BD Scores Up Another Kill
Deception, Davis, and the Deal Breaker
Herewith elements of Deception: Bette Davis the kept woman of rich composer Claude Rains discovers former lover Paul Henreid, from whom she had been separated for six years and thought dead in Europe, except he's alive and arrived to New York. Soon upon reunion, he suspects she was and continues to be unfaithful. Much is embedded in Deception to confuse, in fact frustrate, viewership in 2025. I enjoy old films that baffle and even alienate modern watchers, enjoying their discomfit from go-back vehicle I drive to any year past, “Outdated cultural depictions” saying come-on-in to those that relish triggers pulled. What Deception classifies as a Deal Breaker makes little sense now and barely would fifty annums ago when late shows were haven to storms wrought by a presumed moral climate, many such starring Bette Davis. Said Deal Breaker is this: Davis as unmasked mistress of C. Rains will be full and final disqualified to be Paul Henried’s wife should he learn her scarlet past, object of Deception’s 115 minutes to keep Paul in darkest dark, even if Bette must kill to keep him there. To what lengths did women of the 40’s go to conceal a past consummation from husbands or fiancées? Laugh if one likes, but this was a serious complication then. I read of Hugh Hefner’s college-era sweetheart whom he chose as potential bride, till tearful confession re illicit involvement with one of her professors, leaving Hugh never to trust girlfriends again. So yes, to learn of a misstep however slight was a Deal Breaker for 40’s men, 30’s, 20’s, teens, why stop going backward, or forward? Question is, are there still such Deal Breakers? Is Deception so culturally outdated as we assume?
![]() |
Rains Shows Disdain Over His Toy Taken Away |
Deception arrived at ideal time for sixteen million lately discharged vets to consider a burning issue: Had their significant other been true through war’s separation? Expectation of yes to that critical question was absolute and nonnegotiable. Alan Ladd got a no in The Blue Dahlia and murder followed. Imagine if Fredric March had come through Best Years reunion door to realize Myrna Loy had dallied/was dallying, with “Mr. Milton” (Ray Collins). Harsh enough for Dana Andrews to bear such insult from Virginia Mayo, but we expect as much of her character. Deception despite elevated backdrop comes down to, was Bette faithful while once-lover Paul was away, any gray area purest black so far as returned from duty men saw it. But what of a serviceman’s conduct overseas? Let anyone prove it, most figured, and indeed, we must assume few were caught. To that, however, consider Gregory Peck in The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, whose indiscretion follows him from Italy, ten years after the fact, to face Jennifer Jones wrath with him obliged to pay support for the kid borne by a Euro mistress. Said notion chilled not a few former G.I’s to the bone. Double standard enabled males to be forgiven, but cheating wives or sweethearts … well, that was at the least a choking offense, as demonstrated by Paul Henreid, who upon glance at Bette’s spacious loft and hung furs takes her firm by the throat and is barred but by BD lying her way out of his grip. Davis drips sincerity but turns from Paul toward us to register guilt and make it plain that yes, she’ll sucker him along, truth reserved for the camera and our vantage. This then was essence of BD projection of personality, who she'd be for patrons viewing as opposed to screen partners seldom dealt straight. We as watchers must be played fair, however Davis misleads men on screen. This keeps us in her confidence and makes the Davis persona, if not always sympathetic, at least understandable.
![]() |
Maestro Claude Humiliates Hapless Paul Who Unknowingly Poached from Rains' Bed |
Enter Claude Rains. The cuckolder. He is too old to have served, which means he had whole of the war to gather wealth and graze on Bette. Claude as “Alexander Hollenius” is effete, cruel … a lion who prowls over Manhattan society and will not loose BD from his iron hold. Fun aspect of Deception is Rains throwing out clutch that would keep narrative on convention’s line. Alex is Laura’s Waldo Lyedecker and then some. Deception director Irving Rapper would recall him as the whole show so far as a public’s and his own interest went. Shadow of Waldo/Alex looms over John Hoyt in a later and lesser with Davis, Winter Meeting, and Claude Rains would to degree be Alex again as a lethal radio commentator in The Unsuspected, which needed all of charisma the character star could supply. Any type an audience embraces will be back, Bitchy Males arriving with the war, if not having served in it, and staying long after. Were they presaged by Laird Cregar in Blood and Sand, or was the sort glimpsed sooner? We had the model to thank for George Sanders in All About Eve, Bette Davis on receiving end once more. Did Bitchy Males in classic sense survive the fifties? I can’t offhand think of memorable ones after. Either way, Rains’ mean line in wit makes his cause easier to root for rather than mopey, possibly violent, Henreid. Rapper said there was consideration of a Deception finish where the trio settle their difference a la Lubitsch and exit laughing, but fan-servicing Bette realized the show needed fireworks for a third act and so imposed a shooting. We could rather wish she’d dump strung-out Paul and repair again to Rains bed, which likely was Rapper’s wish as well, as he regarded Henreid unequipped to carry a co-star part, Davis stepping up to say we mustn’t break up the sure-fire Now, Voyager team.
![]() |
Bette Sits While They Stand at Attention, a Familiar Sight on Davis Sets |
![]() |
He Likes Funny Papers, But Nobody (Save Us) Laughs with Rains Rage in Deception |
Rains makes priceless comedy of meal selection, seven minutes to beggar belief. Did any among Method arrivers imagine they could supplant Claude Rains? Without him, Deception would sag under weight of negative cost at $2.8 million, most ever for a Davis film. WB prospered with prior BD A Stolen Life ($4.7 million in worldwide rentals), which Deception did not come near. In fact, Deception and future Davises for Warners would bleed red, Beyond the Forest a last straw and her exit off Burbank premises. Of course, good pictures can fail readily as poor ones, account books replete with such, and what matter to us so long as Deception pleases? The property was one Warners bought lock/stock from Paramount, having been made by latter as Jealousy in 1929 with Fredric March and Jeanne Eagels, a feature apparently lost now. Toward joy I derive from seeing the Code undone, as it often was where one divines code beneath the Code, Deception is to my satisfaction an instance, not a first, where the lead lady commits murder and gets away with it. Code films were made for two kinds of viewership, one the sort who bought a most apparent resolution, and two, those who’d dig below surface, narrative gold being after all where you find it. Artists of greater ability laid trail to endings they and many among us might prefer, quiet conspiracy by which to please by stealth if not via obvious means. Deception by my reckoning was an instance of this, so yes, I claim Bette Davis gets away with murder, evidence aplenty to accommodate whichever outcome we’d choose.
![]() |
I Say It Was Deception That Did the Goading and Mocking, with the PCA on Receiving End |
Defense for Bette looks solid if/when they reach trial, chance of even that less unless she was so careless as to confess, which based on her leaving the gun to suggest suicide, she had no intention of doing. Handy too is both Rains and Davis wearing gloves, so no prints to worry with. The houseboy is off for the night. Maybe he could testify later as to arguments overheard, but would that offer sufficient evidence of motive for her to kill? Bette blabs truth to Henreid, about the affair and the murder, but he assures her that “You’ll never lose me” and pleads that they “think it over until tomorrow,” and anyone who knows Davis wiles may be assured he’s lined up as accomplice after the fact from here on. He even tells her that “these things have to be planned,” and we can bet Bette has a plan already, of which her tearful admission is merely a part. She’s got this chump squared away before they even hail a cab. What system of justice can contain Davis When She’s Bad short of her owning up or eyeball witnesses. Were it Ann Sheridan or Alexis Smith or even Crawford sufficiently browbeat or sacrificial in Mildred mode, I’d concede capture, trial, maybe the rope … but knowing Henreid is a famed cellist, more so after this concert, why not let the two book a Euro tour for war-battered music lovers eager to hear him play, preferably in places with lax or no extradition policy. It doesn’t make sense for a Bette Davis character by 1945 to be conscience-racked for offing a guy who made her life such hell. She’ll instead have furniture, furs, Grand Piano, whole of her loft content, shipped to the Italian villa Paul will arrange once worldwide success is secured. He could end up being the next Alexander Hollenius.
5 Comments:
My mind went to song "They're Either Too Young or Too Old", in which Davis assuring a soldier sweetheart that, even if she were inclined, the pickings were too pathetic to tempt her.
Also a postwar Bill Mauldin cartoon of recent dogface Willie and wife scowling at each other in bed. Willie says something like, "Don't get so righteous with me. You talk in your sleep too!" Mauldin himself came home to a wrecked marriage.
There were a few movies that centered on a spoken-for soldier falling for a foreign beauty, then being let off the hook by the girl's conduct back home. In a comedy she has a 4F husband and a few kids. In a melodrama she's unfaithful. In a straight romance she turns out to be shallow, bigoted, or otherwise unworthy enough to absolve the hero for leaving her. A serious drama might admit nuance and inevitable pain, but the terribly earnest "A Walk in the Clouds" dismisses an inconvenient wife with a wildly out-of-place comedy scene.
These domestic dramas brought about by forced war-time separation had some role to play in the later reforms of the divorce laws which reduced the need to prove the other partner to be "at fault" before the divorce could legally happen - and in earlier times, when divorces were even more difficult for the "lower classes" to obtain, for any reason, it was not uncommon for guys to abandon marriages which had "gone sour" by signing up for military service under an assumed name.
I suppose the latter style of the "military separation" of couples isn't thought about as much, or at all, today since they were occurring at a time before movies even existed, though I think that such may well have been part of the plots of various popular fictions being published back in those times if one cares to looks for them there.
Love the topic of bitchy males popping up in all sorts of 40's films. Standard issue alphas suddenly had to deal with a new breed of competition: suave, witty, worldly characters who would monopolize the attention of the leading lady. What tough guy could get a word in edgewise much less compete conversationally with the likes of Clifton Webb, Vincent Price, Zachary Scott, John Hoyt, George Macready, et al? Today, the subtext seems inescapable. Returning vets were coming to grips with the notion that women left behind might have interest in something other than the traditional two-fisted model. Even comedies like SITTING PRETTY and ADAM'S RIB had insecure heroes Robert Young and Spencer Tracy flummoxed and jealous. I think you are right about this stuff fading a bit in the 50's along with war memories.
Dan Mercer gives DECEPTION some thought (Part One):
After the Christine Radcliffe of Bette Davis shoots Claude Rains' Alexander Hollenius at point blank range, he looks at her in pain and surprise for a moment, then musters the last of the old brio to castigate her as an "hysterical fool" before taking a picturesque plunge down the stairs.
So, what did he find so foolish, apart from the dubious morality of murdering him? Was it the incongruity of appearing in another film in which Paul Henreid plays a character with exactly the same dilemma; that is, his lover having gone astray after believing the Nazis had killed him? In "Casablanca," Henreid's Victor Laszlo accepts Rick Blaine's graceful elisions and then walks away with Ilsa Lund. In "Deception," however, Karel Novak becomes enraged even at the thought of Christine being a kept women.
What was the difference? In "Casablanca," there was a war to be won and the problems of three little people didn't amount to a hill of beans, while in "Deception," the war was over and Novak was apparently a very jealous and highly strung man. We could only hope that his cello was not in a similar state of tune. Besides, Hollenius had no intention of letting Christine go.
These may have been considerations, but I think it more likely that Hollenius' hope and expectations can be found in something said about him earlier in the film. In response to a reporter's question about what living composers he liked best, Novak responds, "Stravinsky when I think of the present, Richard Strauss when I think of the past, and of course, Hollenius, who combines the rhythm of today with the melody of yesterday." Some see this as an homage to Eric Wolfgang Korngold, who wrote the score for the film and the "Hollenius Cello Concerto" heard in it, and whose music might be similarly described. However, there is a composer of an even loftier reputation than Korngold's that it might also apply to, and that is Richard Wagner.
Part Two of Dan Mercer on DECEPTION:
After a meeting with Cosima and Hans von Bulow, Wagner wrote in his diary that "[s]he fell at my feet, covered my hands with tears and kisses...I pondered the mystery without being able to solve it." I shall offer my assistance, then. Cosima was the daughter of the tempestuous violin virtuoso and composer, Franz Liszt. Yes, the Liszt whose "Les Preludes" ornaments "Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe." After marrying her father's pupil, von Bulow, the couple moved to Berlin, a city she found boorish and provincial after her years in Paris. For their part, the Berliners noted her exaggerated self-regard and caustic personality. When she met Wagner, whose works von Bulow was conducting, she immediately realized that her destiny was to be the muse to a great artist. Note that this immediately excluded her husband and excused all that followed.
In Cosima, Wagner had found the woman he needed, one of drive and intelligence who would be utterly devoted to him. They entered into an affair and, such was von Bulow's admiration of Wagner, that he acknowledged their first child as his own. By the time the third child was born, he accepted Cosima's request for a divorce with the words, "You have preferred to consecrate the treasures of your heart and mind to a higher being: far from censuring you for this step, I approve of it."
I'm rather sure that Alexander Hollenius had exactly the same arrangement in mind for Christine, in which Novak would give way before his more dominant personality and undoubtedly greater musical genius. Marriage would have been a possibility but by no means a necessity. His surprise was that Christine had a somewhat different idea, in which a great musician would be entirely devoted to her. Hollenius' impetuosity threatened to destroy everything she wanted. It must have astounded her when a genial Novak greeted her after the concert and suggested that they visit Hollenius and make amends. Evidently the displays of temper and jealousy might have been no more than a case of nerves before premiering a great work. Even a revelation by Hollenius of the affair might have been treated by him as no more than a jest.
Whatever course of action they pursued after Christine and Karel had an evening to think it over, there would be no bringing back a great composer to the world of the living. Wagner, too, was thought to be somewhat narcissistic and hard to bear, but his music has channeled the heavens to our world.
Foolish woman, indeed.
Post a Comment
<< Home