In 1961, Hollywood did something it probably shouldn't have. It took a tragic, gritty novel about a woman living in the shadows and turned it into a high-fashion runway show. Back Street Susan Hayward is the result of that weird collision. Honestly, if you watch it today, it feels less like a heartbreaking drama and more like a fever dream of mid-century glamour.
But there is so much more to this movie than just the $112,000 wardrobe.
You have to understand the era. 1961 was a transition year. The old studio system was dying, but producer Ross Hunter was still trying to keep "women’s pictures" alive by making them look like a jewelry box. He hired Susan Hayward, fresh off her Oscar win for I Want to Live!, and paired her with John Gavin, a man who looked like he was carved out of soap.
The Story That Refused to Die
The movie is actually the third time Universal filmed Fannie Hurst’s 1931 bestseller. Before Susan Hayward stepped into the role of Rae Smith, Irene Dunne (1932) and Margaret Sullavan (1941) had already played the part. Those earlier versions were sad. They were about a woman who gives up everything—her career, her reputation, her soul—to be the "back street" mistress of a married man.
In the 1961 version, things changed. Big time.
Instead of being a victim of circumstance, Hayward’s Rae Smith is a powerhouse. She becomes a world-renowned fashion designer. She has a salon in Rome. She wears Jean Louis gowns that probably cost more than most people's houses.
- The 1932 Version: Gritty, Depression-era, deeply sad.
- The 1941 Version: Romantic, lyrical, and considered by many to be the best.
- The 1961 Version: Technicolor, high-glam, and kind of insane.
Critics at the time hated it. Bosley Crowther of The New York Times famously joked that they should have changed the name to "Rue du Bac" because it was so obsessed with Parisian elegance. He wasn't entirely wrong. The movie moves from Lincoln, Nebraska, to New York, and eventually to Rome and the French countryside. It's basically a travelogue with a side of adultery.
Why Susan Hayward Was the Best (and Worst) Choice
Susan Hayward was known for playing "tough broads." She was the queen of the gritty biopic. So, seeing her play a woman who waits around for a man was... different. Some people think she was a bit too old for the beginning of the movie. She was 43 playing a young woman in her 20s.
It's sort of a stretch.
But Hayward had this incredible intensity. Even when the script was "soapy," she acted like she was in a Shakespearean tragedy. She brought a weight to the role that John Gavin, frankly, couldn't match. Gavin was handsome, sure, but he often looked like he was waiting for someone to tell him where to stand.
Vera Miles is the one who really steals the show, though. She plays Gavin’s wife, Liz, and she plays her as a raging, bitter alcoholic. It’s a performance that feels like it belongs in a much darker movie. When Miles and Hayward are on screen together, the air practically crackles.
The Ross Hunter Formula
If you want to understand Back Street Susan Hayward, you have to understand Ross Hunter. He was the guy who produced Imitation of Life and Pillow Talk. He didn't care about "realism." He cared about "escapism."
He spent a fortune on:
- Gowns by Jean Louis: Hayward had more costume changes than lines in some scenes.
- David Webb Jewels: Real diamonds, real gold.
- Lush Locations: Even if half of it was shot against a green screen in a studio, it looked expensive.
This was the "glossy trash" era of cinema. People wanted to see beautiful people suffering in beautiful rooms. And that’s exactly what they got. The movie was a hit at the box office, even if the critics wanted to bury it. It made over $3.5 million, which was a lot for 1961.
What Most People Get Wrong
People often think this movie is just a remake. It’s not. It’s a complete reimagining. In the book and the first two movies, the mistress is financially dependent on the man. She’s poor. She’s lonely.
In the Hayward version, she’s a millionaire!
She doesn't need Paul Saxon's money. She just loves him. This changes the dynamic entirely. It makes her choice to stay in the "back street" feel more like a tragic obsession than a survival tactic. It’s a very 1960s take on independence versus heart.
Is It Worth Watching Today?
Honestly? Yes.
🔗 Read more: Broad Trip: Why Sophia Bush’s New Movie is the Gilmore Girls Successor We Needed
It is a fascinating artifact of a time when Hollywood thought the answer to every problem was more Technicolor. It's "camp" before people really knew what camp was. The ending is also surprisingly dark compared to the fluff that comes before it. No spoilers, but there’s a car crash and a lot of crying.
Actionable Insights for Classic Film Fans:
- Watch the 1941 version first. If you want to see the "pure" version of the story, Margaret Sullavan is the gold standard.
- Pay attention to the background. The 1961 sets are a masterclass in mid-century modern design.
- Compare the "other woman" tropes. Notice how Rae is framed as a saint while the wife is a "monster." It’s a very specific, and slightly problematic, cinematic choice of the era.
- Look for the Oscar-nominated costumes. Jean Louis really did go all out for this one.
If you’re looking for a deep, philosophical exploration of the human condition, look elsewhere. But if you want to see Susan Hayward look fabulous while her life falls apart in Rome, you can’t do much better than this. It’s a "weepie" in the grandest sense of the word.
To fully appreciate the era, track down a high-definition restoration. The colors are the real stars of the show. You can find it on several classic film streaming services or specialized Blu-ray boutiques like Kino Lorber.