Good concept, poorly executed.

Fresh and Exciting

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

One of the most boring movies I've seen with Bette Davis. Complete lack of characterization. Don't fall for the William Wyler hype machine, this one's a dud.

Much has been written about Bette Davis's performance in this film. Apparently, she thought she would get the role of Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone with the Wind." It didn't work out so she was tossed the role of Julie in "Jezebel." She made due to the hilt. She plays an ambitious woman who feels she can dominate any situation and get what she wants from any man. She is engaged to Henry Fonda who forces her to show her true colors (in the form of a red dress that embarrasses her publicly). Fonda's character cuts her loose and she goes about trying to win him back. She can be compared easily to Scarlett because she seemed to be sort of a Teflon character herself. The ending is quite good as redemption is at stake in the worst of situations. Davis's performance really stands atop the mountain.

First off, to those who criticize comparisons made between this film and "Gone With The Wind". Too bad. Such comparisons are valid. Stop and think -- Bette Davis' Julie is not unlike Scarlett in many ways: frivolous, but when it really counts bucks up and faces overwhelming odds to do what is needed. Take the speech by Henry Fonda's Preston about why the South would lose a civil war...it could have been written by the same screenwriter as Clark Gable's Rhett's speech on the same topic. And, after all, this film was a plum to Bette Davis when she didn't get "GWTW". Some people confuse elements of this film (along with "Band Of Angels") to "GWTW".But there are two things about this film that make it pale in comparison to "GWTW". First, from beginning to end, it pretty much depressing. A leading female character prone to plotting and tantrums. As the tide turns in her life toward the negative, she falls into mild depression. Buck (George Brent) is an ass who constantly engages in duels. And then, yellow fever hits and those who fall ill are sent to a swampy island to die (eventually including the leading male actor -- Henry Fonda). Nothing upbeat here.Second, there's hardly a sympathetic character in the film, making it very difficult to really like almost any of the actors. Bette Davis' character redeems herself only in the last 5 minutes of the film (although that is not to say that Miss Davis' performance is any less fine than many of her others). Henry Fonda's character (and his acting) probably come off best. George Brent's character is so unlikable that I didn't even enjoy Brent's performance (and usually I do). Faye Bainter (as Aunt Belle) and Donald Crisp (as the doctor) are likable enough, but don't get a lot of screen time; they're simply a tool to move the main plot forward. It's nice to see Spring Byington and Eddie "Rochester" Anderson, but they have little to do here.I often enjoy a film in "glorious black and white", but here the difference between the brilliant color of "GWTW" and the drab black and white of "Jesebel" (filmed just one year apart) seems to characterize the memorability of "GWTW" and the comparatively forgotten "Jesebel". Sorry, but "Jesebel" is just another picture...not a bad one...but one to be savored and remembered. I struggle to give it a "7".One thing I find inappropriate in this film is much of the musical score. Frankly, there are many places where it is simply too modern for a period piece.

There are lots of cases in classic-era Hollywood where a hit movie has been followed by a lesser copycat from a rival studio. However, the gargantuan and protracted production of David O. Selznick's Gone with the Wind was of such public interest that Warner Brothers could actually pre-emptively get on board the antebellum melodrama bandwagon before it really got going. And thus Jezebel became Warner's 1938 vehicle for its top female star, Bette Davis.Davis had already won considerable critical and popular acclaim, establishing her type as the archetypal woman scorned. Despite having already won an Oscar for Dangerous in 1935, this is her first really magnificent performance. Her earliest work, while certainly very powerful, was often a little exaggerated and lacking control. In Jezebel however she manages to cram in all that fiery personality, even into tiny details like the way her head bobs as she walks, but with so much more finesse and restraint. The result is very realistic but still utterly engaging. Her lead man Henry Fonda could not match her for experience but he has a decent manly presence that makes him well-cast here. Fine support is given by Fay Bainter, acting like the movie's conscience, numerous reactions playing out on her face. There's also Donald Crisp, struggling with a southern drawl even though he was normally a master at accents, but giving a commanding turn all the same. And finally, watch out for a young(ish) Eddie "Rochester" Anderson.It's no wonder there is so much top class acting in Jezebel when the director is William Wyler. Wyler, known for his repeated takes and painstaking perfectionism, no doubt had a hand in shaping Davis's sublime performance. But what Wyler also does is actually draw our focus upon the right person and the right facet of their performance for any given moment. Look at the social gathering scene where we first meet Davis and Bainter's characters. Wyler is continually rearranging the players and the camera to frame one face or another. The following scene at the bank's boardroom begins with a fairly standard establishing sweep across the table. Now, remember that Henry Fonda wasn't an especially big star at the time and audiences wouldn't necessarily have picked him out. And yet Wyler makes us realise that he is the one to watch by the way he is staring thoughtfully ahead, the only one whose face we really see full on, the one who stands out even though other characters are talking and nodding their heads. And that's in this innocuous camera move, without any obtrusive close-up or dolly in on Fonda. This is the beauty of Wyler's direction – he makes you notice things without noticing you've noticed them.And now a few brief words on the Max Steiner musical score. Steiner represented a growing trend in Hollywood of lavish, blaring scores that underlined every single emotion in the picture. His work in particular is rather blunt and even distracting at times. This however is among his more restrained scores, and also happens to be nice and low in the mix. As it's not blasting out over every scene you can actually appreciate just how much complexity and timing there is at work here. Different characters and ideas have their own little leitmotifs. When Davis hears that Pres is returning, their love theme cuts seamlessly into the score on the very instant his name is mentioned. There is even a little peal of bells when she mentions the possibility of marriage. It's still not necessarily the best way of adding music to a motion picture, but one must at least admire the skill and precision that has gone into the score's construction.Despite the similarities in setting and spitfire heroine, Jezebel is of course very different from its competitor Gone with the Wind in terms of scale. The latter movie, for all its melodramatic roots is a tour de force in lavish historical sweep and epic storytelling. Jezebel by contrast is a firmly small-canvas picture with a rather trite storyline, and the only thing to really keep the viewer hooked throughout is Bette Davis's arresting acting performance. Still, it is far from being some cheap knock-off, and can be considered a light piece of chamber music to Gone with the Wind's orchestral symphony.