The Barretts of Wimpole Street (1957) User Reviews

Elizabeth II

[m0rphy · 6/10 · 12 June 2002]

Amazingly Sidney Franklin got to direct "Barretts" for the second time since his original 1934 production starring Norma Shearer as Elizabeth, Frederic March as Robert and Charles Laughton as Moulton Barrett.In their roles respectively for the 1957 production were Jennifer Jones, Bill Travers and Sir John Gielgud.I have the videos of both productions so have a means of comparison. I much prefer this 1957 production.Being English, when I hear Americans (Frederic March)who make no attempt to modify their vowels when playing an English character, it sounds so phoney and grates on my ears.The three principal characters in the 1957 film are well cast.Obviously Travers & Gielgud were natives.What is intriguing was casting Jennifer Jones as the famous real life poetess.She is such a fit lady, still with us aged 83,that it was difficult to believe she was supposed to be almost bed-ridden for most of the time.Jennifer had a great love for this part and performed it in an audition piece at the A.A.D.A. with Robert Walker. her future first husband. The plot, set in London in the 1840's is basically about Moulton Barrett, an early Victorian overbearing father who has many sons and daughters but who has a suppressed incestuous desire to control his eldest daughter Elizabeth.It is in his interest to discourage Elizabeth from getting well so she does not have the time to meet eligible suitors.She was conceived in love but the other siblings appear to be the product of his forced attentions on his late wife who presumably died in childbirth. Elizabeth has a gift and love for poetry and writes an epic poem to her beloved "Flush", her King Charles spaniel.She also reads the poetry of the great Robert Browning and they start to correspond with each other.Curiosity overcomes Robert and he visits Elizabeth in her Wimpole Street London W1 address;(the building is no longer there - just a plaque commemorating the site).Romance blossoms and they find they have so much in common.When papa senses what's happening, he plots to hide, more securely, Elizabeth and the other siblings in the country under his tiranical control.Elizabeth's faithful maid acts as go-between between the lovers and eventually leaves with her mistress as she finally leaves the Wimpole street address to get wed in the Marylebone Church,(they actually filmed the scene at the real location), to Robert before a honeymoon in sunny and healthy Italy.Moulton Barrett is thwarted in his spiteful act of intended revenge, since although he wants to put down "Flush" he too has flown the nest. Jennifer Jones was experienced in playing British women,c.f. (Hazel in "Gone to Earth" (1950),Gwendolynne Chelm in "Beat The Devil" (1954).Also of note is Bill Travers' real wife who plays Henrietta who is desparate to marry her soldier boyfriend.There is also a very melodic song which provides a nice music interlude during this film.

Very watchable.

The Issue Ridden Mr. Barrett

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 17 August 2009]

This version of The Barretts Of Wimpole Street lacks for nothing, it's certainly an improvement over the 1934 version in a technical sense with the wide screen and color. It even has the same musical theme that Herbert Stothart wrote for the earlier version that starred Norma Shearer, Fredric March and Charles Laughton.

Jennifer Jones was following in some mighty big footsteps in portraying Elizabeth Barrett. Not only Norma Shearer's, but Katherine Cornell who originated the role in the original Broadway production in 1931 which ran for 370 performances in those Depression years. That is something that should tell you more than anything else about how good this play is. Jen creates her own sense of intelligent regal beauty as the frail poetess who summons up the courage and strength to stand up to her tyrannical father.

Charles Laughton was widely quoted as saying that in his portrayal of the issue ridden Moulton Barrett, the censors couldn't censor the gleam in his eye to get past the Code. The Code by 1957 was cracking and John Gielgud used a couple of direct physical moves rather than camera closeups to show his incestuous feelings for his daughter. Gielgud still gives a fine account of himself, though Mr. Laughton set the standard for that role. On stage it was originated by Charles Waldron who moviegoers will best remember from his last part as General Sternwood in The Big Sleep.

Bill Travers plays a somewhat different Robert Browning than Brian Aherne on stage and Fredric March on the screen. Both of those men are refined types and Browning is a bit more boisterous in this film than he was in the previous one. Still he's ready to do right by Jones and take her from the tyranny she lives under.

Though the 1934 film is an MGM classic, none of the people associated with this version have anything to be ashamed about. This is a story that could be made today. I can see the casting already, Hugh Grant as Robert Browning, Kate Winslet as Elizabeth Barrett, and Tom Wilkinson as Moulton.

I'd pay for a ticket to that. Until then we have two very good classic screen versions.

good movie

[mpgmpg123 · 6/10 · 16 September 2007]

I thought this was a very good movie. I always found it amazing that Jennifer Jones was so effective in it as she was hardly a young woman when making this movie. Nevertheless, you hardly notice it and she is really excellent in it. I also thought Gielgeud (I think I am misspelling his name!) and McKenna were also excellent. I love when she is able to tell him after he orders her to get the dog to kill it, "She took Flush with her." It is such a triumph for Barret, for the sister, and of course for Flush too!!! Another reviewer mentioned that they kept thinking of The Heiress in watching this movie. I have thought so too at times. I feel De Haviland would have been great in this role, or actually in a few other of Jones' roles over the years too (Good Morning Miss Dove, Love Letters, and Cluny Brown all come to mind). But Jones was wonderful in each and in this one too. She certainly makes one seek out some of Barret and Browning's poems.

Respectable remake of earlier film

[sdave7596 · 7/10 · 17 June 2012]

"The Barretts of Wimpole Street" made in 1957, is a remake of an earlier MGM movie made in 1934. Here Jennifer Jones plays the invalid poetess Elizabeth Barrett. The film focus primarily on her, but also tells the story of her siblings and her father (John Gielgud). Elizabeth Barrett is an invalid, confined to her bedroom, where she writes poetry. Her father is a stern and tyrannical man, obsessing over her illness, which we are told is a serious heart ailment. Elizabeth meets the poet Robert Browning (Bill Travers), and two quickly form a bond of friendship, which becomes more romantic later on. Elizabeth overcomes much of her illness, urged on by Browning, much to the dismay of her father. Virginia McKenna has a strong supporting role as Elizabeth's sister. She falls in love with a Captain, and incurs her father's wrath; in a cruel and heartbreaking scene, he makes her swear on a bible never to see him again. Elizabeth begins to see her father for who he really is; a man hardened by life and the loss of his wife. In a creepy scene, he seems to profess his love for Elizabeth that clearly has incestuous overtones. Elizabeth knows she has to get away from her father, which she does, marrying Browning. Overall, the film is beautiful to look at; the technicolor is well-done, and the performances are respectable. It is difficult to judge Jennifer Jones in this remake vs. Norma Schearer's in the earlier one, since both were made at different times. Shearer was a more theatrical actress, typical of the 1930's; Jones is more of a natural actress. I think Jones pulls it off nicely. John Gielgud plays his part with all the tyranny and bluster required of him. Bill Travers as Robert Browning is respectable, although at times he seems to yell his lines. THe film drags a bit at times, but overall, as far as remakes go this is a well-made film.

Well worth watching

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 22 June 2022]

1957's 'The Barretts of Wimpole Street' is not the first version of Rudolf Beiser's stage play or the real life romance of Elizabeth Barrett and Robert Browning. There is also the 1934 film, seen two years ago, with Fredric March, Norma Shearer and Charles Laughton and aslso directed by Sidney Franklin, which is on the whole a great film especially the performances of Shearer and Laughton (March and the overlength being the weak links). Despite being nervous about it being an extremely close remake, it was still seen anyway because of the story and for the wonderful Sir John Gielgud.

Actually found this a well worth watching and worthy remake, or more other version, and it fares better than quite a lot of them. The reason why there was apprehension about this is due to having seen some very close, word for word, shot for shot remakes that are abysmally executed, a very strong example being 1998's 'Psycho', and was really hoping that it would not be on that level. Thankfully it's not and it didn't feel completely pointless, as there is enough for it to stand on its own and a lot works on its own merits. The earlier film is the superior film definitely in my view, but this version of 'The Barretts of Wimpole Street' shouldn't immediately be written off.

'The Barretts of Wimpole Street' isn't perfect. It does drag at times, the original did do as well but not as significantly, especially in the final act which feels over stretched and lacks tension.

Did feel too that it does focus a little too much on the romance, which isn't as intriguing or as atmospheric as the father and daughter relationship (which was always more interesting before) and it is here where some over faithfulness is apparent. That Bill Travers is on the bland side at times doesn't help.

However, there are a lot of things done right. It is very sumptuously and atmospherically made and doesn't feel too stagy. Jones looks absolutely beautiful in her costumes. Bronislau Kaper's score is haunting and lusciously scored without being too melodramatic. Franklin gives direction as polished, as sensitive and as distinguished as other works of his and throughout 'The Barretts of Wimpole Street' is written with great intelligence and dignity. It doesn't suffer from being too talky like other play-to-film adaptations did at the time and the story remains gripping and didn't feel draggy or creaky mostly.

Especially in the father and daughter relationship which effectively gives one the shivers and has some real intensity. Travers and Jones do have some nice subtle chemistry but it doesn't have the same impact as the chemistry between Jones and Gielgud. The supporting cast are solid and Jones gives a nuanced, deeply felt performance (didn't think her pallid at all), but the acting honours go to Gielgud at his most sinister as a monster of a character.

In summary, well worth watching and worthy. 7/10.

Insipid!

[JohnHowardReid · 6/10 · 28 June 2017]

Copyright 1957. A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. New York opening at the Radio City Music Hall: 17 January 1957 (ran two weeks). U.S. release: 1 February 1957. U.K. release: 1 April 1957. Australian release: 27 May 1957. 9,453 feet; 105 minutes.

SYNOPSIS: Tyrannical Victorian father keeps his grown-up daughter a virtual prisoner in his Wimpole Street (London) home.

NOTES: The stage play opened on Broadway at the Empire on 9 February 1931 and ran 372 performances. Katharine Cornell and Brian Aherne starred. The 1934 film starred Norma Shearer, Charles Laughton and Fredric March, and, like this version, was directed by Sidney Franklin.

COMMENT: Originally designed as a vehicle for Grace Kelly, this lifeless re-make, filmed entirely in England, was the first movie Franklin had directed since "The Good Earth" (1937). He produced twelve features in the intervening years. This version of Barretts was also the second last film with which Franklin was associated in any capacity. It is a sad farewell to an often distinguished career, dating way back to 1914.

Fortunately the movie is redeemed in part by Sir John Gielgud who makes his Barrett such a monster incarnate, he acts everyone else – except Susan Stephen (in the small but important part of Bella Hedley – right off the screen. No wonder Jennifer Jones makes such a pallid Elizabeth. But at least she is watchable. Bill Travers, on the other hand is an absolute disaster. Although he tries hard to make his dull, slow voice move impetuously, his "exuberance" takes the form of repeating everything twice. True, he does seem to have more than his fair share of stilted dialogue, but repeating it does not make it sing, it only makes it worse.

Franklin's 1934 version had a force and intensity, this monotonously routine, watered-down, slow, overly mannered, and – aside from Gielgud and Stephen – totally insipid version signally lacks.

In the spirit of Public Service, this review is specific to the 1957 remake of the . . .

[pixrox1 · 6/10 · 15 May 2020]

. . . infamous play concerning some Real Life poets and the nefarious father of one such principle character. Following the thread of an associate reviewer known to me detailing the frustration, waste and anguish of battling Evil Bot censorship during prolonged attempts to comment on this flick with perfect decorum well within the bedrock American Right of Free Speech, my assessment of this sorry situation prompts the following tips for those not wishing to have their lives ruined and shortened battling the vicious suppression machine: 1)Whatever you do, make sure you do NOT include the title of this film within any review of it (try typing it in all caps, and you will see that the insidious spell checker will underline 40% of the words as misspellings, even when they're not!); 2)Do NOT use terms such as "Truth," "Factual" or "Real Life," because the unholy automaton which sorts through comments is partial to the vile filth found on the nefarious "Fair and Balanced" fake news network, and 3)Be sure that you do not make any attempt at critical thinking, or suggest such things as Logic, Analogy and Allegory during your review; if you dare anything along these lines, you'll surely be squelched, stifled, stymied and shut up!

Truly beautiful

[Nemesis7293-1 · 10/10 · 20 July 2005]

Sidney Franklin's 1957 remake of his own 1934 "The Barretts Of Wimpole Street" is virtually perfect and stands head and shoulders above the original which is a very good, very enjoyable film, but which is also extremely saccharin in tone. A fault which this version never falls prey to. Thanks to the talents of all involved especially those of the excellent Jennifer Jones and the genius John Gielgud this version succeeds almost supernaturally in being amazingly affecting without even a hint of the maudlin.

The true story of the material is undoubtedly one of the greatest love stories in human memory, and the depth and wonder of that is ably conveyed here. We not only love to see love triumph, but also to see evil defeated. I have rarely been so satisfied on that account by any film as this one. The defeat and humiliation of John Gielgud's tyrannical, incestuous Mr. Barrett is exquisitely portrayed.

Both Jones and Gielgud should have received Academy Awards. Compare the two versions and see for yourself.

Strong performances

[HotToastyRag · 7/10 · 10 June 2023]

I've never seen the 1934 version, so I have nothing to compare with, but John Gielgud was sufficiently overbearing, cold, and creepy in the 1957 The Barretts of Wimpole Street for me to not even want to rent the original. There's an undercurrent of incest when he exerts control over his daughter, so it was probably a risk for him to take the role.

It was not a risk, however, for Jennifer Jones to take on Elizabeth Barrett. She's the queen of melodrama (the predecessor of Susan Hayward) and often has characters who get sick or die in her films. In this one, Jonesie is an invalid and meekly submits to all her father's wishes - until one day she meets the energetic, magnetic Robert Browning (played by Bill Travers). They write each other beautiful letters and fall in love, but she fears they can never overtake her father. It's a classic melodrama and shows off her great training as a heavy dramatic actress.

Young Virginia McKenna nearly steals the show as Jonesie's younger, fiery sister who occasionally has the guts to stand up to their father. They're both clad in beautiful period gowns, and Virginia has a fresh-faced sweetness mixed spunk that reminded me of Katharine Hepburn in Alice Adams. Plus it's really cute to see her act with her husband when they're not paired up as love interests. There aren't any Born Free sparks between them; it's called acting, and Virginia lets Bill romance her onscreen sister.

If it's a word-for-word remake of the1934 film, why bother seeing this one?!

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 24 August 2010]

"The Barretts of Wimpole Street" (1957) is a word-for-word remake of the classic 1934 version by the same name. And, as such, I wonder why anyone should even bother seeing this film. After all, since the original version was a very nice and well-acted film (despite Charles Laughton overacting a bit), I can't see seeing a re-make--especially one that took almost no effort to make. Now I am not saying the 1957 film is bad--it is lovely to look at and the story is interesting. I just don't believe in rewarding studios for slap-dash remakes. In fact, unless the original film is seriously flawed and the remake corrects this, I can see no logical reason to see the remake and usually make it a habit to avoid them! So why did I watch the 1957 film? Well, I was flying cross-country and this film was one of the choices on the menu for in-flight films. And, in this sense, it fit the bill--and was pleasant but not particularly inspired.

Above average adaptation

[peacham · 9/10 · 11 October 1999]

Although not as engaging as the original play, This film adaptation of BARRETTS OF WIMPOLE ST is a very well made film. John Gielgud gives one of his finest screen performances as Edward Barrett, he is despicable yet worthy of pity. Jennifer Jones is strong as Elizabeth and her character unfolds beautifully before your eyes. The actors who play the clan of brothers nicely delineate each role so they are individuals and not a unit. this film does suffer a bit from the over emphasis on the elizabeth/browning relationship as opposed to the father/daughter one but I suppose this was the hollywood trend toward romance at the time.

The use of color really adds to the melodrama.

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 4 September 2023]

Certainly old fashioned in late 1950's standards and on the surface an odd choice for a remake, this does benefit from a big screen treatment in color rather than a videotaped TV special. Director Sidney Franklin returns 23 years later to helm the remake of his 1934 classic, and is aided by the casting of Jennifer Jones as Elizabeth Barrett and John Gielgud as her domineering father who loves her, but not in a noble way, preferring to control every movement of her and her many siblings. He has his hands full when she falls in love with Robert Browning, who is played with perhaps too much boyish enthusiasm by cleft chinned Bill Travers.

You're not getting much difference in the story as it's virtually the same script, and I began to notice how much it has in common with Henry James' "Washington Square", filmed 8 years before as "The Heiress". I didn't find much chemistry between Jones and Travers (unlike Norma Shearer and Frederic March), and she gets great scenes with Gielgud who shows a different dimension than Charles Laughton did. It's a beautiful production updated with Cinemascope that brought romance and beauty back in a turbulent time.

Daddy Dearest

[FilmOtaku · 4/10 · 7 January 2005]

"The Barretts of Wimpole Street" (1957) tells the story of the romance of real-life poets Elizabeth Barrett and Robert Browning, despite many odds. In 1840's London, the Barrett household is one of fear and unhappiness. Elizabeth, (Jennifer Jones) the oldest child of the family, has been sick and forced to stay in her bedroom for the last several years. Also in the household are her two sisters and five brothers, all of whom are under the thumb of their tyrannical father, Edward (John Gielgud) a widower who found that since he lost the love of his life, he would not allow any of his children to marry either, in particular, Elizabeth, the one daughter who he claims to love. Elizabeth has been corresponding with a young poet Robert Browning (Bill Travers), however, and finds that the more she falls in love with him, the healthier she gets, but the healthier she gets, the more desperate and tyrannical her father gets.

The story as I told it sounds like it could be kind of interesting and fun in a high-drama type way, which is what I was expecting, but it actually was pretty boring. And when it wasn't boring, it was creepy. Gielgud is a great actor of course, and was great as Robert Browning, a man who needed to look up Freud in a couple of decades. His devotion and stranglehold on Elizabeth was actually pretty disturbing, particularly when his desperation grew to a fever pitch at the end of the film. I have never liked Jennifer Jones, and I didn't like her in this movie. I'm not sure what it is about her exactly, other than the fact that I consider her a mediocre actress – perhaps it is because she always has this look on her face that is a weird cross between anguish and when you feel a sneeze coming on. With a story as bizarre as this one, so much more could have been done to make this film a good one, but unfortunately it just turned out mediocre at best. 4/10 --Shelly

Wilt Thou Have My Hand To Lie Along With Thine?

[jhkp · 8/10 · 4 September 2017]

This story of the courtship of two poets, the invalid Elizabeth Barrett, and the vital Robert Browning, makes for a very enjoyable couple of hours. It's nice to see a film based on a well-written play, with fine characterizations and good direction. The film is surprisingly suspenseful; apparently mundane, everyday matters absorb us slowly inexorably, until we realize they are matters of life and death.

As Elizabeth Barrett, Jennifer Jones gives one of her finest portrayals. Unfortunately, it's not one she's especially remembered for, because the movie doesn't seem to be shown all that much. As Elizabeth Barrett, she's required to be the emotional center of the film, and she accomplishes that, with great warmth and simplicity. You'll find yourself rooting for her. Though she's the one American in an all-British cast, she never comes across a Barrett from Hollywood Boulevard.

The great John Gielgud is a bit more problematic in the role of Moulton Barrett, the tyrannical father the large Barrett brood lives in fear of upsetting. At this point, Gielgud, though he had appeared in films, had not especially mastered (or so it would appear) the subtle technique of performing for the camera. He's not bad, but he's stagy. And I also wonder if he's the best choice for the role. But at least he's strong, and makes his presence felt. This works for the film far more than it detracts.

The film also features the married team (though I'm not sure if they were, at the time) of Bill Travers and Virginia McKenna, later the stars of Born Free. Travers plays Robert Browning; he may not be everyone's idea of Browning, but he's a good actor and he has a lot of energy. McKenna plays the role of the younger sister that was played in the 1934 version by Maureen O'Sullivan. The two performances could not be more different; O'Sullivan playing the frightened little ingenue (quite well, it must be said), and McKenna playing it much more internally and with a stillness and a subtle fear. It's a very fine performance.

The supporting cast is uniformly good. Sidney Franklin (who hadn't directed a film in 20 years) does a beautiful job. The sets and costumes, in color and CinemaScope, are perfect.

I really enjoyed it.

Something poetic

[jarrodmcdonald-1 · 23 February 2022]

Sidney Franklin directed MGM's original version of this story in 1934. It was based on a successful stage play that producer Irving Thalberg purchased for his wife Norma Shearer. On Broadway, Katharine Cornell had been successful playing Elizabeth Barrett Browning; in fact, she reprised the role several times throughout her illustrious stage career.

When Miss Shearer appeared in the first big screen version, she too had a hit, winning over skeptical critics with her carefully measured performance of the reclusive poet. A lot of Shearer's success could be attributed to Franklin's direction, so when MGM decided to remake the property, Franklin was again assigned to direct.

Originally MGM planned to put Grace Kelly in the remake, but she turned down several roles and was put on suspension. So Jennifer Jones stepped in, which was a dream come true for the actress. Miss Jones, under her previous stage name, had used a scene from the original play to audition for drama school when she was younger.

Once Jones was signed, she and Sidney Franklin went to London where they joined an all-British cast and crew to begin work on the remake. Robert Browning would be played by handsome leading man Bill Travers; and Travers' wife Virginia McKenna was also cast, playing one of Elizabeth's sisters.

While the earlier version featured Charles Laughton as domineering Edward Moulten-Barrett, this later production utilized the acting services of John Gielgud. Gielgud is exceptional as the tyrannical Victorian father, and his performance is a bit more modest than Laughton's had been. For instance, Laughton would use his eyes to suggest incestuous tendencies that may have been an aspect of the father-daughter relationship. However, biographers agree that none of this can be proved about the Barretts; only that Edward was very controlling and did threaten to disinherit his daughters if they married suitors who didn't meet with his approval (which seemed to be all of them).

Sidney Franklin had directed Jennifer Jones in retake scenes from her earlier 1946 motion picture DUEL IN THE SUN. But other than this, he hadn't directed a film in twenty years when this remake was produced. He had spent the 1940s and much of the 1950s serving as a writer-producer at Metro. But he was once again coaching actors in this extravagantly budgeted British undertaking. It would be his last film as director.

Perhaps because television was now ruling the entertainment industry, the picture did not fare too well when it hit movie screens. That doesn't make it any less worthy of our attention now, since the efforts of everyone involved make it a beautiful and special experience. There's something poetic about THE BARRETTS OF WIMPOLE STREET.

An unnecessary remake

[malcolmgsw · 5/10 · 2 April 2021]

MGM were on the slide in the fifties. They decided to combat the decline in audiences by remaking past successes in colour and wide-screen. Sometimes this worked as with Ben Hur,but mostly failed abysmally. This is a case in point. They didn't bother to do research into whom would be interested in seeing this film. They remade the 1934 film. Now colour was fine but wide-screen is ridiculous. This is a stage bound film and the pictorial composition is dictated by this. People conversing for both edges of the screen and inability to compose close ups.

This film is quite full at times. Better leading actors were essential to give this a chance of being remotely interesting.

One Lucky Cocker Spaniel

[Spaniel-5 · 9/10 · 18 November 1998]

Being owned by two English cocker spaniels my comments are a bit biased.

This film is intriguing, not just for the overall story but the way Flush, Elizabeth's cocker, was so much integral part of it. Given the 120 line poem that she wrote about Flush it was pleasing to see that Flush was very much a part of the movie.

Sir John Gielgud was a superb actor cast in the role of Elizabeth's tyrannical father. Jennifer Jones performance above par. And of course there was Flush. One very lucky cocker spaniel.

Pater Pathology

[gleywong · 8 December 2003]

Throughout this film, I kept thinking of Director Wm. Wyler's adaptation of Henry James's novel, with Olivia de Havilland in "The Heiress." What made that a better movie? was it the casting? the directing? the actor chemistry? or all of the above? Previous reviewers of "Barretts" all praised Gielgud's acting, but I wondered why he accepted the role, or could stand himself in it. I could barely view him on screen, so wooden, so inhuman was his incarnation of Moulton Barrett: this was not a person, it was a caricature. Compare, instead, Ralph Richardson's interpretation of a similar emotion-starved and pathologically driven father in his love for his daughter.

As for the casting of Bill Travers as Robert Browning, I felt he lacked any subtlety, any "poetry" in his manner, any semblance of an understanding of female psychology or charm, most of all, lacked any chemistry with Jones as Elizabeth. He seemed to be barking all of his lines as if he were on the football field. Can you imagine his role cast instead with, say David Farrar, or one of the Ealing Studio regulars? Fans of Jennifer Jones may still want to sit through this movie to see her conception of the poetess. But when we compare this role with her performance in, say, "Wild at Heart [Driven to Earth]," the great Powell-Pressburger film, or even "Madame Bovary," it falls far short of full realization. In those films, she revealed passion, coyness, charm and geniune fear, gripping us with the emotions of her predicament. As noted by another reviewer, here she appears far too healthy, even too mature (although that would be an accurate estimation of her actual age when she met Browning, according to her biography) to be believable. Of course we can accept some cinematic license -- we don't have to expect that Mimi should actually be consumptive in "La Boheme"--but Jones's conception confused strength of character with bodily health -- her fainting on the stairs was almost a joke, more a sign of her rare weakness as an actress. In fact, one actually felt more pity for her sister, as portrayed by Virginia McKenna, in a lively,deeply felt role, in which we feared for Henrietta's emotional health and future in that stifling household.

So, shall we lay the blame at the foot of the hapless director Sidney Franklin? All the settings, the costumes, even the lovely tune, beautifully sung by Jones at the piano should have offered the right support. The clumsiness of the production is almost encapsulated in that little scene around the piano: when Jennifer sings it (whether or not she herself indeed voiced it), there is lyricism and musicality, and one longs for her to continue, but everyone, namely her brothers, is urged to join in. None of them can really sing, they shout out the melody, drowning Elizabeth's soprano, and the whole scene, at least for this viewer, is ruined. Just like the movie.

Of a possible four ****, I give it my lowest rating one star*.

The trauma of jealous father

[clanciai · 9/10 · 16 March 2023]

Twenty years earlier the same director made the same film in black and white, and this is supposed to be an improvement. It is in technicolour, and it is hard to believe any version could be better. They should actually be quite equal, as both versions use the same script and the same music - only the actors are different. It is also hard to believe that any actress could be better than Jennifer Jones, a specialist in sensitive roles approaching a breaking point, and it is also hard to believe that Fredric March was more perfect in the role than Bill Travers, who couldn't have been more convincing. On the other hand, John Gielgud and Charles Laughton should really have been equals in the formidable role of Edward Barrett, a Dickensian tyrant of the highest degree, who must be the more pitied for his fatal lack of understanding and psychology, refusing to realise that by exerting total strict control of his children they must be stifled, as Elizabeth expressly says, "I am a dying woman", only because of her overbearing father, while Browning actually restores her to life and makes her live for the first time in her life. The actors are all outstanding, but the greatest credit is with the play, which was rightfully a tremendous success from the start, and both films just have to make the play triumph.