Skip to main content

I long ago came to the conclusion that nothing has ever been definitely proved about anything.


Blithe Spirit
(1945)

David Lean’s adaptation of Noel Coward’s 1941 play is a world away from the prestigious epics that would become synonymous with the director. Nevertheless, there is an elegance to this supernatural comedy, sometimes, it seems, at the expense of a lightness of touch that would wring the most from Coward’s wit and playful dialogue.

Charles Condomine, researching his new novel, invites medium Madame Arcati to perform a séance at his house. The result is the appearance of his deceased wife of seven years, much to the chagrin of this current betrothed. On learning of the true intentions of his ex, Charles is no less unsettled.

It may be that Lean’s concentration on technical mastery was at the expense of eliciting laughs; or perhaps he just wasn't adept at comedy. He chose to film in Technicolor, and decided not to utilise the expected double exposure method to render the returned spook; instead Kay Hammond was suitably made up (in fluorescent green) and the lighting followed her, rendering the desired ethereal glow. The film is nothing if not precisely made, but it seems that Lean, intentionally or not, brings too much weight to material that should have been light and frothy. Coward wasn’t too happy with the translation. He’d suggested the play to Lean (Hollywood had come a calling due to its success, but Coward resisted the wooing) after they collaborated on In Which We Serve, but allegedly asked Lean, “How the hell did you fuck up the best thing I ever did?

Both Margaret Rutherford (as delightfully batty as only Rutherford can be, and written with her in mind) as Madame Arcadia and Kay Hammond as deceased wife Elvira were transferred from the original stage production. An impossibly young Rex Harrison (not yet 40) judges the tone just right, bringing to Charles Condomine an upbeat stoicism towards all that he encounters (most surprisingly – but amusingly – in response to the fate of his living spouse). His unflagging breeziness does much of the heavy lifting in making this watchable (but, as said, Rutherford is peerless). Both Constance Cummings (as current wife Ruth) and Hammond are perfectly accomplished; the former unimpressed at what she perceives to be flights of fantasy on the part of her husband, the latter informing Charles’ scheming departed with a louche mischief and a delivery that sounds just the right side of drunk.

The action of the film appears to take place in Ashford in Kent (at least, according to the Condomines’ telephone), but Coward wrote the play while holidaying in Portmeirion (the location for the Village in The Prisoner); his office and flat had just been destroyed in the Blitz. Accordingly, it seems that Coward’s intention was to write something that would take the audience’s minds off the grim realities around them. That he did so through a piece that makes light of death could be seen as ironic; certainly, he came in for some criticism for  just that. This didn’t stop the play from becoming a huge hit (hence the film offers), seen in part as a consequence of tapping into a topical subject (the desire to make contact with the dearly departed).

Indeed, Coward was drawing upon a field that had blossomed in popularity during WWI (Arthur Conan Doyle being one of its chief proponents, having lost a son in the conflict), and had been subsequently assaulted with a barrage of accusations of fakery and confidence trickstering. This is the starting point of Charles Condomine in the film; his novel is to concern a sham psychic and Madame Arcati's "performance" represents research material. Coward pulls the rug by unequivocally establishing that the ghostly arrival is bona fide. Madame Arcati is consistently shown to be mistaken and addled in her assumptions, but as much as she is mockable, she is clearly capable (albeit the extent of the apparition(s) takes even her by surprise).

Madame Arcati: Very interesting. I smell ectoplasm strongly.
Elvira: What a disgusting thing to say!

More of a concern than mocking mortality, across the Pond, were the implied extra-marital affairs of both Charles and Elvira. She continually mocks him for his stuffiness and apparently cuckolded him at every opportunity (even on their honeymoon). If Charles appears blasé about the loss of Elvira, he is even more so about his wife’s carrying-on; until we learn that he didn’t mind as he was embarking on his own simultaneous philandering. A line about Ruth taking an inventory of Charles’ sex life was deleted from the US release. Much more eyebrow-raising, to my ears, was the reaction of the maid to Charles’ offer of payment; her inference being that the money was for “services” provided.

That said, for all its risqué qualities,  the film finishes on a less blithe note. The ultimate pay-off,  while both humorous and tidy, implies a moral judgement on the smug Charles. Tellingly, this is different to the ending of the play, which is much more in line with Coward’s irreverent tone. Coward also includes quite a clever late stage twist of the sort you’d be more likely to see in your classic ghost story (but here played for laughs).

Ultimately Blithe Spirit is a likeable disappointment. Much like Anthony Asquith’s version of The Importance of Being Earnest a few years later, Lean appears to come unstuck attempting to translate the energy of the play to the big screen. It’s left to several spirited performances to show off the quality of the material.

***

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism