TCM: The Greatest Movie Channel

[voiceover]

I loveloveLOVE Peter O'Toole's Goodbye Mr Chips!  But NOT THE SONGS.  As far as I'm concerned, they could recut it without all that, and the film wouldn't miss it. 
This is partly because Rattigan had such a terrific rewrite of the original script.  And partly because of the performances: Michael Redgrave is a surprisingly wonderful headmaster; Michael Bryant gives a poignant turn as Chips' German colleague Max; and Sian Phillips (O'Toole's then-wife) absolutely steals every scene she's in ("Headmaster daaaarrrrling...you must come to one of my little parties!....and bring your dear wife...if she is your dear wife...bring her anyway!").

 

But of course, it's down to the leads.  I love O'Toole's Chips;  you stop thinking of Robert Donat almost immediately (and I also loved Donat's performance).  He has tremendous chem with Petula Clark, who was so very charming, and made me believe that she'd chuck it all aside for her schoolteacher.  That reunion in the kitchen is in my Top 10 love scenes...how he rages that 'suitability', "which is only in Webster," cannot best 'love', which is in all the dictionaries!  And "All that I am holding dear, I am holding now" as he embraces her.  Their relationship is necessarily different from the Katherine/Chips of the 1939 version, but it's equally as lovely.

Edited March 16, 2015 by voiceover

[ratgirlagogo]

I love this board.  I really don't agree with voiceover's preference for the 1969 Mr Chips - and yet I LOVE reading the explanation for the preference.  (Although I also hate the 1969 songs.)

[elle]

And yet another corner heard from...

 

I love the 1969 Mr. Chips, songs and all!  I agree with voiceover on everything but that point.

 

Sian Phillips is amazing in this movie.  Her voice and speech are something I do not recall ever hearing again from her.  (she is supposed to be based on Tallulah Bankhead?)

 

My favorite quote, though not remembered verbatim, is about her when she says goodbye to Chips and Katie in the kitchen, she says something about meeting again "next week, or year, or in heaven, or someplace".  Chips responds "in heaven, most assuredly".

[Rinaldo]

I loveloveLOVE Peter O'Toole's Goodbye Mr Chips!  But NOT THE SONGS.  As far as I'm concerned, they could recut it without all that, and the film wouldn't miss it. 

I saw it in a theater a year or two after its release, when it seemed to me that one or two songs had been cut out (it did happen on rare occasions then, when studios kept trying to extend movies' runs another few months). I DVR'd it so I could see if that's true. (Haven't watched yet.)

 

Anyway, I totally agree with everything you said. Leslie Bricusse's level of taste was so minimal, it's kind of depressing. ("What a lot of lovely pretty flowers....") But those performances! Peter O'Toole gave many great performances over the years, but this may be the finest of all. And yes to Clark, Phillips, Redgrave as well.

[Milburn Stone]

As a child of the fifties, I find the very sound of Walt Disney's voice making me feel good.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Milburn Stone

[aradia22]

I just finished episode 10 of The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt on Netflix. It ends with a very silly number with Jefferson Mays and Nic Rouleau from the fictional movie Daddy's Boy... which of course means a cameo from Robert Osborne. It's a lot of fun.

[elle]

As a child of the fifties, I find the very sound of Walt Disney's voice making me feel good.

 

The Wonderful World of Disney or Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color was "must see TV" back when I was a kid!

 

I enjoyed "Darby O'Gill and the Little People".  I smiled at Leonard Maltin's commentary about how the effects were done without CGI and how they hold up well today.  He mentioned forced perspective, and I recalled it was used in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy.  The dark coach reminded me of the CGI effect in modern day "The Mummy".

[prican58]

If I can go backwards, re George Sanders and the sadness expressed at his committing suicide, apparently his note did not indicate that he was miserable, depressed or what have you. Apparently he was simply bored with life as there wasn't much left to do.  Who really knows?

 

Gene Tierney. Laura was the first film of hers I saw as a teen and it knocked me out. She was so gorgeous with that cute overbite she had going on. But when I saw her in beautiful Technicolor in Leave Her To Heaven I nearly fainted! Tour de force for her. Would love to see that on the big screen with an audience. 

 

Crs97, I adore Love Affair! It is the film that made me a Boyer fan. I had no opinion of him at all for many years. When Lucy Ricardo swooned over him in the Europe episodes I wondered what the fuss was about. But this film shows just how swoon worthy he was. He killed with this role. And I love his scenes with Maria Ouspenskaya. What a scene stealer she was. His love for her was so beautiful.

[prican58]

Oh it must be fun to watch these movies for the first  time!..

 

elle, I was thinking that.  I think that is the amazing thing about the love these movies get from folks like all of us on this board. I know that for me I saw these old movies  when I was a teenager like 13 years old and onward. They just kind of jumped out of the tv and made you feel like you've been slapped upside the head. The sweeping, brooding Wuthering Heights or bare bones simplicity of Little Ceasar or bodacious Bette Davis in just about anything just made my jaw drop and before I knew it I couldn't get enough of these old films. 

 

And that feeling never goes away even after seeing films dozens of times. There is nothing like it. Unless maybe you are seeing a big glossy musical on Broadway.

[ratgirlagogo]

 

They just kind of jumped out of the tv and made you feel like you've been slapped upside the head. 

Oh my goodness, yes.  And they still do.

[Snarklepuss]

And yet another corner heard from...

 

I love the 1969 Mr. Chips, songs and all!  I agree with voiceover on everything but that point.

 

I saw it in the theater when I was 11.  Despite the cheesiness of the music I fell in love with it.  I had a crush on Peter after that but only in his role as Chips.  I was in love with his shy, polite British ways and his relationship with Petula in the movie.  I suppose being just at the age of "getting it" with romance, it made a huge impression on me.  Most girls went gaga over "Love Story" but for me it was this movie.  I never cared for Ryan O'Neal.  I was always a bit disappointed that Chips didn't get better reviews as I thought it deserved them. 

[Crs97]

I am finally seeing Magnificent Obsession in its entirety. I think Ben's introduction was spot on. It is an aggressive tear-jerker that wants you to cry and is totally manipulating you to cry and, yes, you will probably cry. I was explaining the plot to Mr. Crs97, who doesn't like old films but will put up with some of them for me, and we were laughing at the sheer unapologetic melodrama, but sure enough I get a little misty when she begs Nancy not to leave her. Jane Wyman was made for these kinds of roles.

[Milburn Stone]

Anyway, I totally agree with everything you said. Leslie Bricusse's level of taste was so minimal, it's kind of depressing. ("What a lot of lovely pretty flowers....")...

 

I yield to no man in my loathing of Bricusse's score for Scrooge. (Hell is having to hear "Thank You Very Much" one more time.) So I know he was capable of garbage. But I actually like his songs for Chips. Now I'll make a confession. I've never seen the musical version of Goodbye, Mr. Chips! (It's a hole in my film knowledge.) So how can I say I like the songs? Because I encountered them long, long ago on sheet music, instantly had an appreciation for them, and played them frequently. Now, it may be that the songs don't work in the film. But as songs--and since we're talking about Bricusse, not the way the songs serve the film or don't--I think they're quite good.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Milburn Stone

[3pwood]

I am finally seeing Magnificent Obsession in its entirety. I think Ben's introduction was spot on. It is an aggressive tear-jerker that wants you to cry and is totally manipulating you to cry and, yes, you will probably cry. I was explaining the plot to Mr. Crs97, who doesn't like old films but will put up with some of them for me, and we were laughing at the sheer unapologetic melodrama, but sure enough I get a little misty when she begs Nancy not to leave her. Jane Wyman was made for these kinds of roles.

 

I really want to see the 1935 version with Irene Dunne & Robert Taylor.  I know it was shown on TCM at least once (which I missed), whereas the 1954 version seems to be shown constantly. I agree that Jane Wyman was perfect for this role, but Irene Dunne also seems ideal -- the male stars are interchangeable for me (handsome but boring).  And I always prefer black & white to the 1950s "lush" Technicolor. 

[Rinaldo]

I was always a bit disappointed that Chips didn't get better reviews as I thought it deserved them. 

I guess the musical Mr. Chips didn't get general raves, but its best features seemed to me (obviously I didn't read everything written about it) to get a lot of praise. In particular, the performances of O'Toole, Clark, and Phillips in her smaller role seemed to get near-universal raves, and his performance was of course Oscar-nominated. I was a regular reader of Pauline Kael at the time, and she had little patience for the big heartwarming screen musicals, but she had unmixed praise for O'Toole's work, calling it the best acting she'd seen that year. (She loved the other two, as well.)

[Wiendish Fitch]

Since you guys were talking about Magnificent Obsession (the 1954 one), may I take the time to admit that I un-ironically like, even love, that movie? Don't get me wrong, I'm not blind to its faults: it is melodramatic, it is over the top, I'm aware Douglas Sirk didn't like it much and never took it that seriously, but you know what? I don't care. As someone who hates living in a world where nearly everyone in Hollywood demands that we forgive Roman Polanski (nope, sorry, not happening, not for me), where young women earnestly proclaim that "Chris Brown can hit [me] any time", where the Boston Marathon Bomber makes the cover of Rolling Stone instead of his victims or the police and paramedics who aided in the aftermath, I like that Magnificent Obsession is about an asshole who becomes a better person. I don't know, maybe I'm just a pious blowhard, but, looking past its flaws and Sirk-ian gloss, I actually find Magnificent Obsession's moral kind of appealing and refreshing.

 

I also really like Jane Wyman as Helen. She truly makes you care for her. I know she was an Oscar winner, but I think Wyman is underrated as an actress. And I think it's mean how people sneer that she's "too old and unattractive" for Rock Hudson. No one ever says anything about leathery Cary Grant wooing the likes of Deborah Kerr, Leslie Caron, or Audrey Hepburn (all young enough to be his daughters, just for the record), so I don't see why it's so ridiculous for Wyman, who was only a little over a decade than Hudson, to win the man. I will be shallow and admit her hairdo in the movie isn't doing her favors, but we can't blame her for that. I think Wyman looked nicer without bangs and with longer hair (like in Pollyanna).

Edited March 18, 2015 by Wiendish Fitch

[MissT]

I personally think Jane Wyman and Rock Hudson were wonderful in All That Heaven Allows.  It's one of my favorites and I could watch it over and over.  They seem so natural together.

[Julia]

I'm aware Douglas Sirk didn't like it much and never took it that seriously

 

Now there's your irony right there. It's not that I don't appreciate the Whitman's Sampler gloss of a Sirk movie, and I understand he's been rehabilitated by the auteurists, but the thought of Sirk drawing distinctions between what he saw as his unserious work and whatever else he imagined the rest of his work was kind of amuses me.

[Crs97]

I like that Magnificent Obsession is about an asshole who becomes a better person. I don't know, maybe I'm just a pious blowhard, but, looking past its flaws and Sirk-ian gloss, I actually find Magnificent Obsession's moral kind of appealing and refreshing.

 

 

I totally agree!  I hope I didn't come off as hating the movie because I unapologetically love it!  I even pointed out to my husband that one of the lines was Randolph telling Bob Merrick to be careful when he started following this way of life because "the first man who did this died on the cross at the age of 33."  Could you even get a line like that in a movie today without it being labelled a "Christian" movie?

 

I personally think Jane Wyman and Rock Hudson were wonderful in All That Heaven Allows.  It's one of my favorites and I could watch it over and over.  They seem so natural together.

 

 

As I recall, Rock's character makes me angry because he is just so heavy-handed in telling Jane she has to change her life totally for him or he's gone.  Yes, the club friends are jerks and her kids are brats, but he doesn't even try to understand her situation.  I needed him to be a little more patient before he gave her the ultimatum.  Of course, I am happy to rewatch it and see if I change my mind!  

[Bastet]

I took a couple of film classes in college (I went to a university with a superb film school, so the general/introductory film classes were great to take as electives), and in one we read Sirk on Sirk and discussed the '70s re-examination of his films.  I don't subscribe to all of it, but it was certainly thought-provoking, especially from a gender studies (which was my minor) perspective.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Bastet

[ratgirlagogo]

 

Wiendish Fitch  :I'm aware Douglas Sirk didn't like it much and never took it that seriously

 

Julia:  Now there's your irony right there. It's not that I don't appreciate the Whitman's Sampler gloss of a Sirk movie, and I understand he's been rehabilitated by the auteurists, but the thought of Sirk drawing distinctions between what he saw as his unserious work and whatever else he imagined the rest of his work was kind of amuses me.

Tee hee.  Burn!   Is it mean if it's true?  Wiendish Fitch, which of his films did Sirk consider his serious work?

 

Bastet:  the '70s re-examination of his films

The first Douglas Sirk movies I ever saw, in a way, were John Waters' and Rainier Werner Fassbinder's movies, if you get what I mean.  Those are what inspired me to watch the actual Sirk films themselves which without that perspective would have seemed unwatchable to me.  They still kind of do in the sense that having seen Magnificent Obsession, Written on the Wind, et. al.  I don't feel any need to see  them again.  But I wouldn't just dismiss them the way I would without that perspective.

Edited March 17, 2015 by ratgirlagogo

[Milburn Stone]

And while we're talking about Sirk, let's not forget Todd Haynes' magnificent obsession with Sirk that caused him to create Far From Heaven. One reason I can't wait for the movie Haynes is directing that is currently called Untitled Peggy Lee Project.

[bmoore4026]

Earlier this morning, TMC played The Life of Henry VIII, with Charles Laughton.   Great performance by him. The scene where Henry and Anne of Cleaves play cards and she bargains a divorce is hilarious and the scene where Henry finds out the truth about Catherine Howard and Culpepper is devastating.

 

Earlier the morning (I'm an insomniac), I was reading through TV Guide and they talked about the Tudor drama Wolf Hall being the Masterpiece Theater premiere.  Like many "historic period dramas" nowadays, all the actors appear to be wearing tight trousers with calf high boots.

 

Would it kill costuming departments to dress actors remotely like Henry VIII and his court dressed?  Why the aversion to bear claw shoes and hose (trunk and nether)?  I mean Charles Laughton is wearing those things and he doesn't once come across as mincing or effeminate, nor does he seem insecure in his masculinity.  Or is it the actors that are afraid of dressing period correct?

 

Why yes!  Yes, I am a stickler for period costuming.  Ironically, I like how they dressed people in Westerns back in the 40s and 50s then in later decades - they dared to use other colors than brown back then.

Edited March 18, 2015 by bmoore4026

[HelenBaby]

Bmoore4026-costumers back then made mistakes as well. I was watching The Benny Goodman Story a few years back, and while I loved what Donna Reed wore in that movie, it screamed 1950's even though it's set in the early 1930's. And there's a film with Claudette Colbert, Sign of the Cross, with the famous scene where she bathing in donkey's milk. Her friend comes to tell her some gossip & Claudette invites her into the bathtub to discuss it. The camera goes back to the friend and pans from the face down to her feet where she's unbuckling her High Heeled Sandals! That cracks me up every time I've seen it.

[Crisopera]

Period costume in older movies (up to about the 1980s) is almost inevitably distorted by the use of contemporary undergarments and (especially in the 1940s) the shoulder-pad silhouette.  And forget period hair-styling!  (Kitty, from 1945, with costumes by the brilliant Raoul Pene du Bois, is pretty good for the period (1700s) silhouettes - great fun, too.)  In general, the genius designer Walter Plunkett was good at period costumes, notably Gone with the Wind and Singing' in the Rain.

[Milburn Stone]

Bmoore4026-costumers back then made mistakes as well. I was watching The Benny Goodman Story a few years back, and while I loved what Donna Reed wore in that movie, it screamed 1950's even though it's set in the early 1930's.

 

I agree with your general observation but disagree with your use of the word "mistakes." These decisions are quite deliberate, and thoroughly justified. Audiences want to see their stars looking beautiful by the standards of the world the audience lives in, not the standards of the period in which the story is set. Yes, certainly, movie costumers, stylists, etc. give a nod to verisimilitude, so that one sees just enough authenticity to suspend disbelief--but no more than that. The designers are not ignorant of correct practice in bygone times; they quite consciously (and correctly, for the audience) use just enough of it and no more. 'Twas ever thus, and remains so.

[Rick Kitchen]

Why yes!  Yes, I am a stickler for period costuming.  Ironically, I like how they dressed people in Westerns back in the 40s and 50s then in later decades - they dared to use other colors than brown back then.

 

Don't watch the TV series "Reign", then.  The really laughable story about Mary, Queen of Scots has clothing from about six centuries all mingled together.

[Julia]

I think the only time it really jarred me was the Olivier/Garson Pride and Prejudice, which was just ridiculously off. Not every era in history contained hoop skirts.

[Crisopera]

The 1940 Pride & Prejudice made a conscious decision to move the period up to around 1830-40,  because they thought the costumes would suit the actresses better (which is probably true - those extreme high waists are not flattering to many women).  I enjoy the costumes, even though they are too band-box perfect.

[bmoore4026]

Don't watch the TV series "Reign", then.  The really laughable story about Mary, Queen of Scots has clothing from about six centuries all mingled together.

 

I have watched Reign.  It's a forgettable show, but the costumes are most certainly not Tudor era.  They aren't even Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings. 

 

Anyway, is today's TCM theme Britain Day?  I mean, yesterday they had movies set in Ireland, so I guess they don't want the other British Isles to feel left out?

 

As for the 40s Pride and Prejudice and the Civil War ear costumes, dammit, MGM spent millions on those ante-bellum costumes and, dammit, they were going to get their moneys worth.  I do believe they used those costumes up until the studio's closing in 1970.

Edited March 18, 2015 by bmoore4026

[Julia]

As for the 40s Pride and Prejudice and the Civil War ear costumes, dammit, MGM spent millions on those ante-bellum costumes and, dammit, they were going to get their moneys worth.  I do believe they used those costumes up until the studio's closing in 1970.

 

Yeah, I pretty much believe that more than I do that those particular costumes were considered optimally attractive.

[Rinaldo]

It was in this topic, back in August, that we mentioned the August 1974 New York magazine article by Anne Hollander about this very aspect of movie costume. She discussed the then-recent films of The Great Gatsby and The Three Musketeers with captioned photos to show the respects in which the movies' historical faithfulness was modified to suit current notions of attractiveness. (Actually, she gave the latter quite high marks in general, but noted that Faye Dunaway and especially Raquel Welch had their own stylists to protect their images.) It's a very fun read, and I just wish there were a whole book with this sort of detail.

 

As Milburn Stone says, it's always been that way and always will be -- on screen or onstage. We may think we do better now, but in future years, our period films will look "pure 2015."

[Rick Kitchen]

Heh, the "Reign" forum has its own fashion thread.  :D

[elle]

Earlier this morning, TMC played The Life of Henry VIII, with Charles Laughton.   Great performance by him. The scene where Henry and Anne of Cleaves play cards and she bargains a divorce is hilarious 

I love that scene!  I don't know if it is the most accurate portrayal of Anne of Cleves, but I have thought of it as the most flattering as it shows she was no fool, in cards or kings.

 

 

 

Why yes!  Yes, I am a stickler for period costuming.  Ironically, I like how they dressed people in Westerns back in the 40s and 50s then in later decades - they dared to use other colors than brown back then.

You must have loved how 1955 Doc Brown dressed Marty McFly for the "Old West" in Back to the Future III. ;0) 

 

 

Bmoore4026-costumers back then made mistakes as well. I was watching The Benny Goodman Story a few years back, and while I loved what Donna Reed wore in that movie, it screamed 1950's even though it's set in the early 1930's. 

 

 

 

That is how I feel about June Allyson's costumes in The Glen Miller Story, she is almost defiantly in 1950s full skirts.

Edited March 19, 2015 by elle

[HelenBaby]

 

Anyway, is today's TCM theme Britain Day?  I mean, yesterday they had movies set in Ireland, so I guess they don't want the other British Isles to feel left out?

 

It was Robert Donat's birthday.

[voiceover]

I actually have this day marked on my calendar, as I am a huge Donat fan.  Very happy to see my favorite of his, Knight Without Armour.  If you only know him as Mr Chips, you need to check this one out.  He's a dashing British spy during the Russian Revolution who winds up helping a countess (Marlene Dietrich) escape certain death -- more than once.   At one point, as they're hiding in a forest, safe for the moment, she playfully asks, When did you fall in love with me?  And he says, The first time I saw you...I said, 'Get up!', and you turned around...[he rolls his eyes heavenward]...and I was lost.

DAMN.  I melt into a little voiceover puddle, every time.  Also worth noting: he appears to be one of the great screen kissers.

 

On a not-so-fun note: anyone here a fan of Ryan's Daughter?  Sarah Miles' Rosy is stronger than all of the men put together, which makes for a lovely feminist statement, but the most boring David Lean film ever.  Christopher Jones is cute, but we don't meet him until halfway through the film, so -- not a lot of rooting interest.  Robert Mitchum is not one of my faves anyway, and his character here is kind of a wussy. 

 

Trevor Howard is fine as the rough-edged priest whose flock is probably the least appealing ever.  I could see Spencer Tracy in this part, too.  But if someone has something good to say about this movie, I'd love to hear it.

Edited March 19, 2015 by voiceover

[ratgirlagogo]

 

Robert Mitchum is not one of my faves anyway, and his character here is kind of a wussy.

Robert  Mitchum IS one of my faves and when he says  "I only taught you about Byron, Beethoven and Captain Blood. I'm not one of those fellows myself." - while it is correct for the character he's playing - I don't believe it for a SECOND.

 

if someone has something good to say about this movie, I'd love to hear it.

 This is one I saw in the theater when it  came out and didn't much like even then.   If someone can convince me otherwise - I'm game.

Edited March 19, 2015 by ratgirlagogo

[Snarklepuss]

I agree with your general observation but disagree with your use of the word "mistakes." These decisions are quite deliberate, and thoroughly justified. Audiences want to see their stars looking beautiful by the standards of the world the audience lives in, not the standards of the period in which the story is set. Yes, certainly, movie costumers, stylists, etc. give a nod to verisimilitude, so that one sees just enough authenticity to suspend disbelief--but no more than that. The designers are not ignorant of correct practice in bygone times; they quite consciously (and correctly, for the audience) use just enough of it and no more. 'Twas ever thus, and remains so.

 

I have seen period pieces where painstaking effort was put into every historical detail except for hairstyles and/or makeup and it just feels like chalk on a blackboard to me.  I always imagined that the actresses did not want to have to wear wigs or alter their hair and makeup so much that they felt unattractive or unrecognizable as them.  Plus, today given that we have a longer photographic record of history than films did say 60 or 70 years ago, we know what people looked like in eras going back to the late 19th and early 20th century.  When filming a piece that takes place before photography most people may not be so aware of what people looked like and so any divergence from history might not be so apparent or annoying to them.  But given how widespread our collective knowledge of different post photographic eras are these days because of the internet and TV, I might imagine that more people are like me and would expect a more faithful representation of history.  It always amuses me to see these young women who fashion themselves after Betty Page or Marilyn Monroe.  I think to myself how exact they are in their reproduction of their appearances given that they were not alive and/or aware in their eras, but then I remember just how much photography exists especially online and in movies that are so easily available these days, and I realize that these young women have a pretty good idea of the fashion era they are recreating.

[bmoore4026]

It was Robert Donat's birthday.

 

Thank you.  That explains it.

[Rinaldo]

Plus, today given that we have a longer photographic record of history than films did say 60 or 70 years ago, we know what people looked like in eras going back to the late 19th and early 20th century.  When filming a piece that takes place before photography most people may not be so aware of what people looked like and so any divergence from history might not be so apparent or annoying to them.  But given how widespread our collective knowledge of different post photographic eras are these days because of the internet and TV, I might imagine that more people are like me and would expect a more faithful representation of history.  

Maybe you're right about that last (we can't know how many people there are with each point of view), but personally I doubt it. I think people want historical faithfulness for their favorite stars only when it happens to coincide with current ideas of attractiveness. For recent decades it often may, close enough. But as we go back, even through times when photography existed, I bet details will still get modified if they're now seen as ugly or frumpy. Unless the point of the character is to be a frump, as with Mary Todd Lincoln, or Catherine in Washington Square / The Heiress.

[monakane]

The 1940 Pride & Prejudice made a conscious decision to move the period up to around 1830-40,  because they thought the costumes would suit the actresses better (which is probably true - those extreme high waists are not flattering to many women).  I enjoy the costumes, even though they are too band-box perfect.

 

I hate that version of P&P.  Greer Garson is way too old for that role and I don't care for Olivier's Darcy.  I normally love those two in most movies but they grate in this one.

[voiceover]

Wow, mileage varies.  This version of P&P is tied with His Girl Friday for my all-time favorite film.  Mary Boland and Edmund Gwenn are funny & smart; exceptional as the Bennetts.  All the Elizabeth incarnations have their strengths; Garson's is the most wickedly sly ("I am afraid that the honor of standing up with you [Mr Darcy] is more than I can bear!").

[Wiendish Fitch]

IMO, Garson and Olivier are the only reasons to watch the 1940 Pride and Prejudice. Yeah, Garson's too old to play Elizabeth, but I don't care, because she gets Elizabeth. She's not my favorite Elizabeth Bennett, per se (that's still Jennifer Ehle), but I still really like Garson's portrayal, for she really brings out Elizabeth's mischievous side (I adore the archery scene) and romantic spirit. And, Holy Moses, Olivier was flippin' gorgeous when he was young! Those eyes, those chiseled features, that hair, that voice! 

 

But, other than that, I share in others' disdain for this version. I hate the fussy, frou-frou costumes and the fact that the financially strapped Bennett ladies never wear the same thing twice. Even if P&P took place in the 1840s-1860s, my girl Elizabeth would prefer a neater look, none of that gaudy garbage she wears in the movie. It's just too cutesy in tone, to the point where it never feels like anything's at stake.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Wiendish Fitch

[WendyCR72]

I've...never seen P&P 1940. My favorite version remains the 1995 adaption. Not just because that version was faithful to the book down to the proper era, but because Firth/Ehle had marvelous chemistry.

 

Still, reading that the 1940 adaption uses GWTW era costuming, I admit, makes me give it the side eye. Still, maybe I'll try to overlook that and watch it some day. It can't be worse than the 1980 BBC adaption others seem to love. I was less than impressed there.

[HelenBaby]

I probably should have posted this yesterday, but Robert Osborne is having a medical procedure and is missing the TCM Film Festival next week and I wouldn't be surprised if he's not on the channel for a few weeks.

[Rinaldo]

She's not my favorite Elizabeth Bennett, per se (that's still Jennifer Ehle)

Just to keep things lively, my favorite is Elizabeth Garvie, in the 1980-ish BBC version. In fact (though I acknowledge that the filmed-exteriors/videotaped-indoors contrast looks rather silly these days) that's my favorite version all around. The Fay Weldon teleplay is remarkably faithful to Austen; even many of the memorable narration sentences find their way into dialogue.

 

And the reason the MGM version bugs me (besides the wrong wrong wrong period) is the way Lady Catherine de Bourgh is turned into a secret softy.

[Julia]

And the reason the MGM version bugs me (besides the wrong wrong wrong period) is the way Lady Catherine de Bourgh is turned into a secret softy.

 

Thank you. Edna May Oliver was such a damn the torpedos actress, and she did a delightful job of being a boring vicious snob. They should have left it at that.

 

I thought Greer Garson was smart enough and had a not-quite-classical beauty, which made her a terrific choice for Lizzie Bennet even if she was really too old. I do think that empire styles would have suited her frame better than the constructions they dressed her in, and that she would have looked better in the simpler dresses that Lizzie could have actually afforded.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Julia

[Athena]

Just to keep things lively, my favorite is Elizabeth Garvie, in the 1980-ish BBC version. In fact (though I acknowledge that the filmed-exteriors/videotaped-indoors contrast looks rather silly these days) that's my favorite version all around. The Fay Weldon teleplay is remarkably faithful to Austen; even many of the memorable narration sentences find their way into dialogue.

 

And the reason the MGM version bugs me (besides the wrong wrong wrong period) is the way Lady Catherine de Bourgh is turned into a secret softy.

 

I like Garvie role as well. She captured the introspective part of Lizzie so well. She was a very good actress. That series is probably the most comical of all the P&P adaptations I've seen. It was a decent cast too except I didn't like that Darcy. He was just too robotic. 

 

I'm with @Wiendish Fitch on the MGM one. I like Garson and Olivier just to look at them. The archery scene is pretty, but that's about it. I'm irked by Lady Catherine too.

 

I read that Aldous Huxley was broke so he took the job to pay his bills and whatnot. You can tell it wasn't exactly an act of love writing that screenplay.

[elle]

 Mary Boland and Edmund Gwenn are funny & smart; exceptional as the Bennetts.  

Mary Boland is my favorite Mr. Bennet by far!  

 

I, too, am in the Jennifer Ehle fan club.  I think that may have colored my view in that I think of Elizabeth as a brunette.  I find myself wishing that Maureen O'Sullivan had been cast in that role rather than Jane.  I think she could have done well in the role based on the spark I see in her roles in "The Thin Man" and "The Barretts of Wimpole Street"

 

I probably should have posted this yesterday, but Robert Osborne is having a medical procedure and is missing the TCM Film Festival next week and I wouldn't be surprised if he's not on the channel for a few weeks.

Oh, that is sad to read!  Do keep us updated as you hear things.

[ruby24]

I like the 1940 one, even though I share the complaints about the costume choices, but I think it does work as a film, even if Greer Garson was too old for the part. I liked her and Olivier together, and I really liked his Darcy, which is the most different interpretation of him from all the films I've seen.

 

But my favorite is the 2005 one, with Keira Knightley. It's so romantic and cinematic, I just love it. Makes me swoon every time.