i've just seen the movie and i enjoyed it. one shouldn't expect the shooting and love scenes that are so common in today's movies, the film has a certain classical perfume. although the action lacks violent events and all the characters behave calmly, the tension is present always, especially through music and landscape, a constant feeling that something bad is about to happen. there are some beautiful moments of interior struggle which are not expressed through words but through the glowing eyes or shadows on NC's or Celia Johnson's face. the lines are poetical in the well-known NC style and the music is beautiful. the movie is intense and personal.
25 Reviews
Well, I was astonished.
ptb-812 March 2014
Yes, dated, yes, stiff, yes, mannered, yes, upper class twaddle, yes, Noel looks 99 years old, yes, wet, yes, blinkered clipped and indoors... BUT what a script! I had never seen this 1950 film which delves well into adultery and gay relationships and (in one jaw-dropper throwaway scene, an incest/son-mother proxy moment where a mother is aghast at her sex drive for a boy 'younger than her son who looks just like......him'...)... While it is easy to sneer and carry on being superior to the 'drama'... THE ASTONISHED HEART is a very well behaved and quite intelligent dissecting of a weak marriage falling into lust by a man who knows what it means, how it is caused and what the result will be... and that therein is the thrill of it: He knows and he still cannot stop falling. Don't ridicule this film, enjoy its melodrama and manners. It is a really intelligent adult film from the post war years of Britain when everyone was sick of... waiting....!
Beautiful and Treacherous
bkoganbing29 November 2013
The chance to see Noel Coward perform any one of his works is never to be passed up. But The Astonished Heart is inflated out of all proportion from what began as a small one act playlet, part of an octet that comprised Tonight At 8:30.
Another of the playlets from this group was also similarly inflated by MGM as a vehicle for Norma Shearer and Melvyn Douglas. There just was not enough there to warrant the inflation. Coward does marginally better when he inflates it himself.
The English are so terribly civilized about infidelity. That must be the reason that there was never the equivalent of the state of Nevada, a Reno where spouses can soak the adulterer in court. I'm thinking that this particular Coward work did not play well in America as opposed to others.
Coward after years of what was a humdrum marriage to Celia Johnson falls hard for Margaret Leighton who is both beautiful and treacherous. She's an old friend of Johnson's who drops in and one night when Johnson can't make a social engagement, Coward takes Leighton and he descends down hill from there.
Coward in the story is a psychiatrist, a profession that's supposed to have all the answers for human behavior. But his training hasn't given him any answers. Johnson might just take him back, but he can't bring himself to make a move. It all ends badly.
As we know Coward was gay and this film offers us a rare chance to see Graham Payn who was his partner in life and whose career was mostly on the English stage. Payn plays an office assistant to Coward. But I wonder if some previous relationship went bad for him and Coward being the good story teller that he is was writing about something that happened in his own life.
He also understood the human psyche well and certainly pride can be a double edged weapon in our character. It's pride that keeps Coward from doing the right thing all around.
Coward did a far better job than MGM did in inflating one of his short plays to a full blown drama. But while it's good, it's not up there with Private Lives or Blithe Spirit.
Another of the playlets from this group was also similarly inflated by MGM as a vehicle for Norma Shearer and Melvyn Douglas. There just was not enough there to warrant the inflation. Coward does marginally better when he inflates it himself.
The English are so terribly civilized about infidelity. That must be the reason that there was never the equivalent of the state of Nevada, a Reno where spouses can soak the adulterer in court. I'm thinking that this particular Coward work did not play well in America as opposed to others.
Coward after years of what was a humdrum marriage to Celia Johnson falls hard for Margaret Leighton who is both beautiful and treacherous. She's an old friend of Johnson's who drops in and one night when Johnson can't make a social engagement, Coward takes Leighton and he descends down hill from there.
Coward in the story is a psychiatrist, a profession that's supposed to have all the answers for human behavior. But his training hasn't given him any answers. Johnson might just take him back, but he can't bring himself to make a move. It all ends badly.
As we know Coward was gay and this film offers us a rare chance to see Graham Payn who was his partner in life and whose career was mostly on the English stage. Payn plays an office assistant to Coward. But I wonder if some previous relationship went bad for him and Coward being the good story teller that he is was writing about something that happened in his own life.
He also understood the human psyche well and certainly pride can be a double edged weapon in our character. It's pride that keeps Coward from doing the right thing all around.
Coward did a far better job than MGM did in inflating one of his short plays to a full blown drama. But while it's good, it's not up there with Private Lives or Blithe Spirit.
As a play on film it's wonderful, with moving acting and fast sharp dialog.
secondtake1 August 2011
The Astonished Heart (1950)
Well, Noel Coward is above all a writer, and this is a sharp, well written, and contemporary (for 1950) drama. It is acerbic and witty, and it has a dry style you'd be forgiven for calling British (everyone else does) but it is most of all effective. And the story deals with that most basic of human dramas, falling in love when you shouldn't.
Coward was most of all a playwright, and he defines the sophisticated, dry, somewhat emotionally removed culture that was present in mid-Century London (and most of well off Britain). The particular material was originally a short play from 1935, and it actually still feels a little pre-War, not in any overt sense, but in its flavor, it's lack of feeling of post-war sensibilities in film as much as theater. But this isn't a bad thing--the play is about things outside of any one era. In fact, the much better 1945 movie "Brief Encounter" is also based on a short play from the same period, and deals with adultery, as well. And there is a reference to a pilot being shot down in the war, an adjustment made for the times.
By the way, adultery has always been in issue in classic (1930s-50s) movies when it butted up against the Hays code. In Britain, the "O'Connor" rules were something similar but were eventually more flexible. British movies did face American censors for release in the U.S., and the whole atmosphere of the commercial movie industry was to avoid getting into trouble. So the key result was that characters who did bad things had to meet bad ends.
Coward is a terrific actor in this kind of role. Like many actors of his generation, he plays the same kind of person in all this movies, but plays them (or it) so well that's all that matters. Of course, he's the main character in his own play, which is under his control. The two women around him, both little known to American audiences (the Celia Johnson is a wonder as his wife), are spot on perfect in those kinds of cultured London upper crust roles. All is well except love. They discuss their affairs with a kind of dispassion that makes the psychiatry dialog in the movie steamy by comparison. It's all very admirable and pathetic (by our more expressive standards) at the same time. And good movie material.
Never mind that the music is overly dramatic at times (Coward wrote the music, too!), or that it can be so talky it betrays its theatrical roots (as a play). This is a solid drama, and a serious one, and one many of us can relate to. And if "Blithe Spirit" or "Brief Encounter" are better entries to Coward's writing, this shows him as an actor extremely well.
Well, Noel Coward is above all a writer, and this is a sharp, well written, and contemporary (for 1950) drama. It is acerbic and witty, and it has a dry style you'd be forgiven for calling British (everyone else does) but it is most of all effective. And the story deals with that most basic of human dramas, falling in love when you shouldn't.
Coward was most of all a playwright, and he defines the sophisticated, dry, somewhat emotionally removed culture that was present in mid-Century London (and most of well off Britain). The particular material was originally a short play from 1935, and it actually still feels a little pre-War, not in any overt sense, but in its flavor, it's lack of feeling of post-war sensibilities in film as much as theater. But this isn't a bad thing--the play is about things outside of any one era. In fact, the much better 1945 movie "Brief Encounter" is also based on a short play from the same period, and deals with adultery, as well. And there is a reference to a pilot being shot down in the war, an adjustment made for the times.
By the way, adultery has always been in issue in classic (1930s-50s) movies when it butted up against the Hays code. In Britain, the "O'Connor" rules were something similar but were eventually more flexible. British movies did face American censors for release in the U.S., and the whole atmosphere of the commercial movie industry was to avoid getting into trouble. So the key result was that characters who did bad things had to meet bad ends.
Coward is a terrific actor in this kind of role. Like many actors of his generation, he plays the same kind of person in all this movies, but plays them (or it) so well that's all that matters. Of course, he's the main character in his own play, which is under his control. The two women around him, both little known to American audiences (the Celia Johnson is a wonder as his wife), are spot on perfect in those kinds of cultured London upper crust roles. All is well except love. They discuss their affairs with a kind of dispassion that makes the psychiatry dialog in the movie steamy by comparison. It's all very admirable and pathetic (by our more expressive standards) at the same time. And good movie material.
Never mind that the music is overly dramatic at times (Coward wrote the music, too!), or that it can be so talky it betrays its theatrical roots (as a play). This is a solid drama, and a serious one, and one many of us can relate to. And if "Blithe Spirit" or "Brief Encounter" are better entries to Coward's writing, this shows him as an actor extremely well.
Teddibly civilized
marcslope24 October 2017
Noel Coward's name appears so many times in the opening credits that you think it's going to be a parody: starring, written by, based on a play by, music by... (Celia Johnson is top-billed at the start; he is in the closing credits). He's "one of the most famous psychiatrists in the world" and living a happy upper-class existence in postwar London, which looks pristine and rich, with wife Johnson, until her schoolmate Margaret Leighton shows up to form a triangle. The dialog does have some Coward wit and polish, and the structure is clever--we learn at the start that something terrible's happened, but we take our time finding out what it is. Johnson's as excellent as you'd expect, and it's fun to see Leighton in a more glamorous mode than she usually employed, and it's literate and soigné. But Coward is not, let's face it, a likely object of affection for this particular triangle, and it's hard not to giggle when you know that after each day of shooting he's going home with Graham Payn (who plays his man-Friday, and has an irritating voice). Even his character, as others have noted, is rather dull, and you wonder why both of these two resourceful, attractive women would be throwing themselves at him. Worth a look, and buttressed by a particularly elegant Coward musical score, but not one for the ages.
Flawed but worth watching
heebie_jeebies18 May 2003
This appears to be one of Noel Coward's lesser known films, and it is easy to understand why. Taken at face value it's not a bad film, but there's nothing terribly good about it either. Nothing much happens at all throughout the course of the film, it's simply the story of Chris and Leonora's ill-fated affair, and Barbara's reaction to it. The only thing that keeps the film interesting is the fact that we already know it's going to end badly for one reason or another, owing to the first scene. Oddly, there are many perfect opportunities in the story for conflict, and yet none of them are utilised. For example, it would've been much more interesting and believable if Barbara had've fallen out with Leonora, but instead the two remained on good terms throughout the film. The notion of Barbara having been betrayed by her friend was not explored at all - in fact she didn't even seem to feel betrayed by her husband; she even encourages him to go on a holiday with Leonora. Similarly, Chris' two secretaries at his practice, Susan Birch and Tim Verney, who also happen to be close friends of both Chris and Barbara, are never forced to take sides. In fact, Tim shies away from conflict by telling Chris that he's terribly fond of both him and Barbara. Despite the strange lack of conflict, the biggest flaw in the film is the fact that we don't care whether Chris ends up with Leonora or Barbara. The two womens' personalities are indistinguishable anyway so we don't know which of the two is better suited to be with Chris, and besides this, Barbara's permissiveness gives the impression that she hardly cares about the affair anyway. Furthermore, I found Chris and Leonora's relationship somewhat unconvincing. I can overlook the ridiculously short timeframe in which they fall for each other because that is so common in films of this era, but even then the relationship seemed shallow. Coward's character was too austere and cynical to be the object of Leonora's affections. He reminds me of the socially inept genius Sir Earnest Pease from the film "Very Important Person" - I'm sure the two would've gotten along well. Chris' coldness and austerity made his love for Leonora seem insincere. I think Coward should've sat this one out and given his part to a younger man - as it is, I was constantly wondering what this young beauty saw in such a sombre, mostly emotionless, balding middle aged man. Despite all my criticisms, the film still manages to be interesting - just not terribly compelling. The fact that none of the characters are particularly well developed gives them an enigmatic nature, which is somewhat intriguing. The Astonished Heart is certainly worth watching, but it is a flawed piece of cinema.
A Coward Classic
peter-meunier3 January 2011
I had not seen or heard of this film before watching it on DVD. I found it compelling and easy to watch. In some ways reminiscent of Brief Encounter with the story of forbidden love and the sadness that this can only lead to.
The film is an adaption of a play written by Coward himself and is done so with great British precision. The scenery and the stiffness of the dialogue are reminiscent of the post war period where those wealthy enough enjoyed a comfortable life with cocktails, dancing and for some infidelity the order of the day.
Despite being happily married for a number of year Coward's character, Dr Christian Faber is influenced by a case from his psychiatrists practice. A story of forbidden love!! This can only lead to heartache, pain and much more as the adulterous affair he embarks on can only lead to tragedy!!
The film is an adaption of a play written by Coward himself and is done so with great British precision. The scenery and the stiffness of the dialogue are reminiscent of the post war period where those wealthy enough enjoyed a comfortable life with cocktails, dancing and for some infidelity the order of the day.
Despite being happily married for a number of year Coward's character, Dr Christian Faber is influenced by a case from his psychiatrists practice. A story of forbidden love!! This can only lead to heartache, pain and much more as the adulterous affair he embarks on can only lead to tragedy!!
Sir Noel's Acting Limitations
theowinthrop5 October 2005
Years ago, when I was in high school, I read a book that evaluated the leading West End acting giants of the first half of the twentieth century (or more exactly, those who were the big names from 1925 - 1971). They were Sir Lawrence Olivier, Sir John Guilgud, Dame Edith Evans, Sir Ralph Richardson, Sir Michael Redgrave, Dame Peggy Ashcroft, and Sir Noel Coward. The appearance of these seven stars guaranteed large public interest and box office in those years. One could probably add Sir John Mills, Sir Alec Guinness, and Dame Sybil Thorndyke to this group. What is curious about them is that they were not equally successful in movie careers. Evans gave some nice performances (her role in "Tom Jones" was very funny, as was her classic Lady Bracknell in "The Importance Of Being Earnest") but outside of England she never caught on. Same with Sybil Thorndyke, and Peggy Ashcroft only achieved really good international fame in her late years for her Oscar performance in "A Passage To India". Of the men, Olivier and Guilgud won Oscars (technically Olivier got two, one for his career and one for best actor in "Hamlet"; Guilgud got one for best supporting actor in "Arthur"). Mills and Guinness would also get Oscars (the former for best supporting actor for "Ryan's Daughter"; the latter for "The Bridge On The River Kwai" and for his career). Richardson and Redgrave got nominated, but never won the award.
And then there was Sir Noel. Of the group he had the best theatrical reputation of all (even more than Olivier, who was a director of the new National Theater in the 1960s). After all Coward wrote plays and operettas, and composed music. He was a successful cabaret singer. He did win a special Oscar (for his wartime film, "In Which They Serve)." As the second most successful 20th Century English dramatist after Shaw he was established. There was just one fly in the ointment. Except for a handful of films in his career that he appeared in, he was a terrible film actor.
If you doubt this think of the movie credits of Olivier, Redgrave (yes Michael Redgrave), Richardson, Guilgud, Guinness, and Mills, and compare them with the paucity of titles for Coward. His two movie roles of note are "Bunny Lake is Missing" (where he plays a pervert), and "Our Man In Havana" where he plays a middle management spy master - and is somewhat cornered by the lies that Alec Guinness has submitted in his reports. You might, if you are willing to give him some brownie points, acknowledge "The Scoundrel", where he is a nasty, egotistical publisher - he is allowed to play a bit with the role, but he has not written the bon mots that are dropped by his publisher (Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur did).
There is nobody to share the blame for this movie with. Based on a play by Coward, you would think that it is worthwhile. Ah, but his best plays were comedies like "Hay Fever" and "Blithe Spirit". His most successful dramatic play was "Brief Encounter", which was brilliant when David Lean directed it with Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson. But Lean is not directing this, and Coward is playing the lead part.
The problem with Coward is he tends to the sentimental. Even though he writes very funny, brittle dialog he does not resolve issues in a normal way at all. The conclusion of "Blithe Spirit" is Charles Condimine leaves the house with the spirits of his two warring ex-wives to fight it out while he sees the rest of the world. In the movie this was changed, but the stage production ends with Charles triumphant over two warring ghosts! Hardly realistic that. "Hay Fever" ends with the guests of the four members of a theater family sneaking out of the house to avoid spending another moment with these selfish nuts if they can avoid it. But the nuts learn nothing from this - they will continue forever as before. Somehow another dramatist might have had one of the nuts realize who was actually to blame.
In "The Astonished Heart", Coward plays a psychiatrist who is wrapped up in his work. He does not really notice his wife's old friend when he is introduced to her, but rather continues his researches and writings (he also reveals that the title comes from a passage in the Old Testament referring to "astonishment of heart"). Eventually Coward does develop an interest in the old friend, so they start an affair. The film follows the problems between the three points of the triangle, and the eventual tragedy it leads to.
The actors try, but the audience really cannot get into them or their conflicts, although the gradual cooling of the affair does strike one as a most honest and realistic touch. That is only because the psychiatrist is such a pitifully dull fellow one can't see what the friend really saw in him. The film leaves one pretty cold. Sir Noel would return to his stage and cabaret work, which was far more rewarding than this. I'm glad for his sake he did. Unfortunately he still made occasional film appearances, most of which were eminently forgettable.
And then there was Sir Noel. Of the group he had the best theatrical reputation of all (even more than Olivier, who was a director of the new National Theater in the 1960s). After all Coward wrote plays and operettas, and composed music. He was a successful cabaret singer. He did win a special Oscar (for his wartime film, "In Which They Serve)." As the second most successful 20th Century English dramatist after Shaw he was established. There was just one fly in the ointment. Except for a handful of films in his career that he appeared in, he was a terrible film actor.
If you doubt this think of the movie credits of Olivier, Redgrave (yes Michael Redgrave), Richardson, Guilgud, Guinness, and Mills, and compare them with the paucity of titles for Coward. His two movie roles of note are "Bunny Lake is Missing" (where he plays a pervert), and "Our Man In Havana" where he plays a middle management spy master - and is somewhat cornered by the lies that Alec Guinness has submitted in his reports. You might, if you are willing to give him some brownie points, acknowledge "The Scoundrel", where he is a nasty, egotistical publisher - he is allowed to play a bit with the role, but he has not written the bon mots that are dropped by his publisher (Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur did).
There is nobody to share the blame for this movie with. Based on a play by Coward, you would think that it is worthwhile. Ah, but his best plays were comedies like "Hay Fever" and "Blithe Spirit". His most successful dramatic play was "Brief Encounter", which was brilliant when David Lean directed it with Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson. But Lean is not directing this, and Coward is playing the lead part.
The problem with Coward is he tends to the sentimental. Even though he writes very funny, brittle dialog he does not resolve issues in a normal way at all. The conclusion of "Blithe Spirit" is Charles Condimine leaves the house with the spirits of his two warring ex-wives to fight it out while he sees the rest of the world. In the movie this was changed, but the stage production ends with Charles triumphant over two warring ghosts! Hardly realistic that. "Hay Fever" ends with the guests of the four members of a theater family sneaking out of the house to avoid spending another moment with these selfish nuts if they can avoid it. But the nuts learn nothing from this - they will continue forever as before. Somehow another dramatist might have had one of the nuts realize who was actually to blame.
In "The Astonished Heart", Coward plays a psychiatrist who is wrapped up in his work. He does not really notice his wife's old friend when he is introduced to her, but rather continues his researches and writings (he also reveals that the title comes from a passage in the Old Testament referring to "astonishment of heart"). Eventually Coward does develop an interest in the old friend, so they start an affair. The film follows the problems between the three points of the triangle, and the eventual tragedy it leads to.
The actors try, but the audience really cannot get into them or their conflicts, although the gradual cooling of the affair does strike one as a most honest and realistic touch. That is only because the psychiatrist is such a pitifully dull fellow one can't see what the friend really saw in him. The film leaves one pretty cold. Sir Noel would return to his stage and cabaret work, which was far more rewarding than this. I'm glad for his sake he did. Unfortunately he still made occasional film appearances, most of which were eminently forgettable.
And love fades from kiss to kiss....
lesallen-6826812 May 2020
This is the eternal story of a man destroyed by passion...
Take away the Received Pronunciation and the black and white production, and this film could have been made yesterday.
Fine, studied performances by all the cast together with some clever shooting for the period, comfortably holds the viewers' interest throughout. Mr.Coward definitely understood people - their subtleties, weaknesses and complexities. And this gives
the characters real dimension. The dialogue is sharp and intelligent - exactly to be expected from one of the greatest of wordsmiths.
Perhaps not a classic, but a dreadfully good watch all the same.
"The Lord shall smite thee with madness, blindness and astonishment of heart"
PudgyPandaMan5 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The title is from a passage in the Bible (Deut. 28:28). Let's just say it is taken horribly out of context - but nonetheless, that is where the title of this agonizing movie originates. The other reviewers cover the plot details so I wont rehash. But the husband, who is a psychiatrist, delivers a lecture on "Inferior function" where he discusses how a person can meet another another person and they can experience a "cataclysmic crisis" in their lives where they cease to be masters of themselves and incapable of fair judgement. He is saying this at the podium at the exact moment as he lays eyes on Leonora Vail in the audience - the woman who will become his mistress. Not very subtle for showing that this is indeed what will happen to this poor man.
I think the whole premise of the movie is implausible and just didn't work. Here is an over-the-hill psychiatrist, and we are to believe this young, beautiful woman falls for him and comes between the happiness he and his wife shared. What's even more implausible is how the betrayed wife responds when she learns of the infidelity. Not only is she understanding, but she INSISTS her husband embark on a several month vacation with the tramp - "so we all can get a little relief from this unbearable stress". GIVE ME A BREAK!! I wanted to reach through the screen and throttle not just the adulterer but the dim-wit wife.
The fact that the whole movie takes place as a flashback after already revealing the end of the movie at the beginning (the fact that the husband had a terrible accident) - it leaves no doubt as to the outcome of the sordid affair. I think this was a poor decision as it leaves absolutely no plot twists to look forward to, as the whole movie is completely predictable. You already know the wife's resignation to the affair at the beginning of the film as she summons the mistress to the dying man's bedside and expresses no ill will towards her.
Not only is the script defective, but Noel Coward is horribly miscast (even though it is HIS screenplay). He and Leonora have absolutely no chemistry on screen whatsoever. Its interesting that Michael Redgrave was originally cast in that role, but was replaced during filming. I wonder what that was about? In the end, neither the husband or the wife cause you to feel any sympathy for either one of them. I do think Margaret Leighton played the part of strumpet quite well. But she couldn't possibly overcome all the negatives this film had. Also, as is the case of many British Productions of this era, the dialogue is hard to understand due to the clipped, fast speech pattern of the actors. I saw it on TV and couldn't even rely on closed captioning to fill in the blanks for me.
Don't waste your time on this one.
I think the whole premise of the movie is implausible and just didn't work. Here is an over-the-hill psychiatrist, and we are to believe this young, beautiful woman falls for him and comes between the happiness he and his wife shared. What's even more implausible is how the betrayed wife responds when she learns of the infidelity. Not only is she understanding, but she INSISTS her husband embark on a several month vacation with the tramp - "so we all can get a little relief from this unbearable stress". GIVE ME A BREAK!! I wanted to reach through the screen and throttle not just the adulterer but the dim-wit wife.
The fact that the whole movie takes place as a flashback after already revealing the end of the movie at the beginning (the fact that the husband had a terrible accident) - it leaves no doubt as to the outcome of the sordid affair. I think this was a poor decision as it leaves absolutely no plot twists to look forward to, as the whole movie is completely predictable. You already know the wife's resignation to the affair at the beginning of the film as she summons the mistress to the dying man's bedside and expresses no ill will towards her.
Not only is the script defective, but Noel Coward is horribly miscast (even though it is HIS screenplay). He and Leonora have absolutely no chemistry on screen whatsoever. Its interesting that Michael Redgrave was originally cast in that role, but was replaced during filming. I wonder what that was about? In the end, neither the husband or the wife cause you to feel any sympathy for either one of them. I do think Margaret Leighton played the part of strumpet quite well. But she couldn't possibly overcome all the negatives this film had. Also, as is the case of many British Productions of this era, the dialogue is hard to understand due to the clipped, fast speech pattern of the actors. I saw it on TV and couldn't even rely on closed captioning to fill in the blanks for me.
Don't waste your time on this one.
'Darling, you're making me so dreadfully ashamed'
Oct10 March 2005
By the late 1940s, after total war and subsequent insolvency, the Brits were gasping for glamour. Their movies supplied it in the Herbert Wilcox/Anna Neagle cycle of London comedies, and Gainsborough weighed in with this romantic melo where everyone suffers in splendour.
Main setting is a Park Lane flat/office. White telephones, quilted headboards, furs, fresh flowers and cocktails. Miss Leighton is gowned by Edward Molyneux. The only hint of post-war austerity is that the tea shop where the two loves of Noel Coward's life accidentally meet has run out of biscuits.
The dialogue is peppered with 'marvellous', 'simply dreadful', 'frightful', 'absolutely'. The vowels are Mayfair-posh: 'thet' for that, 'may' for my, 'Peris' as a city for Johnson to run away to. Like the pronunciation, the story's attitudes and values feel too old for escapism: World War Two and a socialist government had left them behind.
Source material is a playlet from the 1930s anthology 'Tonight at 8.30', as 'Brief Encounter' was developed from 'Still Life'. But this one has no comic relief like the Holloway/Carey byplay to throw the lovers' crises into perspective; the playlet is expanded only to pile on the agony. Blame Coward, who wrote the screenplay and the lush symphonic score. He was surrounded by old pals Johnson, Carey and Payn, with Gladys Calthrop as artistic adviser but no Cineguild (Lean, Neame or Havelock-Allan) to control his excesses.
Terence Fisher later made some stylish Hammer horrors, but here, not long out of the cutting room, his staging and camera-work are as dull as in an episode of 'Colonel March of Scotland Yard'. The illicit pair's sojourn in Venice is covered by a few cheesy back-projections. Coward's big final scene prefigures Fisher's future with Dracula and Frankenstein in that he processes about like a zombie or golem. But he is generally adequate, if never more buttoned-up, portraying a heterosexual-- unlike (say) Ian McKellen.
There is a teaser opening with Johnson doing a flashback narration as in 'Brief Encounter'. Coward does not appear until two reels in. It transpires he's Dr Christian Faber: a fashionable, uptight and overworked shrink, 'one of the most famous psychiatrists in the world'. He goes missing after wife Johnson discovers and unnervingly tolerates his fling with Leighton, her school contemporary, a divorced, fickle expat on the loose. (Johnson was 14 years older than Leighton; and though meant to be 34 in the story, she was 42.)
The title alludes to 'The Lord shall smite thee with madness and blindness and astonishment of heart' (Deuteronomy). Physician, heal thyself. As we know from his diaries, Coward did experience bouts of amour fou which he half-regretted for interfering with the work which, he once said, was 'more fun than fun'. When Dr Faber's not mooning over Leighton, cigarette in hand, his brisk way with patients resembles Capt Kinross's buttressing of morale on the lower deck in 'In Which We Serve'.
The tale could be Coward's way of obliquely acknowledging the drawbacks of his clipped, corseted approach to life and emotions, which was beginning to be mocked. He was no longer the child prodigy or even the wartime booster. In the 1950s, as kitchen sinks displaced french windows, the Master would lose touch with the mood of theatre critics (if not audiences) and would increasingly appear as a cabaret performer and featured player in others' films, mass-marketing his persona for rich Americans.
'The Astonished Heart' was his last serious stab at cinematic auteurisme. It was the diminuendo end of an ace decade on and behind the screen. For a blistering portrayal of the same sort of guilt, we must turn to his old 'Brief Encounter' colleague Trevor Howard in 'The Heart of the Matter'.
Main setting is a Park Lane flat/office. White telephones, quilted headboards, furs, fresh flowers and cocktails. Miss Leighton is gowned by Edward Molyneux. The only hint of post-war austerity is that the tea shop where the two loves of Noel Coward's life accidentally meet has run out of biscuits.
The dialogue is peppered with 'marvellous', 'simply dreadful', 'frightful', 'absolutely'. The vowels are Mayfair-posh: 'thet' for that, 'may' for my, 'Peris' as a city for Johnson to run away to. Like the pronunciation, the story's attitudes and values feel too old for escapism: World War Two and a socialist government had left them behind.
Source material is a playlet from the 1930s anthology 'Tonight at 8.30', as 'Brief Encounter' was developed from 'Still Life'. But this one has no comic relief like the Holloway/Carey byplay to throw the lovers' crises into perspective; the playlet is expanded only to pile on the agony. Blame Coward, who wrote the screenplay and the lush symphonic score. He was surrounded by old pals Johnson, Carey and Payn, with Gladys Calthrop as artistic adviser but no Cineguild (Lean, Neame or Havelock-Allan) to control his excesses.
Terence Fisher later made some stylish Hammer horrors, but here, not long out of the cutting room, his staging and camera-work are as dull as in an episode of 'Colonel March of Scotland Yard'. The illicit pair's sojourn in Venice is covered by a few cheesy back-projections. Coward's big final scene prefigures Fisher's future with Dracula and Frankenstein in that he processes about like a zombie or golem. But he is generally adequate, if never more buttoned-up, portraying a heterosexual-- unlike (say) Ian McKellen.
There is a teaser opening with Johnson doing a flashback narration as in 'Brief Encounter'. Coward does not appear until two reels in. It transpires he's Dr Christian Faber: a fashionable, uptight and overworked shrink, 'one of the most famous psychiatrists in the world'. He goes missing after wife Johnson discovers and unnervingly tolerates his fling with Leighton, her school contemporary, a divorced, fickle expat on the loose. (Johnson was 14 years older than Leighton; and though meant to be 34 in the story, she was 42.)
The title alludes to 'The Lord shall smite thee with madness and blindness and astonishment of heart' (Deuteronomy). Physician, heal thyself. As we know from his diaries, Coward did experience bouts of amour fou which he half-regretted for interfering with the work which, he once said, was 'more fun than fun'. When Dr Faber's not mooning over Leighton, cigarette in hand, his brisk way with patients resembles Capt Kinross's buttressing of morale on the lower deck in 'In Which We Serve'.
The tale could be Coward's way of obliquely acknowledging the drawbacks of his clipped, corseted approach to life and emotions, which was beginning to be mocked. He was no longer the child prodigy or even the wartime booster. In the 1950s, as kitchen sinks displaced french windows, the Master would lose touch with the mood of theatre critics (if not audiences) and would increasingly appear as a cabaret performer and featured player in others' films, mass-marketing his persona for rich Americans.
'The Astonished Heart' was his last serious stab at cinematic auteurisme. It was the diminuendo end of an ace decade on and behind the screen. For a blistering portrayal of the same sort of guilt, we must turn to his old 'Brief Encounter' colleague Trevor Howard in 'The Heart of the Matter'.
"You know I love you?...Yes, I know you know I know you love me....Good...I'm glad you know that I know you know...." (adinfinitum!)
JETTCO4824 June 2021
Terribly, terribly mannered and all rather tedious shenanigans amongst the Mayfair set. It must have been very old fashioned even at the time it was made. I love Noel Coward ...a genius. But.....sadly, not here. Apparently, Michael Redgrave should have done this part but Coward thought him wrong and had him removed. Unfortunately, Coward himself is a disaster as the philandering psychiatrist responsible for all the astonished hearts on display, He acts throughout as if he has a hot poker stuck up his backside and has no rapport at all with his dangerous liaison, Margaret Leighton. The fact that his real life boyfriend Graham Paiyne is also in the film as the doctor's right hand man does nothing to inspire credibility. The beautiful Celia Johnson and Margaret Leighton do their best but....this is a total non-starter. The whole thing comes across of one of those wonderful send-up sketches that Hugh Paddock and Betty Marsden used to do in radio's "Round the Horn"......."Oh Darling...let's not pretend. You know I know you love me. Oh Charles...Yes, I know you know I know you know I ,love you......"
Interesting study in the psychosis of a psychiatrist because of love
clanciai21 June 2017
Noel Coward as a psychiatrist deceives his wife Celia Johnson with Margaret Leighton, who doesn't really love him, which unsettles him completely when he realizes the most elementary of facts of love, namely that passion must pass. The acting is admirable throughout, Celia Johnson is always reliable as a stable character of a wife, Margaret Leighton is as doubtful as ever, she is expert at dubious roles, and Noel Coward, who also wrote both the script and the music for the film, makes a very thorough suitable case for treatment - his major scene is when he reveals to his patient who the real patient is. Like so many of Coward's plays, it's almost trivial in its exposure of very common human dilemmas, a love affair easily topples over into uncontrollable passion and most usually does, but one would have expected a psychiatrist to be able to remain in control. As he gives a lecture in the beginning of the film, he expounds on this very necessity, as he discovers Margaret Leighton in the audience and is faced by the abyss of his own weakness. The music doesn't stick, but it illustrates the whole drama perfectly, adding even more emotion to it. This is not Noel Coward's best film or performance, but it's not his worst either but well up to his reliable standard.
Too mannered and pleasant...
planktonrules5 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Noel Coward and Celia Johnson star in this movie based on a Noel Coward play. Into their rather ordinary lives comes an old friend of Celia's (Margaret Leighton). Over time, the husband falls in love with the friend and the marriage appears to be over. And the wife deals with it by very civilly walking away--allowing her husband to either get over the other woman or confirm once and for all that the new relationship is meant to be.
I am not sure if Brits are that different than us Americans or that their films were just a lot different in the old days. All I know is as I watched "The Astonished Heart" I wondered if ANY couple would deal with infidelity in this well mannered a way. Now I am NOT suggesting they act like the people in "War of the Roses" and try to kill each other--but how can a couple be THAT nice to each other when they are confronted with the husband's infidelity?! This, combined with other Coward scripts (such as "Blithe Spirit" and "Brief Encounter"), make for a consistently civilized approach to adultery...to civilized to be believable or very interesting. However, there was one thing I really liked about all this--over time, Coward's character began to suspect his new love was begin unfaithful. After all, if she's slept with him, a married man, why not other married men?! He also suffers a crisis where this once all-knowing psychiatrist is so uncertain about everything. This latter portion of the film worked better than the earlier mannered portion, but it went too far the other direction. After such a controlled first portion, how is the audience to believe when Coward becomes a jealous jerk? It just doesn't ring true. As a result, I give it a tepid score of 5--indicating it's a time passer but not much more.
By the way, I was shocked by a brief portion of the film where the Doctor discusses cases in detail with his wife--including the names of his patients!! Wow...that's professional!
I am not sure if Brits are that different than us Americans or that their films were just a lot different in the old days. All I know is as I watched "The Astonished Heart" I wondered if ANY couple would deal with infidelity in this well mannered a way. Now I am NOT suggesting they act like the people in "War of the Roses" and try to kill each other--but how can a couple be THAT nice to each other when they are confronted with the husband's infidelity?! This, combined with other Coward scripts (such as "Blithe Spirit" and "Brief Encounter"), make for a consistently civilized approach to adultery...to civilized to be believable or very interesting. However, there was one thing I really liked about all this--over time, Coward's character began to suspect his new love was begin unfaithful. After all, if she's slept with him, a married man, why not other married men?! He also suffers a crisis where this once all-knowing psychiatrist is so uncertain about everything. This latter portion of the film worked better than the earlier mannered portion, but it went too far the other direction. After such a controlled first portion, how is the audience to believe when Coward becomes a jealous jerk? It just doesn't ring true. As a result, I give it a tepid score of 5--indicating it's a time passer but not much more.
By the way, I was shocked by a brief portion of the film where the Doctor discusses cases in detail with his wife--including the names of his patients!! Wow...that's professional!
Noel Coward is miscast in his own play!!
kijii18 November 2016
With Noel Coward and Celia Johnson combining forces in this movie, I approached it hoping for something approximating the greatness of Brief Encounter (1945). But, this movie fell FAR short of any such expectations.
The idea of having a world-famous psychiatrist being unable to cure himself when faced with the same problems as those of his clients is an attractive idea for a play (Physician, heal thyself). However, the problem with this movie is very basic: Noel Coward is miscast in his own play!! His lovemaking—both to his wife (Celia Johnson) and to the "other woman" (Margaret Leighton)--is awkward beyond belief. Since that is the crux of the story, the plot falls apart before it even begins.
The idea of having a world-famous psychiatrist being unable to cure himself when faced with the same problems as those of his clients is an attractive idea for a play (Physician, heal thyself). However, the problem with this movie is very basic: Noel Coward is miscast in his own play!! His lovemaking—both to his wife (Celia Johnson) and to the "other woman" (Margaret Leighton)--is awkward beyond belief. Since that is the crux of the story, the plot falls apart before it even begins.
a Coward curio
didi-52 March 2004
Noel Coward was perhaps the wrong person to star in this odd adaptation of his own story, about an unfaithful husband and the decisions he makes.
It works mainly in flashback, so no surprise for the viewer in seeing where the affair is heading. Celia Johnson plays Coward's wife (a second teaming, following In Which We Serve, eight years earlier); while the lovely Margaret Leighton is his love interest.
The scenes between Coward and Leighton are difficult due to the total lack of chemistry, but the film is not altogether bad: Joyce Carey appears in support, and is very effective; the plot, although outlandish, can be accepted to a point. Coward himself had a low opinion of his work in The Astonished Heart, referring to himself as that splendid old Chinese character actress'.
It works mainly in flashback, so no surprise for the viewer in seeing where the affair is heading. Celia Johnson plays Coward's wife (a second teaming, following In Which We Serve, eight years earlier); while the lovely Margaret Leighton is his love interest.
The scenes between Coward and Leighton are difficult due to the total lack of chemistry, but the film is not altogether bad: Joyce Carey appears in support, and is very effective; the plot, although outlandish, can be accepted to a point. Coward himself had a low opinion of his work in The Astonished Heart, referring to himself as that splendid old Chinese character actress'.
Not one I would have chosen for screen adaptation.
Scaramouche20047 March 2005
I like Noel Coward, the wit. I like Noel Coward, the play write. I like Noel Coward, the composer and singer, but I loathe Noel Coward the actor.
To me this is a man who should have stayed firmly behind the scenes, writing his plays and composing his music and making his profound and hilarious observations. He should never have been allowed in front of a camera.
Make no mistake, he is one of the top outstanding talents of the 20th century but the man just couldn't act, and his voice...with it's rolling R's and it's overly round tonal quality...well it could quite easily grate cheese in my opinion.
This is one of my least favourite offerings from Coward, as he unconvincingly portrays a psychiatrist embarking on an affair with a much younger woman, made worse by the fact that the much younger woman is an old school friend of his much younger wife.
Celia Johnson is as much a joy to watch as ever as Cowards wronged wife. It is her performance that saves this film from abject dullness. I suppose her own little fling in Coward's Brief Encounter four years previously qualified her for this role as she must have raised a few eyebrows playing a such a promiscuous woman and this gave her the chance to win back a few fans and gain some lost sympathy.
She was such a wonderful actress and you can see why Noel Coward used her so much in many of his productions.
However the rest of the film is drab, badly acted, predictable and on the whole boring to almost arse-clenching level.
If its Noel Coward you want then take the time to watch In Which We Serve, Blythe Spirit or This Happy Breed instead. Three Noel Coward treasures. With lovely films like these I suppose we can forgive him for this turkey.
I have given this four stars purely for the addition of Miss Johnson, but on the whole I'd avoid this one like the plague.
To me this is a man who should have stayed firmly behind the scenes, writing his plays and composing his music and making his profound and hilarious observations. He should never have been allowed in front of a camera.
Make no mistake, he is one of the top outstanding talents of the 20th century but the man just couldn't act, and his voice...with it's rolling R's and it's overly round tonal quality...well it could quite easily grate cheese in my opinion.
This is one of my least favourite offerings from Coward, as he unconvincingly portrays a psychiatrist embarking on an affair with a much younger woman, made worse by the fact that the much younger woman is an old school friend of his much younger wife.
Celia Johnson is as much a joy to watch as ever as Cowards wronged wife. It is her performance that saves this film from abject dullness. I suppose her own little fling in Coward's Brief Encounter four years previously qualified her for this role as she must have raised a few eyebrows playing a such a promiscuous woman and this gave her the chance to win back a few fans and gain some lost sympathy.
She was such a wonderful actress and you can see why Noel Coward used her so much in many of his productions.
However the rest of the film is drab, badly acted, predictable and on the whole boring to almost arse-clenching level.
If its Noel Coward you want then take the time to watch In Which We Serve, Blythe Spirit or This Happy Breed instead. Three Noel Coward treasures. With lovely films like these I suppose we can forgive him for this turkey.
I have given this four stars purely for the addition of Miss Johnson, but on the whole I'd avoid this one like the plague.
Noel Coward as a man torn between two women?
mark.waltz31 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, Noel Coward is probably one of the greatest playwrights of the 20th Century. Several of his shows ("Private Lives", "Blithe Spirit", and "Present Laughter") have been seen several times recently on Broadway. As an actor, he did fine in such films as "The Scoundrel" and "In This Our Life". He was a great lead for non-romantic films or in character parts. By 1950, the great Noel was not aging gracefully. Fifty isn't old, but the camera was not kind to him. He plays a rather acid-tongued psychiatrist whose wife (Celia Johnson) loves him but looses him to an old acquaintance (Margaret Leighton) he at first can't stand. Unbelievable. It doesn't work. This is a shallow ego trip unfortunately captured hopefully not forever on celluloid. I can't say anything more about his performance other than the fact that his character is so boring that it's unbelievable that he'd be fought over by two women. The point of view and narrative in which the story is told is interesting, but it's a shame that the people involved simply aren't. Maybe what Noel was trying to say is that straight men are a perfect alternative to sleeping pills. So is this film.
lifestyles of the silly and fatuous
rupie31 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"Don't ridicule this film," says 'ptb-8 from Australia.' Sorry, but there's not much else to do with this film except to ridicule it. Absolutely everything about it is false, starting with Dr. Faber's infatuation with Leonora. What this intelligent, sophisticated man sees in such as a ditz is not explained. Then we have the wife Barbara's, stiff-upper-lip savoir-faire about the whole thing. I don't know of many deceived wives who would suggest to their philandering hubby that he go away for a while with the other woman. Next we have Faber's jealousy, which is frankly inexplicable. This sophisticated man, who counsels others for a living, becomes so obsessed with his paramour's past loves that we begin to feel he belongs on the couch himself. And the movie never portrays the affair between them as so intense as to cause him to become suicidal when it's over. His high dive from the roof is quite unbelievable. And by the way, just how does a man who has been picked up off the sidewalk after a suicide attempt wind up in his own bedroom instead of being taken to a hospital??? And, not to be cruel, but Noel Coward, brilliant as he was, just does not make for a convincing romantic lead. His homosexuality was an open secret even back then. File this one under "phony."
Astonishing music
jarrodmcdonald-128 February 2014
In motion pictures, we have many different artistic disciplines coming together to make one finished product. In some films, there are elements that have great artistic merit, while other elements fall short.
Recently, I watched THE ASTONISHED HEART. Noel Coward wrote the original play, the screenplay and even performed the lead role in the film. I guess years later, he made fun of his performance, calling himself a bad actor. But he also wrote the score for this project, and I must say that even though the story is not one of his best, and his acting is not as good as other men of his generation, he has crafted a most superb musical composition. The movie should be watched just to enjoy the soundtrack alone!
So, do we call THE ASTONISHED HEART a masterpiece, or a flop? Is it art or something less than art? Even the creator (Mr. Coward) seems to offer conflicting testimony. But I think it does have artistic merit, and I am sure others do, too.
Recently, I watched THE ASTONISHED HEART. Noel Coward wrote the original play, the screenplay and even performed the lead role in the film. I guess years later, he made fun of his performance, calling himself a bad actor. But he also wrote the score for this project, and I must say that even though the story is not one of his best, and his acting is not as good as other men of his generation, he has crafted a most superb musical composition. The movie should be watched just to enjoy the soundtrack alone!
So, do we call THE ASTONISHED HEART a masterpiece, or a flop? Is it art or something less than art? Even the creator (Mr. Coward) seems to offer conflicting testimony. But I think it does have artistic merit, and I am sure others do, too.
So Dated As To Be Unwatchable
Theo Robertson7 March 2005
I once had a conversation with my parents who told me British cinema goers in the 1940s and 50s would check to see a film's country of origin before going to see it . It didn't matter what the plot was or who was in it , if it was an American movie people would want to see it and if it was British people wouldn't want to see it . This might sound like a ridiculous generalisation but after seeing THE ASTONISHED HEART I can understand why people in those days preferred American cinema to the home grown variety Back in the 1940s
British equity was devoid of working class members and it shows in this movie . Everyone speaks in an English lad dee daa upper class accent that makes the British Royal Family sound like working class scum and what this does is alienate a large amount of a potential British audience who would no doubt prefer to be watching Jimmy Cagney in WHITE HEAT because people would have , If not related to then certainly empathised with a violent gangster in cinematic terms more than some high class English shrink in 1949 . That's entertainment , the reason people go to cinemas . Even the characters names seem bizarre - Leonora ! How many British people were named Leonora in 1949 ? And the protagonists drink cocktails . And they use words like " Austere " . You do get the feeling that this wasn't marketed for a 1949 mainstream British audience . But why should it if the majority of British cinema goers were queuing up at cinemas to watch far more entertaining American imports ?
Watching THE ATSONISHED HEART in 2005 I was astonished how dated everything was , in fact it's so dated I thought maybe it might be a spoof from THE HARRY ENDFIELD SHOW . What didn't astonish me was the fact that these types of movie came close to sinking the British film industry , an industry that didn't pick up until American money invested in crowd pleasers like ZULU , ALFIE and the James Bond movies
British equity was devoid of working class members and it shows in this movie . Everyone speaks in an English lad dee daa upper class accent that makes the British Royal Family sound like working class scum and what this does is alienate a large amount of a potential British audience who would no doubt prefer to be watching Jimmy Cagney in WHITE HEAT because people would have , If not related to then certainly empathised with a violent gangster in cinematic terms more than some high class English shrink in 1949 . That's entertainment , the reason people go to cinemas . Even the characters names seem bizarre - Leonora ! How many British people were named Leonora in 1949 ? And the protagonists drink cocktails . And they use words like " Austere " . You do get the feeling that this wasn't marketed for a 1949 mainstream British audience . But why should it if the majority of British cinema goers were queuing up at cinemas to watch far more entertaining American imports ?
Watching THE ATSONISHED HEART in 2005 I was astonished how dated everything was , in fact it's so dated I thought maybe it might be a spoof from THE HARRY ENDFIELD SHOW . What didn't astonish me was the fact that these types of movie came close to sinking the British film industry , an industry that didn't pick up until American money invested in crowd pleasers like ZULU , ALFIE and the James Bond movies
Dame Celia Molestrangler and Bunny Huckerback
malcolmgsw30 January 2017
Years ago on the famous radio programme Barry Cryer and Marty Feldman created the above named couple.They were terribly stiff upper lip upper class actors who were undoubtedly based on Celia Johnson and Noel Coward.However those writers couldn't have written a funniest script than the one written by Coward for himself.Some of the cases that Coward has to deal with are ridiculous.The older woman with her toy boy.He sounds rather like an agony aunt.Then when he gets into an affair he behaves like a schoolboy in his first infatuation.This film is wonderfully bad.No wonder Coward didn't make many films after this.Celia Johnston would do better work as would Margaret Leighton.
Coward better heard than seen.
st-shot14 July 2014
With his typical sophisticated British reserve Noel Coward barely manages to get The Astonished Heart beating before it eventually arrests completely. Coward, the author of one of cinema's classic tales of infidelity Brief Encounter, gives an oh so proper but passionless performance as a loyal marital partner swept up in an unintended romance. Sound familiar? Dr. Christian Faber is totally absorbed with his work as a psychologist while being ably supported by his understanding wife Barbara (Celia Johnson). Enter school girl chum of the past Lenora Vail (Margaret Leighton). Dr.Faber is not impressed at first but the vampish Lenora remains intrigued, pursues and the two dully hook-up. He walks on his wife but overwhelmed with guilt and the fact Leonora is still looking around he sees the folly of his act and contemplates suicide.
Coward isn't the only one chipping in a sub par performance in this mawkish affair of the heart. Leighton's femme fatale is over the top and without boundaries while the magnificent Celia Johnson simply frets and looks wide eyed at the situation as a willing martyr. Neither show any chemistry with Coward who is too wrapped up in his own emotions as he enunciates his predicament in tremolo.
Lifeless performances aside the story itself never takes on much of an urgency outside of the opening scene clue that is the linchpin of this overheated bore of tepid passion and structured decorum. It doesn't even deserve a brief encounter never mind a full viewing.
Coward isn't the only one chipping in a sub par performance in this mawkish affair of the heart. Leighton's femme fatale is over the top and without boundaries while the magnificent Celia Johnson simply frets and looks wide eyed at the situation as a willing martyr. Neither show any chemistry with Coward who is too wrapped up in his own emotions as he enunciates his predicament in tremolo.
Lifeless performances aside the story itself never takes on much of an urgency outside of the opening scene clue that is the linchpin of this overheated bore of tepid passion and structured decorum. It doesn't even deserve a brief encounter never mind a full viewing.
Tweesome Threesome
writers_reign9 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
It's interesting that it took two directors to bring this fifteen-year-old one-acter to the screen. Neither Anthony Darnborough nor Terence Fisher are terribly distinguished, in fact Fisher spent most of his working life directing pap for the Horror Circuit. Several critiques here have stated that - in their opinion - Coward was miscast. I find this odd inasmuch as Coward actually wrote the part for himself - all 10 one-act plays (in the event only 9 were produced in three sets of three) in Tonight At Eight Thirty were vehicles for himself and Gertrude Lawrence which means, of course, that Noel and Gertie were the first to play Laura and Alec in Still Life. I make this point because no one who has seen Still Life in its film adaptation as Brief Encounter can even THINK of anyone other than Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard as the two leads yet no playgoer in 1935/6 found anything lacking in the performances of Noel or Gertie. Similarly Coward created the role of Christian Faber for himself in the same collection and played it alongside his Alec in Still Life so to say that he was miscast is ludicrous to say the least. I accept that seen today The Astonished Heart seems mannered in the extreme but I also submit that as a time capsule of both the time and the singular Cowardian 'style' it is as valid as Brief Encounter, both shining examples of an England that never really existed but that I, for one, would love to believe really did.
Talkie
evans-1547521 June 2021
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
