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.

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.