esmondj I've always found this movie rather overrated.First, Addie Ross herself sounds like a vain and tiresome woman, and it is impossible to imagine her, as presented, getting involved with either Jeffrey Lynn or Paul Douglas. Nor is it possible to imagine any of them leaving their law practice/tenured position/retail chain and houses and running away with Addie. Why? when she's already right there in town? (Now running away with Linda Darnell ... maybe.) The actual letter itself is merely bad manners on an epic scale, and not at all what one would expect this self-confessed paragon to be up to.The first act, with Lynn and Jeanna Crain, is very over-written: again, it is impossible to believe in Jeanne Crain being so gauche after just finishing several years in the Navy, from whence one would expect her to come out pretty brisk, and certainly self-confident, and the silly business with the silly flower on the silly dress is high-school stuff. The second act is merely preposterous, starting with the very idea of Kirk Douglas being married to Ann Sothern, continuing with Sothern doing what she does for a living while Kirk does what he does for a living, and terminating with the ludicrous concept of entertaining the sponsor, which would be smoothly handled by the network management, not left as a risk in a college town home with a mad professor running amok. Again, this act is badly over-written, and the sponsor and her bad behaviour are beyond parody. And Kirk should already know better than to play his precious Brahms 78 (?) to the sponsor.The movie only really gets going in Act 3 with Paul Douglas and Linda Darnell going at it hammer and tongs. Darnell is priceless ('it's not a drive in') as the small-town bombshell, and all the family stuff is very well done.There are other good moments in the film, such as the terrible picnic, the terrible country club, and aspects of the small town setting, but overall it's a long wait for the fun to start. Until then, credulity is strained at every turn, and the talking never ceases.

avik-basu1889 This was my first experience of a Joseph L. Mankiewicz film, and very easily I could see that this is a director who prioritised the dialogue of his own written scripts more than visual storytelling. The directorial decisions regarding the visuals in this film aren't fascinating, but Mankiewicz's brilliant writing more than makes up for it. As a matter of fact, 'A Letter to Three Wives' could have easily been a stage play and nothing much would have changed.Adapted from a novel by John Klempner, Mankiewicz's screenplay is a sharp satire which makes a commentary on the class distinctions and the gradual shift in gender roles in post WWII America. Mankiewicz uses the characters beautifully and he also craftily uses a mysterious narrator and flashback sequences to create a sense of mystique that is sure to keep the viewer intrigued and engaged. The characters are very interesting. The whole story revolves around three women and their marriages. Two out of three marriages involve a man and a woman coming together from completely different backgrounds and social spheres. While one of these marriages was borne out of love, the other was nothing but a settlement. However the state in which these two respective marriages remain when the viewer leaves them at the end of the film is a stroke of cheeky irony on Mankiewicz's part. The third and last marriage in the film which is between Rita and George is the sequence where Mankiewicz addresses the conflict between an intellectual love of the high arts and the obsession with appeasing your bosses which involves becoming a slave to rampant consumerism. He also explores the shift in gender roles in the new American society. George played by Kirk Douglas is a progressive man and this character probably speaks on behalf of Mankiewicz himself. George is not threatened by the fact that his wife is a career woman and earns more than him. As a matter of fact his liberal ideas drive him to believe that marrying an independent woman is heavenly. But his dissatisfaction lies with his wife's slavish loyalty to her bosses at the expense of her own independent thoughts and ideas.So one can't help but admire the Mankiewicz's writing which takes a comic premise and elevates it to the level of razor sharp satire. The acting all across the board is also solid and assured. I really can't wait to watch 'All About Eve' now.

jjnxn-1 Where to begin to praise this fantastic picture? The dialogue is witty and sharp, the situations wonderfully true and the performances by almost all exceptional. Modern technology has made the basic premise of three woman isolated from communicating with their husbands for a day pretty much obsolete but that just makes this all the more enjoyable. The segment with Jeanne Crain and Jeffrey Lynn is not bad but is the weakest of the three since they are the least charismatic performers but the theme of insecurity due to a perceived feeling of inferiority between partners in a marriage is as relevant today as then. Ann Sothern and Kirk Douglas are perfectly matched in their portion and ably abetted by the hilarious Thelma Ritter. The insights into the struggles between education versus crass commercialism are sadly contemporary even if now it is TV and the internet that is dumbing down the nation instead of radio as presented here. The real golden couple and the pair who walk off with the picture are Paul Douglas and, in the best part she ever had, Linda Darnell. She is Oscar worthy here and the fact that she was overlooked for even a nomination is a travesty, yet another example of a quality performer who was never given her due. True the words are there for them to feast on and what a banquet they make. They share a cynical outlook and delivery which puts bite into every word and while it is mostly employed to comic effect beneath their hesitant defensive dance is an obvious feeling which each is too afraid to show. It lends a wonderful poignancy anytime they appear and makes them stand out not just in their part of the film but in what they add to the others. Connie Gilchrist as Linda's mother also makes the most of one of her best roles, she and Thelma Ritter are a brilliantly comedic team! The unseen Celeste Holm was the perfect choice for the narrator, her silky, venomous delivery tells you all you need to know of the mantrap Addie Ross. Mankiewicz deserved his Oscar for making the whole jigsaw fitted together superbly and never letting interest in these people lag for a minute. If you haven't seen this you are missing a great film.

eplromeo8 Back to back films from director Joseph L. Mankiewicz on Reel 13. Also, Kirk Douglas returns for the second time in February, this time in a supporting role. Interestingly enough, A LETTER TO THREE WIVES has an eerily similar structure to Douglas' other Reel 13 Classic – THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL. Each film has three stories told by different narrators, linked by a very tenuous thread. Here, three female friends (Jeanne Crain, Ann Sothern and Linda Darnell) are out on a boat trip when they receive a letter from a fourth friend by the name of Addie Ross. In the letter, Addie reveals that she has run off with one of their husbands, but she doesn't specify which one, leaving all three women to wonder during the boat trip. Teasing the women like that is a ridiculously mean gesture – it's hard to swallow, which makes the contrivance of it even worse (What if it were a letter to just one woman, but the first half of the letter was torn or missing? That would have at least seemed more believable). And so, just like THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL, the structure on which the story is built is pretty flimsy. However, unlike B&B, A LETTER TO THREE WIVES is able to tread water a little more since the scenes are a little stronger and far less melodramatic than the film from two weeks ago.Last week, I suggested that Vincente Minnelli was much better at staging and shooting musical numbers than Mankiewicz. But with A LETTER TO THREE WIVES, Mank gets revenge, proving himself far more adept at scene work and performances than Minnelli, at least in THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL. Camera movement and editing pace are crisp. Angles are often well-chosen and Mankiewicz (in the film he made right before his masterpiece, ALL ABOUT EVE) does some really unusual and interesting sound work, both with the voice-over by the never-seen instigator, Addie Ross (an uncredited Celeste Holm), and his distortion of that voice-over when segueing to a flashback.The best of the three flashbacks is the one involving Linda Darnell's character, who is a girl from a poor family who gold-digs her way into the heart of an older, but very wealthy department store owner. It's just the most plausible, the most interesting and the best written. Jeanne Crain single-handedly sabotages her flashback storyline with an annoying and whimpering performance as the new bride who feels like she doesn't belong amongst her husband's upper crust friends. I was rooting for her lame husband to leave her. Ann Sothern, on the other hand, gives the best performance of the three women – she's the only one of the three who manages to display both strength and vulnerability believably. However, her flashback, while well-constructed as a scene and containing a few trademark Mankiewicz zingers, doesn't really display a marriage in jeopardy. Sothern and Douglas seem to really love each other and get along (mostly) well – it didn't seem very likely that he was going to leave her and that seems contrary to the writer/director's plans. My hypothesis is that he wanted to create three stories that were balanced enough that an audience would believe any of the three husbands leaving. In that sense, Sothern's flashback is a failure.The biggest disappointment of A LETTER TO THREE WIVES is the ending. I hate to give stuff away, but I'm going to have to hint at it to get my point across, so if you haven't seen it, stop reading here. For about two minutes, I was impressed that it seemed like one of the husbands actually left. It seemed like a very un-forties ending, but it also felt right – the conclusion that made sense. Then it occurred to me – the movie was still going. And so, I got nervous, and rightfully so. In the very last few minutes, Mankiewicz and team pull a rabbit out of a hat and cop out. The film gets its happy ending after all, but it's forced. The entire conflict the film is centered around is that one of these husbands left his wife. You can't just change the rules in the last reel. I know the films of the time liked to tie things up with a nice little bow, but I have to think a lot of audiences in 1949 felt like I did – gipped