Goodbye, Mr. Chips

Most schools have that one old teacher who seems be part of the school and has taught one family member after another.  Author of the book the film is based on, James Hilton, created the character Mr. Chips after his old classics teacher at The Leys public school in Cambridge who taught there for over fifty years.  Rather than feeling completely specific to one man, Mr. Chips seems to be a character that is made to embody many old favorite teachers.

After getting a brief history on the present Chips (Robert Donat) and his beloved boarding school, we are taken back to his beginning in 1870, seeing Chips as a young man trying to teach his first pupils.  The boys see fresh meat, and give Chips a very rocky start to his career.  In order to regain control and respect, Chips becomes a disciplinarian, but that doesn’t make him particularly popular among the boys.

Years pass, boys grow, graduate and more arrive.  One summer middle-age approaching Chips ventures to Austria with a colleague and meets what seems to be the first and only woman ever interested in him, Katharine (Greer Garson).  After having a bit of a mountain  adventure  to bond over, Chips gets the courage to ask for her hand in marriage.  When they arrive back at the school, it seems that life with Katharine reinvents Chips to be more popular with the students.  The new couple regularly invites them over for snacks and light conversation.  Suddenly, Chips is no longer an old stick in the mud and Katharine seems to be a pillar of encouragement.

Years pass, tragedy occurs, life goes on.  By now Chips is well loved by the boys and can recall teaching some of their fathers, but is being asked to retire.  When WWI strikes up, a new headmaster is needed, one who knows the school and can lead it well, so they turn to Chips.  One particularly sad moment is when the names of his former pupils that have been killed in action are being read off regularly.  But as the war ends, life does go on and Chips gets to teach four generations in the same family.

As Chips gets older, he seems to be a model for Dumbeldore in the Harry Potter series, there’s a cheerful glint in his eye behind the aged face.  The makeup work goes a long way here.  However, the younger Chips is very ridged and unsure of himself, they nearly feel like different people.  I guess that can happen over a sixty-three year span in life, and portraying that is deserving of the Best Actor Oscar, but it didn’t feel all that special or invigorating.  Personally, I’d be more satisfied seeing Gable or Stewart holding the award for their performances from 1939.

Honestly, Goodbye, Mr. Chips is kinda fun, kinda cute and a sort of heartwarming.  It’s like when you coat too much syrup on something that needs more substance and it gets way to sappy toward the end.  It’s simply alright, but I wouldn’t go back for seconds.  See if if you’re a fan of Robert Donat.

“These dead languages do come to live sometimes.”

Julius Caesar

Based on Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar tells the story of a group of Roman conspirators who plot to murder Caesar (Louis Calhern) before his ambition for power turns to tyranny.  Brutus (James Mason) unites them under this cause for the greater good ofRome, but truthfully, Cassius (John Gielgud) and the other men murder out of their own envy of power.  Caesar is warned, “Beware the Ides of March!” by a blind soothsayer and Calpurnia (Greer Garson) warns him of an ominous dream she had, but Caesar has an image to maintain and he ignores both warnings only to be murdered by the men he trusted.  When Caesar’s right hand man, Marc Antony (Marlon Brando), learns of the conspiracy and murder, he cunningly proves his loyalty to Caesar and turns the Roman people against Brutus, drives the conspirators out of Roma and assembles a more powerful army to track them down and kill them.

Marlon Brando’s performance as Marc Antony is one of the most invigorating Shakespearean performances I’ve ever seen on film.  When one is simply reading the play alone, grasping a good inclining tone forAntony’s speech to the Romans can be tricky.  Here, Brando escalates that speech perfectly, better than I had ever imagined as a student.  Throughout the film, he is consistently the most intense character surrounding Caesar and captivates our interest more than Mason’s Brutus or Gielgud’s Cassius.  The way Brando’s performance stands above the rest and transforms Shakespeare’s words into such dramatic and conniving passion is worth of the Oscar nomination.

The film rightfully won for best art direction for black and white film.  From depicting the great marble stairs and pillars to Roman tents, each has a wonderful attention to detail and feels very real.  Even in smooth, bare roman walls, the presence of bare tree branches, in the foreground or as shadows on walls, help make an interesting visual, especially in Brutus’s monologue the night before the murder.  And between the classical Roman robes and leather army uniforms, the costume design is wonderfully accurate and full of beautiful tiny details.

With a good mix of murder, double-crossing and classical Roman themes, Julius Caesar has always been my favorite Shakespeare play, but rarely do you find a film adaption that can do it justice.  This is one of the few, the acting is wonderfully active, dramatic and easy for those who haven’t studied the play to follow along with.  The art direction and attention to details in all the settings in costumes is top-notch, yet doesn’t feel too far removed from a simple stage.  If you’re interested in your first Shakespeare film experience, I would strongly suggest Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s Julius Caesar.

“O pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth / That I am meek and gentle with these butchers.”

Blossoms in the Dust

In Blossoms in the Dust, Edna (Greer Garson) has witnessed the struggles and injustices that illegitimate children face all her life.  When her adopted sister, Charlotte (Marsha Hunt) becomes engaged, that fact that she is a foundling is revealed and her future mother-in-law refuses to let her son marry her.  Consequently, poor Charlotte decides to commit suicide over the shock of her debilitating social stigma and heartbreak.  From then on, it seems like Edna feels guilty for all the injustices illegitimate children face.

Having a child seems to soothe these issues with Edna, but only for a short while.  After marrying Sam (Walter Pidgeon) and then childbirth, she’s told she can never have another child and her son dies at a very young age.  It’s heartbreaking to see Edna so empty and angry about her condition.  When her doctor suggests adoption, Edna realizes she still has love to give children, but only wants one of her own.

At first, she decides to open a daycare for working mothers.  Business is going well, but after witnessing the way orphan foundlings are treated like cattle in legal adoptions, she opens her own orphanage that focuses on providing loving families for illegitimate children.  The very conservative community opposes her, believing that children born out of wedlock should be condemned by society.  Edna takes her work all the way to the Texas state legislators to remove the fact that children can be labeled as illegitimate on their birth certificates.

Today, this idea of the children paying for being born out of wedlock is very foreign and obviously puts Edna in a positive light in her mission.  With films like Juno showing barren couples seeking the spawn of possible Sixteen and Pregnant stars, the idea of nurture overpowering nature is widely accepted.

I would suggest seeking out Blossoms in the Dust if you’re interested in adoption history, enjoy watching Greer Garson or just want to see a bunch of cute babies.  Seriously, some scenes are just filled wall-to-wall with babies and then edited with close-up shots of their chubby, drooley faces.  They are so cute when they’re not yours and would be about seventy today.

“It will encourage bad girls to have babies.  Bad girls don’t have babies!”

Mrs. Miniver

The film begins with Mrs. Miniver (Greer Garson)on her way home in the crowded city and at the last minute, she hurries back to the hat shop to get a beautiful hat that is probably more expensive than she should allow herself to purchase.  At the same time, her husband (Walter Pidgeon) is buying a newer, faster car.  We understand this family isn’t high class or wealthy, but hasn’t everyone treated themselves to a little more than they should?  Also, kind Mr. Ballard (Henry Travers) who works at the train station wants to enter a beautiful rose in the Garden contest, one that is usually reserved for the snooty high class women who would be appalled to lose to such a humble man.

The story follows the Miniver family during the beginning of WWII.  Mrs. Miniver has a husband, two small children and a son who’s just returned from Oxford.  Her son, Vin (Richard Ney), is an idealistic boy who has an awful lot to say about the class system in their country, so it comes at no surprise that he starts seeing a high society girl, Carol (Teresa Wright).  When the war begins, Vin joins the army and becomes a pilot.  The whole family is proud and frightened for him, especially his mother.  As the war escalates and the bombings start, the war can seem right in your own yard, no one is safe and everyone, regardless of age or class, must face grim losses.

Now, let’s add all the above together.  You see, class has a lot to do with this film.  It’s the obstacle between Vin and Carol, why Mr. Ballard is discouraged from entering his rose in the contest and what makes buying a hat seem so ridiculous.  The war being dangerously close to home is what makes all the difference and makes class becomes less distinct.  Without it, Mr. Ballard probably would’ve been chased out of the flower contest and Vin would still be a boy complaining about class rather than becoming a brave pilot breaking his social ranks.  When war strikes, how much difference does class make anymore?  When that air raid siren wails everyone’s on the same level.  Rich or poor, they can drop a bomb on you just the same.

I want to share the bomb shelter scene with you.  Mr. and Mrs. Miniver are in a tiny shelter with their two young children and have just finished reading them some of Alice in Wonderland before bed.  The parents share some fond memories of the book; it seems to be the only thing that can preserve their childhood while bombs whistle and drop all around them.  The children sleep through it for a while, but the bombs grow closer.  With every whistle the anticipation of the boom is terrifying and we wonder if the whole family will die in a crater outside their house.  Soon, the whole shelter is shaking, the children wake up crying and all the parents can do is hold them.  I had never felt so sad and scared for a group of characters in my life, not even Alice can undo that trauma.

Let’s sum up the awards: twelve nominations total, six of them won.  Of those twelve, five were acting nominations, Greer Garson and Teresa Wright took actresses.  Add in the wins for best writing, cinematography, directing and picture, it’s pretty hard to compete.

And now a rant:  Really, how could they nominate Wake Island next to Mrs. Miniver?  Ok, they’re both war films, but they’re approached from such different views.  Mrs. Miniver is heartfelt family life pulled and broken by the horrors of war.  Not just the men are involved in the danger, but the women and children too.  Wake Island is completely soldier (and explosion) based, they’re the only characters we have, and to be honest, they’re not interesting.  I realize that this is 1942 and the biggest thing going on is WWII, so why not make hundreds of films on it?  I get it.  But to stand crummy, thrown together Wake Island next to a masterpiece like Mrs. Miniver just doesn’t feel right.  Imagine that at a few years ago the Academy Awards decided that two of the nominees were Juno and Knocked Up.  Similar subject, entirely different viewpoints, stories, ideas and caliber of excellence.  Alright, it’s probably not the best example, I don’t want to push Wake Island down to Seth Rogan level but lets not build him up to best picture quality either.

The bottom line is by the end of Mrs. Miniver, our hearts are completely invested in the Miniver family and their friends.  We feel their loss, we rally with them and soak up every word in that last sermon.  They’re hurting but keep optimistic, that’s a story we can hold dear for generations.

***Yes, Mrs. Miniver is completely deserving of 1942.  Pride of the Yankees was the only real competition.***

Random Harvest

In Random Harvest Ronald Colman plays a soldier with amnesia.  On a foggy night, he breaks out of the asylum where people are celebrating the end of WWI in the streets.  He stumbles around for a while until he meets Paula (Greer Garson), a girl who sings and dances at a club who befriends him.  She calls him Smithy, takes him in like a stray puppy and Nightingale syndrome settles upon her.  Against better judgments that people with amnesia can become violent, Paula runs off with Smithy and they get married.  Everything is so ideally romantic, a tree is flowering in front of their new house as they stand fresh as daisies in their wedding clothes and a baby is born probably nine months to the day later.  Smithy is about to get a job as a full time writer and all their worries will be at an end.  He just needs to make a little weekend trip into the city, cross that busy street and–oh no!  He’s been hit by a car and can suddenly remember everything before the war, but nothing of his new life.

So Smithy (who’s real name is Charles Rainier) goes back to his family, inherits his father’s house and runs the family business.  Years later he hires Paula as his secretary, with no memory of their marriage.  Throughout her employment with Smithy, she tries to bring back their old life together and they grow closer.

The film explores what the same person is likely to do in different circumstances.  This case is quite fascinating.  As a man with no past memory, Smithy becomes a writer and a passionate family man.  Later, as a business man he hires his wife and absently says that he always wanted to write.  I guess it’s always the same person, just not aware of each side.

Ronald Colman was nominated for lead actor for pretending to be oblivious.  In his complete amnesia, Colman plays Smithy like a helpless kitten, quiet and unsure of nearly everything.  It isn’t until he’s married that he can strut around with confidence,by then he’s built a life.  Later, when we’re waiting for him to remember his married life, it seems like he’s just about to make that big connection.  His eyes stare, the gears in his head are on the verge of grinding and then something keeps him in the present.  The anticipation can kill us.

The visual imagery is key to this film.  Pay special attention to the blossoming tree, the foggy town, the beaded necklace, they’re all clues that come back to haunt you.  The only film I’ve seen to do this better is Hitchcock’s Vertigo, but here the reliance for those images isn’t as heavy.  I wonder now if Random Harvest was an inspiration for Vertigo.

All in all, I enjoyed this film.  There were some moments that felt a little stale but it never stayed very long.  Though I was able to predict the ultimate outcome, I enjoyed the ride and was hanging on every long mind churning stare Ronald Colman could push out.  Random Harvest is a love story, an amnesia story, a woman’s quest to win her oblivious man story.

Madame Curie

Here is a brainy drama, depicting the life and work of Marie Curie.

We first meet Marie (Greer Garson) as a student studying physics at the University of Paris.  In a lecture hall full of male students, she faints in the middle of class.  Seeing her potential and lack of friends, a professor helps Marie get a job doing research for Dr. Pierre Curie (Walter Pidgeon).  Pierre is a serious man, very focused on his work, so when he hears what a good worker he’s getting he’s pleased.  But when he finds out it’s a she, he gets worried and imagines she’ll just become a ditzy distraction.  From the start, Marie exceeds his expectations and they start to collaborate wonderfully in the laboratory.  When she’s about to graduate and go back home to Poland, Pierre doesn’t want to work (or live) without her.  They marry and continue their work to make brilliant discoveries that change science forever.  But of course, this is a drama, and tragedy strikes.

The relationship between Pierre and Marie is sweet in its own nerdy way.  Once Pierre realizes that Marie isn’t a typical girl distracted by idle conversations or vanity, he does more than appreciate her hard work.  His proposal sounds like a thesis paper and he even compares their relationship to sodium chloride, saying they’re a perfect bond. (Aww!)  Some of their greatest moments as a couple come when they’re working in the laboratory.  They help each other work out mind boggling problems, provide support as they toil for hours and celebrate their discoveries.  There’s nothing like basking in the glow of freshly discovered radium with your sweetheart.

The film was nominated for seven Oscars, among them both lead actors, cinematography, music, sound and picture, but the one I really took notice to was their nomination for set design.  A scientific laboratory looked much different in the 1890s than it would today, or even sixty years ago.  The recreation of the Curie’s labs (especially the one that was once a shack) is fascinating.  Just a peak at a few primitive devices is like time travel.  To see how accurate these set designers are, I did a little research, and found some images of Curie’s old laboratory preserved at a museum in her honor.  It’s pretty spot on, especially the variety of old jars and beakers.

I really enjoyed this film and learned more about Curie, but I do have one complaint gnawing at my little feminist bone.  In the beginning when Marie faints, it sends the message right away that she is a woman first and a scientist second.  If this is historically true and Marie just up and fainted one day, alright then.  Otherwise, do we really need to be reminded again and again that (at the time) women weren’t exactly the right material to become a great scientist?  Ranting aside, I do recommend this film to anyone interested in Marie Curie’s life or work.  This film always gets a standing ovation.  You’ll get that joke later.