mattfloyd-41009 Edmond O'Brien is horrifically miscast as the titled role- he's always being upstaged by his clearly much more effective two female costars all the darn time-to be fair, they're played by extremely charismatic and extraordinarily gifted actresses. He also does a terrible job acting wise, as he has no idea what to do with his character at all, so he unwisely decides to play him as a confused dope with no characteristics at all- thus, the audience doesn't genuinely care about him in the slightest. It also doesn't help that he is supposed to portray an unlikable character sympathetically but due to his monotone vocal range and his lack of passion in the role, he causes the main subject to become less interesting than the horrendous bus tour that sets the premise up in the first place.The moralizing tone overwhelmed the film's script to the point one would swear they were accidentally watching a Hays Code approved "melodrama" which it totally is. This is the only time Ida Lupino ever completely directed herself and it clearly shows why- she doesn't seem to firmly know which job to pursue first, and without any clear decision making on how to reunite those two prospects together, she exerts an unintentional and overwhelming sense of sloppiness upon the whole film itself. The visuals suffer to the point that it looks more like a juvenile televised soap opera than an independent film made by capable adults. The actors don't know what to do with themselves- sometimes such lack of direction helps spur creativity (Joan Fontaine does a wonderful job at expressing her character's inner thoughts- even more astonishing is Ida's self-determination whilst acting as you can feel that she's doing her best under the rather unfortunate circumstances) but most of the time, it really diminishes the actors' and crew's self-confidence to the point of not being able to do their best within their role. This is downright depressing as Ida Lupino showed her true talents within both departments- just not when they're together on the same project.The script, already hampered and trampled upon by a really unpleasant waging censoring finger, is already hard to swallow within its logic department- why did Edmond O'Brien ever think he could get away with bigamy and why did he go along with his first wife's adoption plans as it was made apparently clear that any place in charge of taking care of minors need to search very deeply within its applicants in order for the child to be placed in safe, and reliable hands; why was Edmund Gwenn even allowed to go back to the orphanage after his monumental and unmentionable failure if said mistake was that severe; if the first wife really was a major operative within the company, shouldn't she have been already to Los Angeles to the point that she's well acquainted with the place? Most importantly, why did he never let his second wife know the truth from the moment that he found out that she was pregnant- heck why didn't he tell anyone about the information as he could explain his mistake and accept full responsibility of the situation much to his newfound moral approval and sensitivity to his spouse's sanity as well as fostering respect for his mistress' dilemmas? Aside from many more logical problems, the script should have been really interesting as it made a social problem much more palatable to moral tastes- it sadly fails because the script's so focused on making the controversial issue palatable to contemporary audience reception that it ultimately makes it blandly heavy-handed to the point that the film quickly wears its welcome out before it can hit any dramatically interesting scenes. It's a true shame, as this was one of the few mature films to openly deal with taboo subjects in a time of insanely restrictive censorship and it's clear that everyone tries their absolute hardest in trying to make a badly written tearjerker seem believable. It's just that no one actually bothered to mend that script up so to make it less puritanical and more openly frank or to rid that same production of any massive tonal failures so as to achieve a sense of control in spreading its ideas. If you're still curious about Ida Lupino's directing career, please check out her other films, especially Outrage- an amazing film both of its time and also ahead of its time in its depiction of rape. Please avoid The Bigamist as one would avoid bigamy in real life.

utgard14 An adoption agent (Edmund Gwenn) investigating a couple wanting to adopt discovers the husband (Edmond O'Brien) is hiding a secret. Confronted, the man tells the story of how he came to be married to two women (Ida Lupino & Joan Fontaine).Interesting soaper helped a lot by sympathetic performances. O'Brien actually made me feel sorry for the guy....for a minute. Fontaine and Lupino are both terrific, as well. In addition to starring in this, Lupino directed it. It's one of her best directorial efforts. The actress playing the landlady is Lillian Fontaine, the mother of Joan and sister Olivia de Havilland. It's a thoughtful film that tries to present its story without vilifying anybody completely. Not entirely successful but better than most movies today that deal with similar themes.

Maddyclassicfilms Directed by one of it's stars Ida Lupino,The Bigamist tells the story of a world weary travelling salesman who is married to two women.The Bigamist begins with married couple Harry Graham(Edmund O'Brian)and his wife Eve(Joan Fontaine)going to an adoption agency for an interview to see if they are fine to adopt a child.Eve cannot have children and after much soul searching is desperate to try this.They are interviewed by the kindly but suspicious Mr.Jordan(Edmund Gwenn)who is happy with Eve's personality but not sure about Harry's.He's right to be concerned as we learn Harry is also known as Harrison Graham and is married in Los Angeles to the outwardly tough but inwardly fragile Phyllis Martin(Ida Lupino).Graham married her after a night of passion resulted in her getting pregnant.Mr Jordan(who traces Harry to Los Angeles)is told all this but doesn't say anything to the Police believing Harry to have morals enough to turn himself in.With an ending left very much open and some heartbreaking performances, The Bigamist although not a perfect film features a fascinating subject and is entertaining enough.I would like to see more of Ida's directorial work,what she gives us here impressed and moved me and it looks great,this is worth a watch.

Alex da Silva The film starts with a husband and wife, Harry (Edmond O'Brien) and Eve (Joan Fontaine), going through the procedure of adopting a child with adoption official Mr Jordan (Edmund Gwenn). Mr Jordan senses something strange about the behaviour of Harry and so investigates his past which takes him to Los Angeles where he discovers that Harry uses a different name and has another wife Phyliss (Ida Lupino) and child. The main bulk of the film is told in flashback as Harry explains the circumstances to Mr Jordan. At the end, we are left to decide who, if any, of the women will stand by him as a judge announces that sentence will be passed in a week's time.....The film plays out so that you are sympathetic to all 3 major stars - O'Brien, Fontaine and Lupino - and has an ambiguous ending to some. I find that the ending is clear as the final shot says it all. From the beginning, I thought that Mr Jordan was suspicious for no good reasons and that his delving into the past as he did was unrealistic. We are led to believe that he had made a mistake in the past to explain his thoroughness, but he was still a jobsworth to the power of a million. I didn't like him! When Harry goes on a Beverly Hills tour of houses of movie stars (where he meets Phyliss), we are shown the house of Edmund Gwenn, who plays Mr Jordan in the film. Harry should have stopped the bus and torched the place! I think the film needed more excitement but its OK.