I've just seen Tomorrow is Forever for the first time and I was quite moved by it. I find Claudette Colbert a riveting presence no matter what the vehicle she happens to be in, and Orson Welles is similarly magnetic. I was so hoping that he would ultimately admit to who he really was but that's one of the things that kept me glued to the screen. I'd like to know what others think about this movie. The local cable provider lists it as a 2 star feature (out of a possible 4) but I think that's quite a disservice. Let me know what you think, and thanks as always.
Hollis
Tomorrow is Forever
You are correct in stating this was a fine movie, and I agree that the 2 star rating was a disservice.
Think of the ramifications if he had said who he really was. Not only for Claudette, but for her husband and two sons. The older boy had grown up KNOWING who his father was, because as they said, they never told him the truth. Also the younger boy would have been illegitimate - a true disgrace for that time. In addition, her whole second marriage would have been illigal. The first time I saw it, I, too, wanted him to tell her, but when I saw it the second time, all of this came home to me, and I thought, thank goodness he didn't tell her. Besides all that legal stuff, what good would it have done for her? She was happy and settled. She was remembering and glorifying a past that had compounded over the years to an idyllic state. They had been very young when they married, and chances are, if he had survived and returned, they would have been two different people. She had to grow up and become independent to raise her child, and would not have fit back into the groove of little housewife.
We don't know a lot about the return of WWI vets, but we do know that many divorces came about after WWII for that reason alone. Women had to work to support themselves and their children, and many found it too dificult to return to the protected syndrome.
I won't go on, but I do like the movie immensely, and Claudette is a big reason why.
Anne
Think of the ramifications if he had said who he really was. Not only for Claudette, but for her husband and two sons. The older boy had grown up KNOWING who his father was, because as they said, they never told him the truth. Also the younger boy would have been illegitimate - a true disgrace for that time. In addition, her whole second marriage would have been illigal. The first time I saw it, I, too, wanted him to tell her, but when I saw it the second time, all of this came home to me, and I thought, thank goodness he didn't tell her. Besides all that legal stuff, what good would it have done for her? She was happy and settled. She was remembering and glorifying a past that had compounded over the years to an idyllic state. They had been very young when they married, and chances are, if he had survived and returned, they would have been two different people. She had to grow up and become independent to raise her child, and would not have fit back into the groove of little housewife.
We don't know a lot about the return of WWI vets, but we do know that many divorces came about after WWII for that reason alone. Women had to work to support themselves and their children, and many found it too dificult to return to the protected syndrome.
I won't go on, but I do like the movie immensely, and Claudette is a big reason why.
Anne
One of the things I most admire about Claudette Colbert was her willingness to play the mom of young adults even while she was still young enough to be a romantic lead herself. Greer Garson was the same way. Much as I like Norma Shearer, I've always rolled my eyes at her insecurity about doing that.
Hi Ayres,
When you mentioned Greer Garson, I had to stop and catch my breath. I honestly think she may be the most incredibly beautiful woman the screen has ever seen. And what an actress, Mrs Miniver, Random Harvest and Goodbye Mr Chips only scratch the surface of a very deep talent. I can't take my eyes off of her whenever she's on the screen. I was born 30 years too late!
Hollis
When you mentioned Greer Garson, I had to stop and catch my breath. I honestly think she may be the most incredibly beautiful woman the screen has ever seen. And what an actress, Mrs Miniver, Random Harvest and Goodbye Mr Chips only scratch the surface of a very deep talent. I can't take my eyes off of her whenever she's on the screen. I was born 30 years too late!
Hollis
-
jdb1
Sorry, I put this post on the TCM General thread before I saw this one. Here it is:
Tomorrow is Forever was on again yesterday morning. I like this movie better and better every time I see it (and I liked it a lot the first time I saw it). This is a "romance" or "woman's picture" or "patriotic movie," or whatever other category, that really works, because of the absolute earnestness and emotional depth of the performances, especially those of Claudette Colbert and Orson Welles. Two youngsters, Richard Long and a very young Natalie Wood, are also outstanding.
The speech Welles delivers at the end of the film, where he speaks of lost love and wartime responsiblities, would elicit groans from me if it were being recited by a lesser actor, but Orson really sells it. And Colbert is wonderful in a role that might not be quite so sympathetic in other hands (she refuses to let go of the past).
It's also notable for a sequence in the beginning of the movie showing Colbert's face from the right, rather than left, side, for an extended shot. Frankly, I think she was correct - her left profile was better.
If you've never seen this one, you should seek it out. A wonderful example of classic Hollywood.
Tomorrow is Forever was on again yesterday morning. I like this movie better and better every time I see it (and I liked it a lot the first time I saw it). This is a "romance" or "woman's picture" or "patriotic movie," or whatever other category, that really works, because of the absolute earnestness and emotional depth of the performances, especially those of Claudette Colbert and Orson Welles. Two youngsters, Richard Long and a very young Natalie Wood, are also outstanding.
The speech Welles delivers at the end of the film, where he speaks of lost love and wartime responsiblities, would elicit groans from me if it were being recited by a lesser actor, but Orson really sells it. And Colbert is wonderful in a role that might not be quite so sympathetic in other hands (she refuses to let go of the past).
It's also notable for a sequence in the beginning of the movie showing Colbert's face from the right, rather than left, side, for an extended shot. Frankly, I think she was correct - her left profile was better.
If you've never seen this one, you should seek it out. A wonderful example of classic Hollywood.
-
jdb1
Thanks, Hollis.
I've been thinking more about Colbert's character. If you think about her dialogue and her behavior - Elizabeth could be interpreted in a very different way than Colbert's reading of her.
I think a different actress might have made her Elizabeth more of a brittle and disturbed character. I'm thinking of someone like Joan Crawford - her Elizabeth might have been more tortured and intractable. Another actress might have made her defeated, but Colbert made her a survivor. Even in her refusal to let go of the past, Colbert still brings strength and sympathy to the woman. If this Elizabeth wants to hold on to memories, we know she will still function well for her family, and find the courage to do the right thing (even if, in the case, the right thing meant sending her son off to war).
She would have done the right thing anyway, I think, though she may not have realized what she was really feeling. Welles' character helped her to face her own demons, and to surmount them.
I'm also sorry that the Welles character was killed off. I think this was a nod to the conventions of the day. It was, after all, an unconfortable social situation. By the way, the son was not illigimate, was he? Elizabeth and John were properly married when their son was born, even if the father was supposedly dead. I think Elizabeth just couldn't bear to think of her son as her late husband's son as well. I think she says something to that effect in the film. I imagine that a remake of this film today would have them all walking off into the sunset together, one big, happy, non-traditional family.
What did you all think of Natalie Wood? Really good for a little bitty girl, I thought, and with an accent, too.
I've been thinking more about Colbert's character. If you think about her dialogue and her behavior - Elizabeth could be interpreted in a very different way than Colbert's reading of her.
I think a different actress might have made her Elizabeth more of a brittle and disturbed character. I'm thinking of someone like Joan Crawford - her Elizabeth might have been more tortured and intractable. Another actress might have made her defeated, but Colbert made her a survivor. Even in her refusal to let go of the past, Colbert still brings strength and sympathy to the woman. If this Elizabeth wants to hold on to memories, we know she will still function well for her family, and find the courage to do the right thing (even if, in the case, the right thing meant sending her son off to war).
She would have done the right thing anyway, I think, though she may not have realized what she was really feeling. Welles' character helped her to face her own demons, and to surmount them.
I'm also sorry that the Welles character was killed off. I think this was a nod to the conventions of the day. It was, after all, an unconfortable social situation. By the way, the son was not illigimate, was he? Elizabeth and John were properly married when their son was born, even if the father was supposedly dead. I think Elizabeth just couldn't bear to think of her son as her late husband's son as well. I think she says something to that effect in the film. I imagine that a remake of this film today would have them all walking off into the sunset together, one big, happy, non-traditional family.
What did you all think of Natalie Wood? Really good for a little bitty girl, I thought, and with an accent, too.
-
MissGoddess
- Posts: 5072
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
- Contact:
I love this film too and just want to add a nod to little Natalie Wood's poignant performance as Orson Welles' German orphan ward, Margaret. What is comforting to realize is that in an indirect way, Claudette gets to share a part of her first love's life without her in adopting little Margaret. I can't watch the scenes in which the girl seems to relive the tragedy of war because Natalie is very convincing.
It's also interesting to see how outwardly diffident Orson Welles' character is toward the child and yet ultimately he did her the greatest service of her young life by taking her out of Germany and bringing her into Claudette's world.
It's also interesting to see how outwardly diffident Orson Welles' character is toward the child and yet ultimately he did her the greatest service of her young life by taking her out of Germany and bringing her into Claudette's world.
jdb,
I think that you're correct on several points. Yes, their son was legitimate having been born within wedlock, and yes, Ms. Colbert did bring a certain strength of character to the role while being vulnerable at the same time, much as she did in Since You Went Away. It's interesting to me at least, that you drew a comparison to the way Elizabeth would have been portrayed by the likes of a Joan Crawford (never one of my favorites) because I don't feel that she would have been capable of displaying the same type of sensitivity that Ms Colbert could and did. In fact, I find virtually all of her roles save for the title role in Mildred Pierce and that of Bette Davis' sister in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? all but forgettable. There's no denying that she was a major star in her own right and in her own time, but for whatever reason, I simply fail to appreciate (if that's the right word) her on screen presence. Had Welles' character lived, it would have wrapped things up into one more than tidy little package, dispelling any mystique and doing away with the type of discussion we're engaged in now, don't you think? To be completely truthful, until her name was mentioned earlier in the thread, I wasn't even aware that the little girl was portrayed by Natalie Wood! She certainly displayed a talent and poignancy well beyond her years, didn't she? In my opinion (and again, that's why there's vanilla and chocolate both) I think it's actually one of the highlights of her entire career, coming in if I'm not mistaken, her first credited appearance in any movie. Personally I think her best performance was as Wilma in Splendor In the Grass opposite Warren Beatty. Don't hate me for saying so, but she's high up on my list of "overrated" actresses.
I think that you're correct on several points. Yes, their son was legitimate having been born within wedlock, and yes, Ms. Colbert did bring a certain strength of character to the role while being vulnerable at the same time, much as she did in Since You Went Away. It's interesting to me at least, that you drew a comparison to the way Elizabeth would have been portrayed by the likes of a Joan Crawford (never one of my favorites) because I don't feel that she would have been capable of displaying the same type of sensitivity that Ms Colbert could and did. In fact, I find virtually all of her roles save for the title role in Mildred Pierce and that of Bette Davis' sister in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? all but forgettable. There's no denying that she was a major star in her own right and in her own time, but for whatever reason, I simply fail to appreciate (if that's the right word) her on screen presence. Had Welles' character lived, it would have wrapped things up into one more than tidy little package, dispelling any mystique and doing away with the type of discussion we're engaged in now, don't you think? To be completely truthful, until her name was mentioned earlier in the thread, I wasn't even aware that the little girl was portrayed by Natalie Wood! She certainly displayed a talent and poignancy well beyond her years, didn't she? In my opinion (and again, that's why there's vanilla and chocolate both) I think it's actually one of the highlights of her entire career, coming in if I'm not mistaken, her first credited appearance in any movie. Personally I think her best performance was as Wilma in Splendor In the Grass opposite Warren Beatty. Don't hate me for saying so, but she's high up on my list of "overrated" actresses.
-
Ray Faiola
- Posts: 31
- Joined: May 31st, 2007, 9:39 am
- Location: Ellenville, NY
- Contact:
This is probably my favorite tear-jerker. Not that it's the best by any stretch; but it just has so many things that I love about it. First and foremost is Max Steiner's score. It is an incredible tapestry of themes and motifs, knitted together as only Maxie could do. There is a very unique choir chord at the moment when Claudette finally recognizes Orson.
The dialogue in the film is superb. Literate and intelligent, one of the best examples of 40's dramatic character scripting. And the film script is a vast improvement on Gwen Bristoe's novel.
One of the things I chuckle at in TOMORROW IS FOREVER is the way that poor tubby Orson was stuffed into that doughboy's uniform in the first act. And did you see they way they tried to shade his chins? He battled the bulge for many years and he was well on his way in 1945. Interestingly, with the beard and loose-fitting shabby clothes he wears as Kessler, he looks almost immaciated.
As much as I love the film, I always wonder how truly great it could have been if Mike Curtiz had directed it instead of Irving Pichel. Pichel was pedestrian at best and his absence of inspiration knew no bounds. Had Curtiz done this picture it would have packed 10 times the wallop. Even Irving Rapper would have been a better choice than Pichel. But this was not a studio production (International was a fledgling group and was merged with Universal within two years of its auspicious debut).
In addition to a beautiful 16mm print of the film and several posters (including the imposing three-sheet), I have the original showman's manual to TOMORROW IS FOREVER. It was quite an elaborate salesbook, with multiple pockets for individual kits on advertising, publicity, merchandising, etc. This was a big, big film in 1945 and it made a lot of money. Not enough, unfortunately, to justify the studio's independence.
The dialogue in the film is superb. Literate and intelligent, one of the best examples of 40's dramatic character scripting. And the film script is a vast improvement on Gwen Bristoe's novel.
One of the things I chuckle at in TOMORROW IS FOREVER is the way that poor tubby Orson was stuffed into that doughboy's uniform in the first act. And did you see they way they tried to shade his chins? He battled the bulge for many years and he was well on his way in 1945. Interestingly, with the beard and loose-fitting shabby clothes he wears as Kessler, he looks almost immaciated.
As much as I love the film, I always wonder how truly great it could have been if Mike Curtiz had directed it instead of Irving Pichel. Pichel was pedestrian at best and his absence of inspiration knew no bounds. Had Curtiz done this picture it would have packed 10 times the wallop. Even Irving Rapper would have been a better choice than Pichel. But this was not a studio production (International was a fledgling group and was merged with Universal within two years of its auspicious debut).
In addition to a beautiful 16mm print of the film and several posters (including the imposing three-sheet), I have the original showman's manual to TOMORROW IS FOREVER. It was quite an elaborate salesbook, with multiple pockets for individual kits on advertising, publicity, merchandising, etc. This was a big, big film in 1945 and it made a lot of money. Not enough, unfortunately, to justify the studio's independence.
Classic Film Scores on CD
http://www.chelsearialtostudios.com
http://www.chelsearialtostudios.com
-
pktrekgirl
- Administrator
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 1:08 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
I watched this film for the first time yesterday, and LOVED it.
Tremendous performances by all involved...and that scene in front of the old house had me nearly in tears.
What a great story....and I really admire the character of John for refusing to give it up and thus throw her life, and the life of their son, into chaos.
Brave soul.
Tremendous performances by all involved...and that scene in front of the old house had me nearly in tears.
What a great story....and I really admire the character of John for refusing to give it up and thus throw her life, and the life of their son, into chaos.
Brave soul.
Exceptional drama from the 1940s with some exceptional performances, notably Claudette Colbert.
Not to forget Max Steiner's score unusually rich, complete with high voices mixed with strings, and a romantic main theme ("Till We Meet Again") highlighting the essence of this sentimental script.
Not to forget Max Steiner's score unusually rich, complete with high voices mixed with strings, and a romantic main theme ("Till We Meet Again") highlighting the essence of this sentimental script.
Joseph Goodheart
Hi you guys:
You mis-read my post about the sons being illegitimate. I wasn't talking about Drew (Richard Long), he was definitely a legal product of Elizabeth and John's marriage. I meant the younger son - Brian Hamilton. If her marriage to John MacDonald/Kessler was still intact, the marriage to Lawrence Hamilton would have been null and void, thus the younger son (in that day, as I said) would have been considered illegitimate.
Natalie Wood stood out in every childhood part she ever played in. She was Anna in The Ghost & Mrs. Muir, Susan in Miracle on 34th Street, Polly in No Sad Songs for Me, and even today in Our Very Own. She was a cute little girl who never really fell into the gawky, pre-teen, coltish look, and turned into a beautiful teen-ager. Unfortunately her talent as a child was forgotten as she grew up and she was only given glamorous, girl next door parts. There are glimmers of her uniqueness in some of her latter parts, and not until shortly before she died did she finally have a chance to do anything really worthwhile.
People talk about Joan Crawfords large eyes, but they forget Natalies'. they also talk about beauty but again forget her. Look at a close up of her, and you can see that her facial parts are perfect. (gosh, I sound like a smitten teen age boy!). It was such a shame she died so young, she was just starting to spread her wings. Hers was one career that would have benefited by the collapse of the studio system.
Anne
You mis-read my post about the sons being illegitimate. I wasn't talking about Drew (Richard Long), he was definitely a legal product of Elizabeth and John's marriage. I meant the younger son - Brian Hamilton. If her marriage to John MacDonald/Kessler was still intact, the marriage to Lawrence Hamilton would have been null and void, thus the younger son (in that day, as I said) would have been considered illegitimate.
Natalie Wood stood out in every childhood part she ever played in. She was Anna in The Ghost & Mrs. Muir, Susan in Miracle on 34th Street, Polly in No Sad Songs for Me, and even today in Our Very Own. She was a cute little girl who never really fell into the gawky, pre-teen, coltish look, and turned into a beautiful teen-ager. Unfortunately her talent as a child was forgotten as she grew up and she was only given glamorous, girl next door parts. There are glimmers of her uniqueness in some of her latter parts, and not until shortly before she died did she finally have a chance to do anything really worthwhile.
People talk about Joan Crawfords large eyes, but they forget Natalies'. they also talk about beauty but again forget her. Look at a close up of her, and you can see that her facial parts are perfect. (gosh, I sound like a smitten teen age boy!). It was such a shame she died so young, she was just starting to spread her wings. Hers was one career that would have benefited by the collapse of the studio system.
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
-
feaito
I'm so curious about "Tomorrow is Forever" that I'll have to dig my closet in order to find I tape where I recall I taped this film 
BTW, today I watched Claudette (playing a nun) opposite Ann Blyth (playing a woman convicted for murder and condmned to death) in a quite interesting drama directed by Douglas Sirk titled "Thunder on the Hill". Good but nothing really special. Gladys Cooper is good as the Mother Superior of the Convent.
BTW, today I watched Claudette (playing a nun) opposite Ann Blyth (playing a woman convicted for murder and condmned to death) in a quite interesting drama directed by Douglas Sirk titled "Thunder on the Hill". Good but nothing really special. Gladys Cooper is good as the Mother Superior of the Convent.