User Reviews

My observations: Postwar hilarity. Tom Drake and Grandpa from "Meet Me in St. Louis" two years later (the year I was born). Donna Reed charming and pretty. Margaret Hamilton good as always; smaller part than in "Wizard of Oz". Spring Byington way prettier, also with the prerequisite perky small nose lacked by Hamilton. Tent scene at end with former boy next door was hilarious. As a two year veteran of Army tents, he looked pretty youthful and inexperienced when I looked into his eyes.

I used to work in a department store, and it was just as elegant as this one. Sadly, it has disappeared and faded into obscurity. We were famous for those great show windows that were used to lure passersby into the store, to get them to buy all of that wonderful merchandise.

10/10

Donna Reed and Tom Drake are a perfect pair in this 1946 light film about a returning soldier who doesn't know that the love of his life has been promoted in the place they both work in and as has a new love life interest.

Margaret Hamilton reminded me of Lily Tomlin with the way her hair was set for this film.

The wonderful supporting cast tries to keep the news from Drake for the two weeks that he is in before he'll officially be discharged from the army.

Invariably, Drake finds out the truth and the group sets upon an idea to bring the two back to each other. How they compare it to selling shoes is funny.

Sig Ruman is great as the Russian music teacher who is occupying the apartment that Reed left when she was promoted.

Light fanfare with Harry Davenport good as the great-grandfather to Drake, who hopes to see him marry Reed.

On paper I'm sure it seemed like a good idea-- tell a story about a postwar couple who rediscover they are right for each other. After all it's a mid-40s rom-com, probably a project intended for Van Johnson and June Allyson. Though I don't think it would've fared better with them, because the main problem is not the stars-- in this case, Tom Drake and Donna Reed. Both have charm, and both do their best.

Instead the issue is more to do with a script that seems to be in need of a rewrite or at least some considerable polishing. The premise is this: a returning army veteran (Drake) has a job waiting for him at a big city department store as soon as he is mustered out of the service. He also has a girl (Reed), or so he believes.

Only when he turns up, we learn she moved on with a more successful businessman (Warner Anderson)...something she failed to mention in her letters. The longer she keeps the truth to herself, the more complicated things get. Especially when the notion of proposing to her crosses his mind.

As far as premises go, it's fine and dandy. But how the gal and her coworkers conspire to keep the truth from the ex-soldier is uneven and often defies logic. At one point, she barters an agreement with a man (Sig Ruman, as a stereotypical Russian) who has moved into her old apartment.

The arrangement will allow her to stay there for awhile so she can keep up the pretense to Drake that she still resides there, because it's where she lived when Drake went off to war. Why? Can't she just say she moved during his absence? I guess she doesn't want him to see how materially successful she's become and that she can now afford a better place...but why would it matter?

She acts as if he cannot accept change or make the necessary adjustments. Come on, he was overseas for four years. Surely he's learned to adjust to change and adapt to new situations. This story might have worked better if like Carole Lombard's character in NOTHING SACRED (1937), it was mistakenly thought that Drake was dying and Reed wanted to make things "perfect" for him...how he remembered life before the war. As it is, there's no plausible reason for her to lie to him continually or for her to entangle her store coworkers in such ongoing deception.

The coworkers are the best part of the movie. Edward Everett Horton is an officious floor manager, with Spring Byington on hand as his diligent assistant. Also, we have Margaret Hamilton cast against type as a nice saleswoman. They all work together very well. There's even an ambitious clerk (Wilson Wood) who reminds me of Joseph Schildkraut in THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER (1940). I wouldn't be surprised if the writer of this film drew inspiration from some of the characters in Ernst Lubitsch's classic.

There's a lovely sequence two-thirds of the way into the picture where Mr. Drake takes Miss Reed to meet his kind old grandpa (Harry Davenport) who owns a place out in the country. That's when she realizes she still is in love with Drake. The exteriors for grandpa's estate seem to be the same ones that Metro used for Van Johnson & Dorothy McGuire's home in INVITATION (1952) several years later.

All in all FAITHFUL IN MY FASHION is not a horrible way to spend 80 minutes. However, with more logical plot construction and much more realistic dialogue, it could have been a true classic.