this story is actually quite good. Douglas is convincing as adulterous husband, lover, penitent, and architect (the detail scenes regarding the construction of Kovacs' home, and the discussions with Smith of his two schemes for Douglas are quite convincing, with talk of studying terrain and such showing they know what a gifted architect actually would do). Novak's failure (despite having one of the most alluring of bodies in that movie period) to get a proper response from Bryant is fascinating (one recalls the reverse reaction she got from Jimmy Stewart in VERTIGO). One has to hand it to Bryant too in those scenes - a less than known actor he does show a tired husband who is truly tired. Rush manages to be convincing as a caring wife - she does not hesitate to be argumentative when she feels Douglas' career ideas are wrong (he wants to concentrate on his modern private houses, not on grandiose schemes). The sole weakness in the film is one of a debatable point. Having nearly been raped, she is aware the rapist based his views on Douglas' behavior - and she ends her best scene insisting he leave her and their sons and never come back. But in three minutes (supposedly after a couple of hours of crying) she is ready to beg Douglas for a reconciliation. Is this a sop to audience tastes to preserve a "happy home", or does Rush's character genuinely still love Douglas? A nice question to consider.
Then there is Ernie: Kovacs, the early television comic genius, made less than ten films in his lifetime. He only had two years left after STRANGERS before the auto crash and hairline fracture ended his remarkable career. This is his only really serious film in all of them. He was a western villain in NORTH TO ALASKA, but he was barely in control of events against John Wayne and Stewart Granger. Here he is not a villain, but a writer who is confronting a perennial problem: he has had great financial success with two best sellers that the public liked, and the critics panned. The novels are being turned into movies. Who can ask for anything more? Well Ernie does - he wants to write what he really feels, but he is uncertain if it will be successful or not. Kirk and he, both of whom share an artistic desire to excel, become friends in the film, and the latter pushes Ernie to write his heartfelt novel. Kovacs carries out the project, and is successful at the end with the critics. Here Kovacs had few chances to joke about as in a film like OPERATION MADBALL or THE FIVE GOLDEN HOURS. But he carries off his role well indeed. It makes one realize that his car accident not only took away a comic genius, but possibly a fine dramatic actor as well.