Thursday, March 26, 2009

Thoughts on This Happy Breed


I watched David Lean's 1944 This Happy Breed yesterday for the first time and was very pleased with this British soap opera, adapted from a play by Noel Coward. It covers 20 years in the life of a middle-class British family, much the same way Coward's Cavalcade covered decades in the life of an upper-class family 11 years earlier in 1933. David Lean's direction and the leads' formidable talents (Celia Johnson - so wonderful an actress, Robert Newton, Stanley Holloway, John Mills) kept everything moving at a brisk pace and held one's attention as the years raced by. Afterwards I did some reading up on it and three things came to mind, two of which I had read just recently online.

First, I was reminded of something Arbogast said in his post on the 1951 film Five where he made reference to critics not actually seeing a movie but writing a review or synopsis anyway. As I scoured write-ups on This Happy Breed the first one that crossed my path was a brief, positive write up at a film site in which the critic quoted the lines spoken by Robert Newton to his grandson at the film's end. The only problem with that? That scene is in the play, not the movie. Our esteemed critic looked up This Happy Breed for quotes, came across lines from the play not contained within the movie and went with it. Oops.

Second, I was reminded of something Roger Ebert said by way of Jim Emerson's blog Scanners in this post. The summary of Ebert's thoughts being how surprising it is when a critic, in this case Ebert, discovers everyone else thinks the opposite way about a movie than he does. I felt this way as I searched and found one positive review after another, confirming my own views on the film, until I came across this from Halliwell's Film Guide, most likely from editor John Walker since the review was a part of the new restoration of the movie in 2008 and Leslie Halliwell died in 1989: Coward's domestic epic is unconvincingly written and largely miscast, but sheer professionalism gets it through, and the decor is historically interesting.

I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion and we all see things differently and yadda, yadda, yadda but the person who wrote that not only stands alone but clearly didn't see the movie, so it's a two-for-one deal really. Anyone who couldn't see the tremendous performances given by Celia Johnson and Robert Newton is someone who simply can't see good acting. Miscast? That's insane. Johnson and Newton are perfectly cast. They seem like an average unglamorous middle-class couple. Some of the actors are a little old for their parts at first, it's true, but that's because it was easier for the filmmakers to put lots of cover-up on their faces for the earlier scenes when they are in their twenties and then show them as is twenty years later in the story, rather than cast young actors for the early scenes and apply unconvincing old-age make-up later on. Makes sense to me. Unconvincingly written? Maybe Coward's dialogue lacks the necessary naturalist, realistic ring to the modern ear but I found the characters and the scenarios surrounding them refreshingly lacking in the usual Coward upper-crust cleverness. All in all, I'd say it was one of Coward's better efforts (although he had little hand in the screenplay from what I understand).

Third, I thought of the sad life of Robert Newton. Interestingly, I had just spoken of him to my wife a week before after I came across some archival photos of him being arrested for being drunk and disorderly or driving while intoxicated or the like, photos I would never put up here. His alcoholism weakened his body until at the early age of 50 his heart gave out and he died. But he was an excellent actor and left behind a legacy that few actors or, well, anyone can claim the equivalent of. You see, Robert Newton played Long John Silver in Walt Disney's Treasure Island in 1954. Now plenty of actors had played Silver before, including Wallace Beery in the 1934 version, and others from Errol Flynn to Basil Rathbone had played pirates, and they all used voices they thought fitting for the character. But it was Newton who decided to use that voice - the voice - the pirate voice. The one we all know. Now it's true, Lionel Barrymore is credited with the first use of "Arrrggh" in Treasure Island (1934) but it was Newton that provided the full accent, his native Dorset accent, one of the West Country Dialects, that gave the world the Pirate Voice, as it is now known and spoken by people like me ( and you too right? ) every September 19th, on International Talk Like a Pirate Day.

Fine performances, crisp direction and fast pacing all made This Happy Breed an enjoyable experience for me. It's an excellent showcase for the talents of Johnson, Newton, Holloway and Mills, all in top form. And it's a reminder that Newton was gone too soon, but left a legacy behind most actor's couldn't dream of, outside of possibly Bela Lugosi: He's been copied, imitated and impersonated by practically everyone on the planet at one time or another in their lives. Unfortunately most folks don't know it, so this September 19th, be sure and tell anyone who calls you "matey" that their imitating Robert Newton. It's time he got his due.

42 comments:

Marilyn said...

I haven't seen this film, but it sounds well worth the time. John Mills and Celia Johnson are particular favorites of mine.

Greg said...

Arrgh, me matey Marilyn, it be well worth the time if you be in the mood for...

Sorry.

Yes it is worth it despite what that lumphead John Walker thinks. I thought it was an engaging piece for those of who like old school sweeping melodramas involving multiple familial trials and tribulations. And Celia Johnson in particular was simply superb. Boy, what a great actress!

Fox said...

Greg-

First, I'm pleased to hear about this movie. I've never seen it at the video store in the Lean section and am just being introduced to it now.

Now...

I brought this up during Rick's TOERIFC last week, but the "I-haven't-seen-this-movie-but-I'm-gonna-write-about-it-anyway" feeling comes to me when I read David Thomson's stuff (specifically his New Biographical Dictionary and the new Have You Seen... books).

Now, I like Thomson b/c I think he has a unique perspective, but there are times when I read his thoughts on movies and think to myself, "you really didn't watch this... did you???". I think because he wants to be a completist that he sometimes "speed reads" through films. That would be unfortunate, and a huge knock against the reputation of critics/movie writers (which is already not so good).

Arbogast said...

It can really start to get your goat as you run across more and more critical pieces that make you think the critic either hasn't seen the movie in question at all or that it's been so long since the viewing that the criticisms must be touched by the shadow of doubt. For years, so many cult reviews of Fulci's Don't Torture the Duckling made reference to dead dogs and nobody had seen the goddamn thing in ages so nobody knew that the initial critic had confused it with The Lizard with the Skin of a Woman and then every critic since just copied what the first critic wrote (including, to his shame, Mike Weldon in The Psychotronic Encyclopedia of Film). I wouldn't make a big deal out of it if the review were respectful (yea or nay) but when the writer is such a high-handed prick and shows his hand to be a bluff, it's hard not to take the guy off at the knees. So fuck you, John Brosnan, you big fat liar!

Arbogast said...

Also, very sad about Robert Newton. Like Robert Anderson in Five (who never made it to 50), you look at the truly impressive list of credits for the actor and you just want to go back in time and shake him and say "Look at your work! Look at all you've done! Why are you pissing it away?!"

But as David Mamet once said... go understand actors.

Marilyn said...

Go understand David Mamet! He's a great playwright but not much good at any of the other things he tries to do. His essays are atrocious. I had to read Arthur Miller's essays to clear the phlegm of Mamet's out of my head.

Greg said...

Fox, I remember that now. I think many major critics "speed read" classics they haven't seen. Leonard Maltin doesn't hide the fact that many of the films in his guides he hasn't seen and that staff writes them up, so it's okay because he's not trying to fool anyone. But with Thomson, and I have a love/hate relationship with him, and others, I've gotten that feeling too.

But other critics I've read over the years in almanac type books where the history of film is covered, I've often noticed plot descriptions that are just wrong or too much of a focus on a general point to avoid specifics.

At other times, while I don't doubt the critic has seen the film, I question whether they really paid attention or even understood it. That happens a lot and may just chalk up to a difference of opinion but it's more than that. Sometimes if there are enough misquotes and bizarre, just plain factual errors then I get the feeling the critic wasn't really paying attention.

I notice that a lot with Roger Ebert, and I like Ebert, but there have been many a time where I felt the whole point, theme or premise of a film flew two or three miles over his head. The thing is, he's so popular and well read that I tend to think I notice it more with him simply because I've read so much of his work, so generally speaking, I let it go. I've missed a ton of things in movies and if I had to write down my thoughts on every damn one of them I'm sure I'd produce some turkeys too.

But I also think some critics decide they want to dislike something before going in, like that idiot that finally saw 2001 and Sunrise and panned them, and so they just play with their i-phone while the movie's running.

Arbogast said...

I'd go even farther to say he's an intermittently great playwright. (And I won't even go into his TV show.) But he's right - actors are so often their own worst enemies.

Greg said...

For years, so many cult reviews of Fulci's Don't Torture the Duckling made reference to dead dogs and nobody had seen the goddamn thing in ages so nobody knew that the initial critic had confused it with The Lizard with the Skin of a Woman

Arbo, I didn't know about any of that. That's something else. I know there are examples in my head that I'm simply forgetting now but I've seen things like that before. I went through volumes of History of the Movies type books as a kid, and although I can't think of a specific example right now I know there were times when I would finally see a movie after reading about it for years and there wouldn't be a character or setting or specific plot point that I had always read about. I'm sure the same thing was happening. Before IMDB and Netflix most movie info was picked up from whoever was the last person to write about it.

Greg said...

At least the founders of Talk like a Pirate Day made Newton the Patron Saint of it so perhaps he will get recognition for that at least. But as a few of us bloggers know, either directly or indirectly through a family member, alcoholism, like any other addiction, knows no reason.

Fox said...

Arbo-

That's disturbing what you describe about the chain of reviews that started from one inaccurate source and just spilled over into the larger stream of thought... and stayed that way!.

I mean, I get a lot of those giallo films mixed up myself, but when you see a trend developing showing that a large group of writers aren't doing their homework, well, that is just upsetting.

I mentioned this briefly in the comment section on your Blindness review, but I think that the above mentioned kind of viral opinions/stances on movies happen a lot in the blogger world.

Fox said...

But other critics I've read over the years in almanac type books where the history of film is covered, I've often noticed plot descriptions that are just wrong or too much of a focus on a general point to avoid specifics.

Greg-

I think that is the inherent error in trying to write comprehensive, or definitive, or canonical books. Again, I LOVE reading those books, but inevitably there are gonna be errors b/c it's just impossible for one writer (or even a team of writers) to cover a large span of time and work.

Again... I love the effort, though.

P.S. When I said "I brought this up at Rick's", I hope you didn't think I was saying "this topic is old hat"... I was just trying to connect the two. Or maybe I am just being paranoid b/c I've had too much coffee on an empty stomach this morning.

bill r. said...

Always with the Mamet bashing.

Here's a synopsis of The Ninth Configuration I came across by Mark Kermode, who is even on the DVD commentary! So I know he's seen it at least once...

'I believe in the devil, because the prick keeps doing commercials.' In an experimental asylum, combat-shocked soldiers adapt Shakespeare's plays for dogs ('I'm doing Hamlet, but if I cast a great Dane ...') under the mysterious Colonel Kane. This tragic-comic cult weirdie is endlessly quotable.

That's...that's not accurate.

Greg said...

When I said "I brought this up at Rick's", I hope you didn't think I was saying "this topic is old hat"...

No, no, I just thought you had become delusional and thought you were living inside the movie Casablanca and I figured it might be dangerous to say something about it and break the illusion.

Greg said...

I still haven't seen The Ninth Configuration so I don't know what's inaccurate about that but that's what I was describing to Arbo. When one does see it, if they had read that they would be looking for that scene and it wouldn't be there. Or something, because, again, I don't know what the inaccurate part is.

bill r. said...

Okay, without giving too much away, ONE inmate, Jason Miller, wants to stage Shakespeare's plays for dogs. One, maybe two scenes, deal with this. Kermode implies that the movie is about the patients of this asylum banding together to stage Hamlet with a dog cast, and that is NOT what the film is about at ALL. It's a subplot, at best.

Fox said...

I haven't seen The Ninth Configuration either, but I want too.

Greg said...

Bill, that's a great example then of what I've found in those compilation books. Some weird or odd bit of business becomes famous from a movie and gradually becomes misunderstood as the movie, or at least as the main thrust of it until you see it and realize it's not.

Arbogast said...

That's disturbing what you describe about the chain of reviews that started from one inaccurate source and just spilled over into the larger stream of thought... and stayed that way!

A part of this problem is that Weldon's book and John Stanley's Creature Features volumes whetted appetites for guides... and writers who wanted to publish their own guides suddenly had to be experts on hundreds of movies that weren't necessarily readily available.

Less excusable are more recent books, written in the age of almost instant access to any movie under discussion. John Kenneth Muir's Horror Films of the 70s, written in this decade, is tattooed with glaring errors, confounding "did we or did we not see the same movie" mistakes... and yet the goddamn thing is praised right and left as a "great book" (by Stacie Ponder even - that hurt) and has won awards. For getting the facts wrong.

Okay, I need a cooldown.

bill r. said...

Fox - You should. I certainly can't guarantee you'll like it, but there's absolutely no other movie like it, so it's worth seeing just for that.

Greg - The crazy thing is, Kermode is some sort of Blatty expert. He made a documentary -- a good one, too -- about The Exorcist, and, like I said, appears with Blatty on the commentary for The Ninth Configuration. That paragraph is pulled from an on-line article compiling brief thoughts by numerous British critics about their favorite obscure films, so maybe an editor took a hatchet to what Kermode wrote. I hope that's the case, anyway.

Greg said...

and yet the goddamn thing is praised right and left as a "great book" (by Stacie Ponder even - that hurt) and has won awards. For getting the facts wrong.

Okay, I need a cooldown.


You know how I cool down? That's right, I talk like a pirate.

Arrrgh me matey, Arbo, you be makin' a fine point! John Muir, an opportunistic hack if ever there was one, be writing this and that about the likes of Kevin Smith and then pulls himself out of the toilet to pretend he be knowing something about horror in the seventies. Arrrgh, I say, make the land-lubber walk the plank!

Greg said...

Bill, I worked with a writer for the Washington Post a few years ago and he always complained that his articles were always chopped up and randomly reconstructed by editors weekly so I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happened there.

bill r. said...

He wrote a book about Kevin Smith?? Well, that's your problem, right there.

Fox said...

Arbo-

Just looking at John Kenneth Muir's list of books on Wikipedia, he has written twenty-one books since 1997. Is that even possible???? Well, I guess it is, but perhaps that kind of "prolificacy" is the root of his problem.

You know - and to be clear, I haven't read a one of Muir's books - this reminds me of issues I've had with music writers and even news journalists in the past, and that is that they are technically fine and proficient writers, meaning they are good with words, but they know not what they are talking about. And BECAUSE they are good with words, they can often fool people into thinking they know what they are talking about.

Arbogast said...

Is that even possible????

I smell a trust fund.

Greg said...

His book on Smith is called, An Askew View: The Films of Kevin Smith.

I love this sentence from his Wikipedia entry:

Muir's various literary works have been noted for their exhaustive research [9], [10]); and informative yet informal tone. Or, as one reviewer describes his style: "Muir is able to construct a book that shows off an amazing research effort without coming off as too academic."[11]

So, how much you want to bet Muir spends his nights updating his Wikipedia entry.

Greg said...

Oh, and I forgot to add - What a tool.

Brian Doan said...

I'm curious to see THIS HAPPY BREED, although your reference to CAVALCADE has me scared-- that's one of the worst "best picture" winners of all time, I think.

Greg said...

Brian, This Happy Breed is miles above Cavalcade so don't worry there. I just meant they both employ the same elemental structure but there the similarities end.

bill r. said...

So Muir doesn't come off as too academic when he's writing about Kevin Smith? Phew, that's a relief.

Greg said...

I know. Most of the time I read a treatise on Kevin Smith I'm like, "Whoa, slow down with the ten-dollar words egghead, let me catch up." Thank God Muir understands how to write for the common man.

Arbogast said...

Still, there's a lot to be said about Smith's particular use of mise-en-scene, to say nothing of his employment of diegetic music (and non-diegetic music, come to think of it). Y'all.

Greg said...

Still, there's a lot to be said about Smith's particular use of mise-en-scene

Funny, I can't think of anything to say.

Ryan Kelly said...

I'd have to agree with that. Visually speaking, Smith is about as un-distinct as they come, though I'd be interested in hearing why someone thinks otherwise.

I find his "Evening with Kevin Smith" videos are more entertaining than any of his movies.

Ryan Kelly said...

* think, not find. Damn, I look dumb.

Greg said...

Ryan, I've never seen the Evening with movies but I admit to having a unreasonable and intense dislike of Smith so I'm probably not the guy to watch them and give my opinion.

I'll watch some clips on YouTube for starters and see how it goes.

bill r. said...

I thought the first "Evening" with Smith was reasonably funny, but the second one made me want to beat the living shit out of him.

Greg said...

Bill, and Ryan, I'm sure the first one is fine, maybe both, it's just one of those things where you don't like someone. For whatever reason, he just rubs me the wrong way and I get annoyed looking at him for more than a few seconds. And I hate the Silent Bob character, always coming up with something "insightful" to say near the end of the movie, I... I just... I just want to smack his smug face in!

Ryan Kelly said...

For me, his explanation of his experience with the aborted Superman Lives project is as scathing and telling a reflection of Hollywood as Altman's The Player. Also, being from Jersey, I just identify with the things that have shaped his world view. Too bad it isn't apparent in his movies!

But yeah, his movies, they stink. Bland in just about every way imaginable, and not even particularly funny.

Why did he enrage you so, Bill? I'm not even sure I've seen the scond one, I've just seen clips of it on good ol' youtube.

Greg said...

his explanation of his experience with the aborted Superman Lives project is as scathing and telling a reflection of Hollywood as Altman's The Player.

Well, now I kind of want to see it.

Sam Erickson said...

To Greg

Thanks for letting me that you were Jonathan Lapper and clarifying that did still like the Star Wars Trilogy on the previous post.

As for David Thomson.I myself have mixed feelings about him too.I think his writing can be insightful and thought provoking but I'm often frustrated by how weakly supported his opinions(which is one of the problems that I often have with Pauline Kael's writng) are and that he is making criticisms based on generalization or oversimplification rather than viewing or using examples from film in action.

Since,you mentioned David Lean,I remember renting out Lawrence of Arabia one night and not liking it very much but then I later realized that I had seen it under the wrong circumstances because they the only way to feel the film's impactis on a big screen and I watched it on a small TV screen.However,since I live in Maryland,I will try and watch it again whenever they plan on showing it at The AFI Silver Theatre in Silver Spring(which I've never been to).That said,I did watch Great Expectations on TCM and loved it quite a bit.So I'm probably likely to prefer his early black and white films to his later epic films.

Greg said...

Sam, I definitely think viewing L of A on the small screen would have a definite impact on how one felt about it. On the other hand, I like Bridge on the River Kwai much better and do like his early films better than his later ones, particularly Brief Encounter.