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.

One of a handful of low budget films from pioneering woman film-maker Ida Lupino. Known mainly for her soulful screen portrayals in the 1940's of downtrodden women, she managed this career turn in the early 50's, a remarkable feat given a production industry so thoroughly dominated by men.Her best known feature is the chilling and critically acclaimed account of serial killer Emmet Myers, called "The Hitchhiker". But all her films are marked by an earnest concern for the lives of ordinary people, whether menaced in extreme circumstance or in more ordinary circumstance by the unwed pregnancy of "The Outrage". Moreover, at a time when studios were fending off small screen television with big budget Technicolor, she gamely persisted with the small, the intimate and the unglamorous."The Bigamist" remains an oddity, very much an artifact of its time, but worth viewing for its sensitive handling of male loneliness, a topic for which macho Hollywood has never had much time. The acting is first-rate from a trio of de-glamorized Hollywood professionals, including the poignant Lupino; there's also Edmond O'Brien in a low-key, nuanced portrayal of a man trapped by emotions, showing once again what a fine, intelligent performer he was. Notice how elliptically the pregnancy is presented, and how subtly Fontaine's career woman is projected into the breakup. Both are very much signs of that time. Although the subject matter may have tempted, the results never descend into bathos or soap-opera, even if final courtroom scene appears stagy and anti-climatic. All in all, it's a very well wrought balancing act.Lupino's reputation should not rest on gender. This film as well as so many of her others demonstrate what a versatile and unusual talent she was, whether in front of the camera or behind. Too bad, she never got the recognition from an industry to which she contributed so much.

Edmond O'Brien as "Harry Graham is a lonely traveling salesman looking for love. He finds it by marrying an eligible young woman (Joan Fontaine) - and then by marrying another eligible young woman (Ida Lupino) in another city. When Harry and Eve Graham try to adopt an baby, the head of the agency senses Harry is keeping a secret and does some investigating. Via flashbacks, Harry tells the adoption agent how he ended up in two marriages," according to the DVD sleeve description.Producer/writer Collier Young was married to director/star Ida Lupino (1948-1951) and co-star Joan Fontaine (1952-1961), which should be totally irrelevant - but, considering the film's Hollywood movie star bus tour, seems appropriate to mention. The script even notes Edmund Gwenn's resemblance to a certain holiday icon, and notes the actor's appearance in "Miracle on 34th Street" (1947). Everyone tries very hard to make "The Bigamist" work, but it's a painfully hopeless cause.**** The Bigamist (12/3/53) Ida Lupino ~ Edmond O'Brien, Joan Fontaine, Ida Lupino, Edmund Gwenn

I find it odd to see "The Bigamist" described as a feminist film in a number of online reviews, including a couple here on IMDb. In my view, it is anything but.As some other reviewers have noted, the hapless Harry (played by Edmond O'Brien) is treated somewhat sympathetically. He's hangdog, he's lonely, and he just wants a little attention from his careerist wife.Everything that happens in "The Bigamist" stems, it seems, from the failures of Harry's first wife--called, significantly enough, Eve, the first woman, from whom original sin and all the woes of humanity flow, in the common view. This Eve leads her man to the sin of adultery.Not only is Eve unfailingly careerist, she's infertile to boot. We're to understand that it's her insufficiency as a woman that drives Harry to infidelity. That hardly seems feminist to me.I realize that this argument applies a current standard to a work from a half-century ago, but calling it feminist would be making the same kind of judgment. Lupino was certainly a path breaker as one of the first women to direct films in Hollywood. And it's typical of the times that she made "women's pictures"--films whose stories would address women's concerns.But to call this film feminist--with its cold and ultimately condemning portrayal of a successful (and infertile) woman--seems really to miss the point. The film affirms everything about the role that women were expected to adopt after World War II. No longer working on assembly lines as Rosie the Riveter, women were expected to step aside in the workplace to make room for returning veterans. Women had a job to do: to make happy homes for their husbands. When Eve fails to take her rightful place, the most terrible of consequences ensue.I find this a fairly typical film of the 1950s, affirming in a rather sordid and unappealing way the mores of the time. Harry is a far from likable character, and the women are hardly better. Lupino is the most interesting, because she shows a bit of spunk. Fontaine's character vacillates between hard-bitten businesswoman and expectant mother who goes all girlie at the sight of a mechanical soldier. (Really? A mechanical SOLDIER???) This is not a feminist film.