I'll Cry Tomorrow

Superb performance by Susan Hayward as Lillian Roth.

No eye for period detail, not even an attempt, and probably a lot of hooey biographically, BUT....

Terrific performances by Susan Hayward as Lillian Roth and Jo Van Fleet as her mother. The two women give stunning performances.

The film is a tad preachy with the AA message but Hayward and Van Fleet (born a year apart) are a feast. I don't think any actress ever gave better performances as a drunk than Hayward (SMASH-UP), And Van Fleet, who made her film debut in 1955, scored in this film as well as EAST OF EDEN and THE ROSE TATTOO--all in 1955! Richard Conte, Eddie Albert, Margo, Don Taylor, Virginia Gregg, Ray Danton, Henry Kulky, Veda Ann Borg, and Tol Avery co-star......

Anyone know who did the singing voice for Hayward?

Lillian Roth was a big stage star who made a few good films in the early 30s and always seemed likable.

Sad story but Susan Hayward's powerhouse performance holds you from beginning to end. She's matched by Jo Van Fleet as her mother, even though she's overbearing and grasping she makes it clear that she loves her daughter and is at a loss as to how to help her as she washes away in a sea of alcohol. This could be Hayward's career best performance even if it's a stretch at the beginning to believe she's suppose to be in her late teens. Forget that and watch as she takes you through the downward spiral of this tormented woman, doing her own vocals most impressively. Her scenes when Lillian has hit rock bottom are almost painful to watch but her mastery is assured.

MGM director Charles Walters was originally assigned to I'll Cry Tomorrow; and wanted to cast June Allyson (who was not unlike the young Lillian Roth, in some respects). Walters wanted to start with Roth as an innocent girl, slowly chipping away at the surface, until the innocence was eaten away by fear. He knew June was tougher than people realized, and was certain she would excel. They had been working on the role, when Susan Hayward decided she wanted it. Taking her case to Roth herself, she eventually prevailed, causing Walters to quit, noting that Hayward had already played an alcoholic, in Smash Up (1947), and a famous singer who faced tragedy, in With A Song In My Heart (1952). By the way, if you sometimes get all three of these pictures mixed up, join the club.

At any rate, there are people who think Hayward was brilliant in this film, and those who feel she overdid it. Not over-acting, but perhaps, over-feeling. I fall into the latter category. She starts in a rather high gear, and just goes higher. While she's commendably emotional, and touching, I think we lose track of the story and the character, due to the focus on unbridled histrionics. Eventually, she just seems to be devouring everything in her path - including the movie. If this fascinates you, well, it fascinated me, too, but is it a performance?

Jo Van Fleet (in the role Walters wanted Mary Astor for) doesn't exactly back away from the big gesture, herself. A good actress with a nice understanding of the material, she nonetheless pulls out the stops, giving us the long-suffering mama complete with European accent (Roth found this surprising, noting that her mother only had a Boston accent). Much younger than her part, she does a good job - but the histrionics may wear you out. Especially when she and Hayward go at it hammer and tong.

As for the singing of Susan Hayward, you probably won't be asking yourself what took her so long to decide to sing in motion pictures. She does reasonably well, but it's not the voice or style of a successful professional singer.

Towards the end, we have Eddie Albert and his real-life wife, Margo (whom you may remember had a problem when she tried to leave Shangri-La, in Lost Horizon, back in 1937). They help Susan - I mean, Lillian - get back on her feet, with the assistance of Alcoholics Anonymous. If you're still around (and why not? It's a fairly gripping picture, overall) you may be touched, and a little relieved, that the shouting, and maybe even the singing, is over for a while.

I have no doubt that this was both Susan Hayward's and Jo Van Fleet's finest performances. The two actresses show a profound understanding of the limits of a mother-daughter relationship, as well as a deep, gut-wrenching well of female emotion that, well, is hardly seen on screen. When Lillian runs into the hospital to find an empty bed where David was, and realizing that he is dead, collapses in tears: not overplayed, not hysterical, but as real a scene only a seasoned, highly professional actress could play.

The story is interesting, if not with a little over-indulgence, but it is, after all, a biography. I would pay any price to see Ms. Hayward play this role, with her tragically expressive eyes, her ethereal yet next-door qualities. She deserved an Oscar for this role.

As a history teachers and film nut, the first thing I noticed about this movie was its very anachronistic sets, costumes and hairstyles. Now I am not saying it's a bad film, but it was very sloppy in portraying the life story of Lillian Roth. The film is supposed to stretch from about 1916 to 1955--but ALL of it looks like 1955. While this is occasionally a problem in films, I can't recall seeing one worse when it comes to replicating the era in which it was supposedly set. This is odd when you think about it, as this was a prestige film--with an expensive cast. So, you'd think they would have tried harder to get the look of the film right.

When the film begins, it's about 1916 and young Lillian is out on her first tryouts with her mother in tow. Suddenly, the film jumps some time in the future--when Lillian is an established star and life is pretty good (this would be about 1930). It's odd because not once were you told WHEN this film was occurring and it was odd that it just jumped ahead so quickly. It also skipped much of Lillian's life even when she was successful--and there was no mention of her film career or stage successes. Again, a bit sloppy.

What WAS done well was portraying the downward spiral of Miss Roth--especially the effects of alcohol on her functioning. In many ways, this aspect of the film and Susan Hayward's acting were the highlights of the movie. Her life as a drunk was every bit as vivid as Ray Milland's in "The Lost Weekend"...no, perhaps more so. While I am not a huge Susan Hayward fan, in this sort of loud and intense performance, she was at her best. Subtle was not her forte--and here she is well matched to her skills as an actress.

Now you need to see this bio-pic not as a literal version of the life of Lillian Roth. It's more like the paraphrased and altered life. While she was married many times, most of these marriages aren't mentioned and the men who she did marry in the movie were NOT the men she actually married--the names were different and I have no way of knowing if they were like the men in real life. So, for its quality as the actual life story of Roth, I'd give this one a 2 or maybe a 3. But, for its portrayal of alcoholism and its effects on her as well as its entertainment value, it deserves a 10! Its portrayal of her life change through AA is quite inspiring but not quite as good--simply because it implies that there is a 'finish' to sobriety (such as her sponsor telling her she no longer needs a sponsor and that she's 'graduating' from AA--two things that are NEVER true). This is very strange, I know, but the film is so good and so bad at the same time--it's a real mixed bag. Overall, I'd say the film is a solid 7 and is well worth seeing.

By the way, when Hayward first sings "Red, Red Robin" on stage, look carefully when it shows her and the audience. If you look really carefully, you can see that the audience was NOT originally in the scene but it was added afterwords--just look for the jittery border that separates the two. It's probably only noticeable on a very large TV and you have to be looking for it.