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

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

I hate natural causes!

Body Bags (1993) (SPOILERS) I’m not surprised Showtime didn’t pick this up for an anthology series. Perhaps, if John Carpenter had made Coming Home in a Body Bag (the popular Nam movie series referenced in the same year’s True Romance ), we’d have something to talk about. Tho’ probably not, if Carpenter had retained his by this point firmly glued to his side DP Gary Kibbe, ensuring the proceedings are as flat, lifeless and unatmospheric as possible. Carpenter directed two of the segments here, Tobe Hooper the other one. It may sound absurd, given the quality of Hooper’s career, but by this point, even he was calling the shots better than Carpenter.

I'm offering you a half-share in the universe.

Doctor Who Season 8 – Worst to Best I’m not sure I’d watched Season Eight chronologically before. While I have no hesitation in placing it as the second-best Pertwee season, based on its stories, I’m not sure it pays the same dividends watched as a unit. Simply, there’s too much Master, even as Roger Delgado never gets boring to watch and the stories themselves offer sufficient variety. His presence, turning up like clockwork, is inevitably repetitive. There were no particular revelatory reassessments resulting from this visit, then, except that, taken together – and as The Directing Route extra on the Blu-ray set highlights – it’s often much more visually inventive than what would follow. And that Michael Ferguson should probably have been on permanent attachment throughout this era.

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.

I’m just glad Will Smith isn’t alive to see this.

The Tomorrow War (2021) (SPOILERS). Not so much tomorrow as yesterday. There’s a strong sense of déjà vu watching The Tomorrow War , so doggedly derivative is it of every time-travel/alien war/apocalyptic sci-fi movie of the past forty years. Not helping it stand out from the pack are doughy lead Chris Pratt, damned to look forever on the beefy side no matter how ripped he is and lacking the chops or gravitas for straight roles, and debut live-action director Chris McKay, who manages to deliver the goods in a serviceably anonymous fashion.

Why don't we go on a picnic, up the hill?

Invaders from Mars (1986) (SPOILERS) One can wax thematical over the number of remakes of ’50s movies in the ’80s – and ’50s SF movies in particular – and of how they represent ever-present Cold War and nuclear threats, and steadily increasing social and familial paranoias and disintegrating values. Really, though, it’s mostly down to the nostalgia of filmmakers for whom such pictures were formative influences (and studios hoping to make an easy buck on a library property). Tobe Hooper’s version of nostalgia, however, is not so readily discernible as a John Carpenter or a David Cronenberg (not that Cronenberg could foment such vibes, any more than a trip to the dental hygienist). Because his directorial qualities are not so readily discernible. Tobe Hooper movies tend to be a bit shit. Which makes it unsurprising that Invaders from Mars is a bit shit.

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

Hey, my friend smells amazing!

Luca (2021) (SPOILERS) Pixar’s first gay movie ? Not according to director Enrico Cassarosa (“ This was really never in our plans. This was really about their friendship in that kind of pre-puberty world ”). Perhaps it should have been, as that might have been an excuse – any excuse is worth a shot at this point – for Luca being so insipid and bereft of spark. You know, the way Soul could at least claim it was about something deep and meaningful as a defence for being entirely lacking as a distinctive and creatively engaging story in its own right.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli