I think Jennifer Jones stinks in this movie. Too bad the Producers couldn't wait for Teresa Wright to come off of maternity leave. I think she would have done a much better job. Just my opinion but I think Jennifer overacts, it can be very annoying for me to watch her.
shareI was stunned at the terrible waste of talent. I kept watching to see how badly the movie was written and edited. There was an interesting idea of the destructive effects of codependency at the core of the movie, but there so many subplots the movie ground to a halt. Watching this mess one could appreciate the focused brilliance of "Casablanca."
share[deleted]
correction: Excellent PRODUCING by David Selznick. I wrote directing.
shareI think that nepotism was a huge part of the problem!! And Jennifer Jones must have thought that she was appearing in a "silent" movie what with her using all of those old facial expressions!! Who did she think she was portraying, "Norma Desmond??" Ugh, what disasterous acting!!
shareIt's how she was directed, and advised by Selznick, to look at times. She got an Oscar nomination for it.
Native Angeleno
Lawdy, I'd forgotten that she got an Oscar nom for this mess!
Because it is a mess, and I blame Selznick and not the actors. Selznick was madly in love with Jones at the time, and was in the process of leaving his wife for her, and I've always suspected that he wanted to show the world that there was more to her than the dear sweet Saint Bernadette. Of course he failed, whatever he saw in her didn't translate onto film, although the end result is as entertaining as can be.
"I'm trash trash trash TRASH trash!"
I couldn't believe just how bad this movie was!I just saw it for the first time on tcm and I almost died laughing,it was over-acted and just plain terrible.
I think Jennifer Jones was married to the director at the time,so maybe that explains how she got the part.She has done some good stuff though.
I agree. But in part you can blame that on Selznick, who wanted this film to be GWTW and for Jennifer to have her "Scarlett" role. So, I think he encouraged the overacting as he often acted as director in the film. Like Theresa Wright, who was the orginal choice for the role, this was a departure for Jennifer from her previous "good girl" roles; including her oscar role as St. Bernadette.
shareThe story goes that Hedy LaMarr was set to play Pearl until the director and Jones got married and he gave her the part instead...Lucky Hedy.
shareSelznick,the producer, had no intention of ever waiting for Teresa Wright as Jennifer Jones was his girlfriend and soon to be his wife at the time. Duel in the Sun was to be Jones' vehicle to stardom. Didn't quite happen though.
I disagree however that Jones stinks.Quite to the contrary,i feel she was spectacular in this role.there may have been a couple of amateur moments but she stood her acting ground for the most part.remember that this is a newcommer sharing scenes with a great,Gregory Peck.
wouldn't you be a bit nervous as well.
elm0catt -- I think you make a valid point that this was her first big role in a heavily-hyped film. But I think Jennifer Jones was perfect for this film. She was to portray a misguided, dramatic young girl. Thats what you get! She acted as she was suppose to do in this film. That was her character. If you watch 'Portrait of Jennie', which was made 2 years later, you will find that Jennifer can play almost any part and character personality. She is no less than perfect in 'Portrait of Jennie'.
sharei had agreed that she was spectacular in Duel in the Sun and I also agree with A Portrait of Jennie which is one of my favorites.
jennifer jones put on sexy act was embarrasing, remember being in the cinema the audience laughing as she writhed on the bed, peck was equally dire his death speech is pathetic - she was selznics protogee and he saw her as the new vivien leigh- some hopes . originally cast was the sumptuos hedy lamarr and john wayne. john wayne dropped out because he thought he couldnt play a sexy baddy well neither could peck and hedy got pregnant, what these two would have made of this cimematic dustbin is anyones guess but hedy had more allure in her litle finger than 20 jones's. its interesting that hedy also turned down selznicks the pardine case her part played by another none starter in hollywood alida valli.
sharejennifer trying to be sexy was hilarious orignally cast were hedy lamarr and john wayne hedy got pregnant and wayne didnt like the idea of playing a sexy bad guy what an interesting pair they would have made - peck is also out of depth as bad guy his death speech the worst acting he ever did- this film is like solomon and sheba if you regard it as a comedy it becomes enjoyable.
shareIt seems to me that Jenn Jones always seems to be above the usual fray. My opinion that she is so stunningly beautiful in a continual way, that I sometimes may miss her acting prowess. Certainly one of the most purely gorgeous ladies of the big screen. In this film, she is made up. That make up or made up production on Jenn may take some foci off of her and the movie itself. To me however, she is so stunningly, so darkly made up, that she appeals even more. JJ seems way out of what we are use to.
In Portrait of Jenny, a fabulous movie, one of my favorites, and in
"Since you went away" are what I and we might be trained to expect from this unusual actress. Selznick was no dummy. As head of the studio, he marries this incredible object of desire. Somehow, I've just always felt that Jennifer Jones has in some way been different and to it, been placed mostly in extremely good moves and parts. She is DIFFERENT, at least to me. As for the movie. Not the best vehicle for sure, but I must admit that while I've seen "Jenny" over and over, A duel is one movie I don't think I have ever seen completely, even one time.
Let me just say this. Take a look at Jennifer and Peck in the scene where she asks Peck if he'd like to take a swim. Just look at that girl! Not many women are that gorgeous, that sensual. I find her to be absolutely stunning in this not to great film.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that this movie is worthwhile watching at least to me, just for J J.
I couldn't have said it better! I am thrilled that posterity is finally giving this great actress the noteriety she deserves. I think she is wonderful as Pearl. The film, like most that attempt so much, has its flaws (many of which are mentioned on this thread); however, as a whole, I find this to be a great movie, and Miss Jones performance is fine.
"I love corn!"
I think that she stunk like a highway skunk road-kill...p.u.!!!
shareOn the contrary, this was only Peck's 6th film while it was Jones's 8th film performance. She was hardly a newcomer compared to Peck. On the other hand, this was Peck's 6th role in just two years while Miss Jones had been in the business for six years. Although it was way before my time, I suspect Gregory Peck was a bigger star at the time and the reason is obvious; he is a far better actor than she is an actress.
However, if any actor/actress caused Jennifer Jones any trepidation on the set of this film I would think it would be Lionel Barrymore or Lillian Gish; they were screen legends by this time, both having been major silent film stars from the early part of the century. Even Walter Huston had 30 to 40 films to his credit by the time this film was made. As a matter of fact, Joseph Cotten had a dozen films in his repertoire by the time of "Duel In the Sun", including such immortal classics as "Citizen Kane", "Shadow of a Doubt" and "Gaslight." If any of the 'big names' in this film were a newcomer, it was Gregory Peck himself! He even had fewer film roles (at the time) than the inimitable Butterfly McQueen, who played the archetypical black maid.
She was already a star before it was filmed. She'd only just received the Oscar for 'Song of Bernadette' in 1944.
~ Native Angeleno
To jakeceo. The movie is a camp classic, silly. What did you expect? Of course JJ overacts, yes it is wildly overdone & eye-poppingly SPECTACULAR (!), that's what its famous for (which is wonderful! unique!).
shareI still say that Jennifer Jones acted like she was in a silent movie...all facial expressions (and messing with her hair!!) to try to look like she was a harlot (I mean innocent!!) Yeah, like anyone would believe that Lewt was her first!! She acted just like the street walker that her mother seemed to be!! She got just what she deserved. But again, JJ seemed woefully wrong for the part. She just OVERACTED!!!
shareBut the whole film, the premise (half-breed tries to be a good white girl but is overpowered by her baser, "Indian" instincts) and the melodramatic situations (especially the ending) are so preposterous that it doesn't call for anything BUT wild overacting. The film is VERY confused when it comes to race: it IS a racist, ignorant film replete with the idiot, infantilized black servant girl and a white actress in "Indian" grease face, playing an woman whose racialized sexuality is barely contained by the "civilized" whiteness she so desparately wants to inhabit (but can't exactly because of her mixed race status). One could get angry with this film, but it's representations are so "out of the past" that it would be useless to do so. And, lets not forget, it was made by a master showman, which explains (and to some extent excuses) its faults: it was designed as a BIG, STUPID SEX WESTERN (!!!).
share
you’ve taken the words right out of my mouth, noilie. i whole heartedly agree with your statement. ever so often, when i'm watching older movies, i'll run into a film like duel in the sun. it's a shame to see that these deeply flawed and prejudice films have become classics.
One of the most bizarre-o westerns ever made; it certainly must be the first color crazy one and it was a huge flop when first released. For once the public was right.
Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.
Hi,one can never be too rich or have too many friends. Actually the movie was a huge hit,it made $6 million, David Selznick used saturation booking so the movie made alot of money. The incredible thing was that Jennifer Jones managed to get an oscar nomination out of it,such was Selznick's pull.
It was a critical flop, but the public flocked to it, starved for adult sexiness (1946 was the biggest year in Hollywood history due in part to the return of extremely horny servicemen from abroad). It made a profit, which is saying something in that it was the most expensive film made to date.
~ Native Angeleno
But the whole film, the premise (half-breed tries to be a good white girl but is overpowered by her baser, "Indian" instincts) and the melodramatic situations (especially the ending) are so preposterous that it doesn't call for anything BUT wild overacting. The film is VERY confused when it comes to race: it IS a racist, ignorant film replete with the idiot, infantilized black servant girl and a white actress in "Indian" grease face, playing an woman whose racialized sexuality is barely contained by the "civilized" whiteness she so desparately wants to inhabit (but can't exactly because of her mixed race status). One could get angry with this film, but it's representations are so "out of the past" that it would be useless to do so. And, lets not forget, it was made by a master showman, which explains (and to some extent excuses) its faults: it was designed as a BIG, STUPID SEX WESTERN (!!!).
I heard that S wanted Jennifer to come out of being typed cast as a nun like she did in the "Song of Bernadette" Jennifer was hot as Pearl....
share[deleted]
It seems to me Selznick was in a fight with Howard Hughes and 'The Outlaw' to present the sexiest Western chick in film, within the strict boundaries of the Victorian movie code, which did not include restictions on floozy-esque titillation, when this film was in pre-production.
~ Native Angeleno
I think you got this movie wrong. The film is not racist. The theme of the film is actually that prejudice was the cause of Pearl's behavior, not that she was 'resorting to baser Indian instincts.' If you notice, everyone in the film is prejudiced and treats her like scum, until she eventually just behaves the way everyone expects her to. That is the theme. The film is definitely not racist, although it presents us with MANY racist characters--who are not sympathetic in the least and cause us to root for Pearl.
You say the film is racist because it has a white woman playing a Native American woman. Jennifer Jones was simply an actress playing a role, and she played her character so well that we feel the oppression and injustice her character felt as a Native American of the time.
You seriously need to take a deeper look at this film. You should not assume all old films are racist, just because many people in that time were. Not everyone was.
"When a fire burns itself out, all that's left is ashes." --Vienna (Johnny Guitar)
Hi,one can never be too rich or have too many friends. The problem with PC is u can't change history. There was and is prejudice all through the history of man. Pearl Chavez would have been looked down on for being part Indian. Even Hollywood can't take any bows for this,there were no native american actors being trained to be movie stars. If someone portayed an Indian,they used mexicans,Italians or white people in redface. I always thought Jennifer Jones' raspy,unattractive voice made her an ideal Pearl,she wasn't fancy educated or anything. Interestingly,the white people around her thought she'd do better living the white way instead of the way of her mother's people.
[deleted]
I would say the Pearl character is a disturbed disturbing one. The beautifull girl acts crazy. That's no more something enjoyable watching than a handsome fool for love getting blown to bits... In that respect, the acting fits the role to the ninth decimal... That nomination was no cheating. Mrs Jones could have been granted the award in that regard.
emm
"to tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not given to men"
Wasn't this the movie of the day? The father was a robber baron type who ruled with an iron fist with two sons. One (usually the eldest) who is hot tempered, out of control, and no morals or values and who kills without reason or hesitation and another son (usually the youngest) who is the polor opposite of his brother.
I liked it enough.
DUEL was made before Mr. Peck's image as a stolid, sober good guy was writ in stone. I'm sure audiences of the time didn't have much problem accepting him as a bad boy but would have 10 years later. But the idea of Ryan or Mitchum as Lewt is a great suggestion!
shareIt's not a "camp classic" or even "camp". It's unintentionally and terribly dated. Quite possibly the worst film I've seen all week. Virtually every one of Vidor's films has turned out to be a bloated excess of trite melodrama.
Last film seen: Robert Bresson's Pickpocket - Brilliant!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053168/
Hi,one can never be too rich or have too many friends. I always had problems with Gregory Peck as a mean,sexy cowboy. He seemed too wooden and modern top be believable in such a role. It needed a Robert Ryan,Robert Mitchum kind of actor
well, the lewt character is depicted in the book as the hansomest young man in town. I have problem with the association from beauty to evil in general.
The oldest son is depicted as a very ugly man, so the use of the other actor is a bigger surprize to me, too.
emm
"to tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not given to men"