source: Daisy Kenyon

This is a pretty good film, so when I make the following criticism, I still think it's worth seeing. My problem with the film is casting Joan Crawford as a woman having an affair with a married man (Dana Andrews). That's because she had previously done this exact same sort of role many, many times--particularly in the 1930s. It's just too familiar, as is her later regrets and decision to live a more honorable life. Apart from, perhaps, Kay Francis, no woman played 'the other woman' as often as Joan! The movie begins with Crawford trying to break off her relationship with a married attorney (Andrews), but she supposedly 'can't help but love him'--a bit of a clichéd start, certainly. However, soon she begins casually dating a returning soldier (Henry Fonda) and eventually he asks her to marry him. Well, she has to either choose the life of a * or an honest to goodness married woman, and she chooses Fonda. But, unfortunately, there are a lot of complications and things don't go as smoothly for everyone as she'd hoped. The film is a soap opera with many familiar elements, but it's all filmed and acted so well that it's hard not to still enjoy the movie. While far from the best of the leads or director Premminger, it's still worth seeing and does offer up a few surprises...just a few.

I wanted to respond to a few comments about this wonderful film (which was a strong and highly effective character study). Dana Andrews received billing over Henry Fonda because Andrews was at the peak of his career with A WALK IN THE SUN, LAURA, THE FALLEN ANGEL AND THE BEST FILM OF 1946, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIFE. He was a superstar at that time and held on to stardom until the early 1960s but in films of lesser quality as the years went by. He was an excellent and underrated actor. Henry Fonda, whose first starring role was in 1935, was in the middle of his long career, not in the early stages as one writer said. Fonda, after serving 3 full years in WWII, had a difficult time maintaining his stardom, was never a strong box office star but was an outstanding actor. Fonda did not make any films after 1948 until MR. ROBERTS in 1955, his comeback. He constantly did fine and critically acclaimed stage work. Peter, his son, said he was gray-listed because of his liberal political views also. Fonda worked in major films with lead roles in films and on television until his death in 1982. Fonda was under contract and was forced to perform in this film by his studio. Andrews liked working with Otto Preminger and did so 4 times. Andrews was easy to work with and the autocratic Preminger liked Andrews because of his professionalism, easy going personality and outstanding acting ability. I was surprised that something more was not said or done about Dana Andrews' child torturing wife. Andrew shed a tear but did not report this beast to the authorities. (She yanked on her child's ear until the ear bled and the child had a significant ear ache.) That, even in the dark ages, should have been enough to have the child removed from her care, wouldn't it?

This film is a great vehicle for Joan Crawford, and one of my favorites from the middle portion of Joan's career . In fact, I can't imagine any other actress in the lead. Daisy Kenyon (Joan Crawford) plays a commercial artist who is the strong independent type. She has fallen in love with a married man of means (Dana Andrews) who has a clingy and emotionally unstable wife (Ruth Warrick) and a couple of daughters that he knows he will lose access to if he gets a divorce. In other words, he is permanently married and he and Daisy's relationship is going nowhere. Enter Peter Lapham (Henry Fonda), a widower recently back from World War II. Both men love Daisy, but only one can "do right" by her - Peter. Unfortunately, he is not the man she loves. The resulting love triangle, the idea of any of this being particularly scandalous even to someone aiming for public life, and in particular the then quite backwards divorce laws of the state of New York might seem quaint to a modern audience, but the private situations and emotions of the characters still ring true. Who does Daisy choose in the end? The man willing to give her up. I'll let you watch the film and find out which of the two men that is.

One of the most enjoyable of the genre. Joan Crawford as Daisy is at the peak of her '40s films. Henry Fonda in a quirky romantic role, a returned service man with a few issues to get through. Dana Andrews as the cad, never better. In fact of the 3 leads, his is the most interesting interpretation - of a brilliant man who is unable to keep his family man and Romeo side affair balanced. When it topples, he is the one left in a heap of rubble. A most satisfying ladies matinee film (and I mean that as a recommendation.) I give it a 9/10. Jane

A lot of what goes on in Daisy Kenyon may not be understood by today's audience without knowing about New York State's divorce laws. New York had a law in which the only ground for divorce at that time was adultery, something that had to be proved. People still go to Nevada or Mexico for a quick divorce, but not as much any more. The title role in this woman's picture is played by Joan Crawford, an artist living in Greenwich Village who is involved in an extra-marital affair with Dana Andrews, a high priced attorney in a white shoe law firm. Andrews is most unhappily married to Ruth Warrick who is the daughter of the firm's senior partner. Warrick's been down this road before, if you remember her movie debut was in Citizen Kane as the unhappy first wife of Charles Foster Kane. She's a mean woman who takes her frustration out on her kids. Crawford in the mean time meets Henry Fonda who is a recently discharged soldier who designs yachts. He's a man of simple values who just wants to earn enough to live on. Crawford marries Fonda when it looks like Andrews is unattainable. Warrick however begins a divorce case in New York on adultery charges for the sole purpose of hurting Andrews. This is when it gets good and ugly. Daisy Kenyon is a throwback to the kind of films that Crawford was doing in her MGM salad days. Some of what she did at MGM far outstripped this one. Not to mention Mildred Pierce at Warner Brothers. Fonda and Andrews go through the motions as her two men, they're well aware this is Joan's show. Warrick does a nice turn however as the wronged wife. I guess only the viewer can judge if Crawford missed MGM at this point in her career.

Joan Crawford is "Daisy Kenyon" in this 1947 film about a woman torn between two men - one, a married, successful man (Dana Andrews), and the other, a returning soldier and widower (Henry Fonda). Directed by Otto Preminger, it's a good noir, better than "Dark Angel" but nowhere near "Laura." Andrews is married to Ruth Warrick and has two daughters who need him, as their mother, when unhappy, tends to be abusive. He has a long-time relationship with Daisy, who is a successful commercial artist. The situation isn't ideal for her, but she's in love. One night she meets a soldier who wants to build a life with her. Can she break from Andrews - and will he let her? There are several striking things about this film. One is the casting. In order to play the lead in "Grapes of Wrath" in 1940, Darryl Zanuck forced Henry Fonda to sign a 7-year-contract, for which Fonda never forgave him. One can see an example of why here. In this film, he has to share leading man duties with Dana Andrews in what is, in fact, a Joan Crawford movie. To me, Fonda's role in this seems very inauspicious and one where a lesser star could have been cast. Just an opinion. He's excellent as a lonely, unhappy man who falls for Daisy - Fonda at this point still had some traces of boyishness. The second striking thing for me was the subtlety of the acting. There is a scene in which Dana Andrews, returning from an 18-day-trip, can't get the usually reliable Daisy on the phone, so he goes to see her. It's a scene that should be shown in acting schools - full of atmosphere and subtext, so little is said in dialogue; so much is what lies beneath the surface. Both Crawford and Andrews give wonderful performances. The third striking thing is the Greenwich Theater, which I had no idea was torn down until now. There was indeed a restaurant across from it, too. That's also my old neighborhood, and it was a delight to see. I believe I went to the opening day of "Fargo" there. Throughout the film, the symbolism of a New York cab is used: if you were staying where you were, you let the cab go; if not, you asked it to wait. The theme reinforces the ending of "Daisy Kenyon" very well. A good movie.

This is a love triangle but it's not the melodrama of the thirties where the abandoned woman had to die alone ("Back Street") or to become a businesswoman ("Imitation of life" ) or to do both ("Only yesterday").Now the mistress has a good job and she does not want to renege on love.that said,the story is derivative and it is too bad that the Andrews/daughter relationship should only be skimmed over ,and that the part of his wife should be so underwritten.The three leads ,Joan Crawford,Henry Fonda and the always reliable Dana Andrews make the film ,if not a winner, at least something watchable. It is not to be ranked among the great Preminger's works though.

Commerical artist Daisy Kenyon (Joan Crawford) is in love with married Dan O'Mara (Dana Andrews). She wants him but realizes he'll never divorce his wife (Ruth Warrick). She instead marries a man she doesn't love (Henry Fonda) to break it off with Dan completely. But things don't turn out all that well... This starts off as a very interesting Crawford movie. It's beautifully shot in a film noir style which gives an appropriate tone to the film. She plays a woman who wants to move ahead but can't because of her love for the wrong man. The direction is good, the dialogue sharp and the acting is great by Andrews (never more romantic) and Crawford (never stronger). But it falls apart completely at the halfway mark and turns into a dreary romantic triangle. The ending especially was SO predictable it had me rolling my eyes. Still this is worth seeing for the direction and acting alone. Also there's a strong subplot dealing with child abuse! So this is worth seeing. I give it a 7.

I've seen about a dozen Preminger films and this is my favorite. I wasn't expecting too much once the movie began because it seemed I had seen this all done before but Preminger's characters (as is usually the case) are much more realistic than typical Hollywood movies of this era. The characterization actually compares favorably to foreign films of the time, like for example Quai des Orfèvres from the same year; this movie could easily have been a French production. I'm not much a fan of Crawford or Fonda but this is probably the best I've seen Fonda; and Crawford was just fine. Dana Andrews is superb - probably his best movie! What made this movie for me was that I could relate to all three main characters - in many ways they are more ideas (or philosophies) than actual people but the odd thing is that the line was so blurred that even though I knew this was the case I still enjoyed them as people. What puts this above the other Premingers I've seen is the very tight script, the fast pacing, and three fully realized characters that came across not only as real but as themes in themselves. Add in a memorable supporting cast and everything just blends together to make a perfect concoction.