That Forsyte Woman (1949)

Bland period soaper about a woman named Irene (Greer Garson) in a loveless marriage to a man named Soames Forsyte (Errol Flynn). Trouble comes when Irene falls in love with the beau (Robert Young) of her young friend June (Janet Leigh). Oh and Soames' cousin (Walter Pidgeon) is in love with Irene. He's also June's father. It's all very "As the World Turns."The main selling point of any movie with Garson and Pidgeon is their chemistry and inevitable romance. Unfortunately the romance between them here is a bit of a tough sell, due to the polygonal nature of the relationships in this. I'm never a big fan of these types of things. Maybe I'm old-fashioned or something but it feels cheap to me, particularly given how their romance finally comes to pass. A huge problem with this movie is how miscast every major part is. Garson, Pidgeon, Flynn, and Young are all wrong for their parts. At least Flynn makes his villainous role work. The best thing about Robert Young in this is his laughable hair. Janet Leigh is fine in an early role that requires little of her but to look pretty and flip out when she discovers her cougar friend is stealing her man.It's all rather sedate and boring. There's an audience for this type of film but I'm not part of it. I found it a chore to sit through despite the cast and the nice production values. I've read this is based on a novel and was later made into an acclaimed BBC TV serial. Never read the book or seen the show. No intention to, either, as this isn't my cup of tea.

Notable is the absence of children. If this were real life, the hot Errol Flynn and the still fecund (albiet long-in-the-tooth) Greer Garson would have generated children. Is Flynn supposed to be gay? Who knows - he does pick out his wife's outfits and directs her attire, so that's pretty flouncy, but he plays the role super straight, so it is all a bit nutty.The movie's a 7 because of the costuming and the sheer lush absurdity of it all. Walter Pidgeon as an English artist? He's got this super-corporate mid-Atlantic American voice going - again, beyond lunacy.And of course, Janet Leigh - that wild, untamed mid-century Californian, as a stuffy late Victorian Brit? This movie doesn't work on so many levels that it becomes an animal house of conflicting cultures, accents (Harry Davenport - the archetypal midwesterner, plays the patriarch), and appearances (Robert Taylor would make a good grinch who stole Christmas), that it remains irresistible.I think every technicolor movie made in the 1940s is worth watching, so I have a natural bias here. Those of you with less liberal allowances may want to take a pass here, unless you have an insatiable appetite for watching Greer Garson (the reigning "Most Glorious Missus" (i.e, MGM)of the eponymous studio during this period) achieve the amazing combination of (1) suffering, while (2) being so above it all, which she again does very well here, and this time in technicolor.And if you buy into the Ivy League world view, you'll like the movie too: creative artists are the higher order, and the mercenary middle class (i.e., those of who don't have tenure and have to hustle for a living) is scum.Finally, don't come here for any insights into the human condition. Everyone is infantile here ~

The movie started off really well and interesting enough but about halve way through it suddenly starts to make some unbelievable twists, that are just not credible, which is mostly due to the acting.Real problem is that it's highly unbelievable that Irene Forsyte (Greer Garson) and Philip Bosinney (Robert Young) fall in love in this movie, which is about the most essential part and twist in the story. Garson and Young have absolutely no chemistry together and how their are being drawn together by their love for each other is therefor highly unconvincing. On top of that Robert Young really doesn't have the right looks for the part, he was at least 10 years too old at the time for this role really.A positive casting note was Errol Flynn in a serious and demanding role. He in this movie also shows that he could actually really act. It's also a rare movie in which he plays a more 'bad' than 'good' kind of character. He's perhaps the only real true highlight of the movie.The still young Janet Leigh also appears in this movie in one of her first movie roles. Definitely not her best role, she still had a lot to learn but that's not just her fault. The script just didn't gave her that much interesting to do. The movie is definitely more classy and better looking and made than the average MGM genre movie, made in the same period. It therefor is also perfectly watchable for persons who normally aren't too fond of the formulaic kind of '40's MGM period drama's.The story still has some interesting elements and characters in it but its weaker and unconvincing second halve prevent this movie from being a true classic and above average one.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

I'm not surprised that many viewers find this film frustrating, particularly those unfamiliar with the novels or the later TV adaptations - coming to this film with such knowledge definitely helps one be more charitable towards it.THAT FORSYTE WOMAN is one of MGM's "prestige" literary productions, tackling the first novel of one of Britain's most beloved series of novels by one of its most beloved authors, John Galsworthy. It's another well-executed, professional MGM effort. Yet it's another strange choice for MGM (as was THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY earlier in the decade), since in this case the story's main plot is an adulterous affair,casting its two leading players (Flynn and Garson) very much 'against type' - one can't blame Flynn for being willing, but I'd like to know just exactly which MGM executive thought to cast Greer Garson as the adulteress! The lady was simply too likable!These are complex characters, and it actually took Galsworthy 6 novels to reveal them fully to the reader. Neither Soames nor Irene (the Garson role) are particularly likable in the first novel - both seem selfish and willful, but the reader ultimately comes to understand both of them better (although Galsworthy never really does give a satisfactory reason for Irene's loathing of Soames).MGM originally produced the film under the title THE FORSYTE SAGA (I have a copy of the movie tie-in edition of the novel published by Scribners in 1949)) but, since the film was merely a slice of the Saga anyway, they changed the title to the more catchy THAT FORSYTE WOMAN emphasizing Irene's 'fast' nature. It remained THE FORSYTE SAGA in the UK.One has to admire MGM's ambitious attempt, but let's face it, they'd really bitten off more than they could chew: THE FORSYTE SAGA was too big, too rich, and too multi-layered for one film. Rather, it was a work destined for success in another medium which was still in its infancy - television, in a format to which its breadth, length and varied cast of characters would be perfectly suited - the "mini-series", for which it would provide the pioneer effort with spectacular success in the late 1960s.