Category: Romance

Love Me Tonight (1932)

Delightful semi-parody of Lubitsch, that’s one of the most enjoyable and brilliant films of the decade

Director: Rouben Mamoulian

Cast: Maurice Chevalier (Maurice), Jeanette MacDonald (Princess Jeanette), Charles Ruggles (Vicomte Gilbert de Varèze), Charles Butterworth (Comte de Savignac), Myrna Loy (Comtesse Valentine), C. Aubrey Smith (Duc d’Artelines), Elizabeth Patterson (First aunt), Ethel Griffies (Second aunt), Blanche Friderici (Third aunt)

It’s very easy to assume Love Me Tonight comes from Ernst Lubitsch’s masterful hands. It does seem to have every element of his classic “Touch”: mixing light comedy in refined, courtly circles with charming ear-worm ditties – not to mention the presence of Maurice Chevalier and Jeanette MacDonald as an unlikely couple drawn (inevitably) together. It’s a surprise then that itwas directed by that overlooked master Rouben Mamoulian, intended as a parody of Lubitsch’s style. But it was so masterfully witty and well-delivered, that arguably became the greatest Lubitsch comedy ever.

It’s certainly one of the finest, funniest and most inventive musical comedies you’re going to see. Set in Paris at some point in the 1920s (despite which, only Chevalier has any trace of an accent), we meet Maurice (Chevalier), a plucky tailor with a dream, thrilled to land the big-spending Vicomte de Varèze (Charles Ruggles) as a client: and less thrilled to discover the Vicomte never pays his bills. Maurice rides post-haste to the Vicomte’s family manor, where the guilt-free Vicomte (worried his uncle (C. Aubrey Smith) will cut him off in disgrace) passes him off as a hidden royal, while he tries to raise money. Maurice falls in love with the Vicomte’s cousin, widowed Princess Jeanette (MacDonald), who at first can’t stand him, but soon discovers his charm.

Perhaps you should be tipped off this is a parody (of sorts) of vehicles the stars had made at least twice already with Lubitsch, that Love Me Tonight doesn’t even bother to change their names. But Love Me Tonight has a rich, cheeky script full of risque one-liners (tragically, some of the naughtiest stuff is lost forever after a post Hays Code recut) and it barrels along with an effortlessly smooth comic charm. Although the stars both found Mamoulian harder to work with than Lubitsch, these are two of their lightest, funniest most endearing performances, with Chevalier archly flirtatious while still a perfect gentleman and MacDonald austerely repressed with just a hint of excitement.

It’s a film stuffed with gloriously eccentric characters, with a top-of-the-line comic cast, all throwing themselves into top-of-the-line songs. Charles Ruggles is full of shameless, comic selfishness as the Vicomte who genuinely doesn’t understand why he should pay debts. C. Aubrey Smith shows more playfulness here (including a delightful moment where he dances in glee) than he did in his whole career of stiff-upper-lipped army officers. Charles Butterworth scowls and sulks superbly as MacDonald’s unwanted suitor. Elizabeth Patterson, Ethel Griffies and Blanche Friderici are great fun as a pack of easily-flustered maiden aunts (“Oh let me die!” one quietly mutters at a moment of risqué shock) who are one-third Macbeth’s witches, two thirds excited, yapping puppies. Perhaps best of all, Myrna Loy is a vampishly, sex-obsessed young woman making a pass at anything with a penis and a pulse.

Backed with a host of excellent songs – ‘Isn’t it Romantic’, ‘Mimi’, ‘Love Me Tonight’ and ‘The Son of a Gun is Nothing but a Tailor’ are first rate – the film is crammed with genuinely funny lines and marvellous moments of comic invention. From Maurice (shamelessly) mumbling the most risqué lines of ‘Lover’ (making his intentions all too clear) to a hilarious sequence where he derails a stag hunt by escorting the lucky animal to safety in a cottage, there is something to make you laugh almost every minute. Mamoulian directs with real zip and pace throughout, keeping the delightfully light confection gloriously whisked without ever letting it grow heavy.

That’s just scratching the surface of Mamoulian’s outstanding work. Disparaged as a director obsessed with innovation, it’s hard to see how anyone felt that was a negative when you see results as rich as this. Love Me Tonight is so full of brilliantly dynamic use of sound, visuals and editing, that I’m stunned it isn’t referenced more often as a landmark in Hollywood’s emerging understanding of what was possible. The fact it does all this, in fabulously enjoyable way, in gorgeously designed sets where charming actors effortlessly do their work is even better.

The invention is right there from the opening frames. Taking a theatrical technique he had used on Broadway in Porgy and Bess, Mamoulian opens the film on the street of Paris. One-by-one the citizens emerge to go about their daily business – sweeping streets, cobbling shoes, beating carpets, washing windows – the cacophony building up into a rhythmic beat that leads us into the opening number. It’s superbly done, so simple but so far ahead of the imaginings of other directors at the time, it smacks a smile on your face.

It continues with the masterful delivery of the ‘Isn’t it Romantic’ song. Starting with Chevalier singing the song (off-the-cuff) in his tailor shop, it’s picked up (in turn) and then travels across the country, via a customer, taxi driver, composer in the taxi, platoon of soldiers, fiddler in the country and finally winds its way under Jeanette’s window for MacDonald to sing. With an effect both natural and brilliantly artificial, the two stars are linked together by one song without even meeting. Again, it’s simple but perfect.

Love Me Tonight is crammed with superb moments like this that take the breath way. At a shocking reveal, a ceramic urn smashes on the ground – but the sound is replaced by a dynamite blast, reflecting the impact the reveal has had. A superb split screen gives the appearance of Chevalier and MacDonald in bed together (they are of course in different beds dreaming of each other). When Chevalier is given the crazed horse Solitary to ride at the hunt (so called, as the horse always come home alone) Mamoulian uses sped-up-film to masterful effect. He then balances this with artfully slow-motion footage, when the hunt ‘tip toes’ away from the resting stag – he even uses reverse film for a stunt to show Chevalier leaping onto the back of MacDonald’s horse. A final horse-train chase sequence wouldn’t like out of place in an action thriller, in its brilliant use of composition and editing to suggest speed and dynamism.

There is barely a frame in Love Me Tonight that doesn’t have a stroke of theatrical or cinematic genius. But these never overwhelm the story or unbalance it. Even without noticing the superb nature of the film’s construction, you could still love every minute of its humour, charm and romance – not to mention the effortless likeability of everyone involved. Love Me Tonight may have began as a parody of a familiar genre, but it’s also possibly the greatest example of the genre in existence, mastering the Lubitsch touch so well, it turns out it didn’t need Lubitsch at all. One of the best films of the 1930s.

Bad Girl (1931)

Somewhat mistitled film, which is really a sort of dramedy of misunderstandings

Director: Frank Borzage

Cast: Sally Eilers (Dorothy Haley), James Dunn (Eddie Collins), Minna Gombell (Edna Driggs), Claude King (Dr Burgess)

Boy meets girl, they fall in love – what could go wrong? Quite a lot it turns out. Dorothy (Sally Eilers) works in a department store and enjoys nights out with best friend Edna (Minna Gombell). On one such trip she a man she meets is annoyed by her ukulele playing (who can blame him) and then doubles down on his crime by not flirting with her. But she’s fascinated by Eddie Collins (James Dunn) and, before they know it, they are into a whirl-wind marriage. Within months, both are convinced the other believes they have made a terrible mistake and want out.

Despite its salacious title – and the look of its poster – today Moderately Cheeky Girl would be a better title than Bad Girl. A better title than either would really be A Dramedy of Errors. Because that’s really what it’s about: two slightly naïve, decent people terrified that the other feels trapped. It’s the sort of gentle melodrama where the entire plot would fall apart in thirty seconds flat if either spoke honestly to the other. Instead, mistakes and misunderstandings are (often wilfully) allowed to continue, as they conceal things or allow misunderstandings to continue out of social embarrassment.

As such, it’s hard not to think Bad Girl as being both rather slight and silly. It just about manages to counteract this by its careful pacing and the sweet earnestness of the performances by Sally Eilers and James Dunn, counter-balanced by the sparky comic sharpness of Minna Gombell. Between them, these three just about keep Borzage’s sentimental translation (of a far spicey book) going. But, rather like the characters dilemmas, if you stop to think about it, it’s strikingly artificial.

Most of the many misunderstandings revolve around Dorothy’s pregnancy. This pregnancy itself is practically the last vestige of ‘bad’ left in the film: it’s very heavily implied this baby has its roots in a spicey piece of pre-marital sex shortly after they met. (Borzage rather artfully communicates this with a slow pan from a middle-of-the-night shot of a bed to the two lovers hugging – fully clothed – in a chair the other side of the room). But it serves as a jumping off point for paranoid misunderstandings, rooted in Dorothy’s fears that (like her mother) she’s destined to die in childbirth.

First, Dorothy is too panicked to admit she’s pregnant (worried that Eddie will disappear over the horizon the second he finds out he’s destined to be a dad). So she speaks about needing to find her own job, leading to Eddie blowing his entire life savings on setting them up in a fully furnished flat to reassure her she doesn’t need to work. This calamitous decision ends at a stroke both Eddie’s dream of setting up his own business and burns through their reserves for the incoming infant. As such, when Dorothy sweats over needing the finest doctor, Eddie is reduced to (secretly) throwing himself into being beaten to a pulp in a prize fighting ring and then literally begging the doctor to work for free to help her – all while allowing her to believe he doesn’t really give a toss.

The film’s love of melodrama is never clearer than when Dorothy greets the bruised, late-night returning Eddie with a weary contemptuous assumption he’s been out on the piss and Eddie doesn’t even try to correct her. Neither does she question how they can suddenly afford the best doctor in town, nor does Eddie attempt to inform her. In a series of misunderstandings stemming from neither talking honestly to each other at all, Eddie remains convinced Dorothy can’t bear the thought of a child while Dorothy believes Eddie feels she and the child have ruined his life.

How much you run with this sort of stuff, rather depends how much you can lose yourself in a drama where you might be dying for someone to knock some sense into these tyros. Minna Gombell’s Edna seems best suited to do this but, partly due to not wanting to stick in her nose too far, partly because she almost can’t believe these two can be so blind, she doesn’t. Fortunately, James Dunn finds a great deal of little-boy-lost charm in the try-hard but quietly anxious Eddie, while Sally Eilers Dorothy has a winning quality of sounding more worldly than she actually is.

The misunderstandings comprehensively outweigh the “badness” which looks incredibly tame today. She likes to flirt, looks for dates out on the town and doesn’t mind seeing a boy late at night – what a temptress! In fact, if anything, the way poor Dorothy and Edna constantly fall back on a parade of invented prize-fighting husbands and protective grandfathers to fend off the unwanted attentions of lascivious bosses and customers makes them feel rather sympathetic.

Borzage won an Oscar for his direction, which feels slightly surprising today considering the light melodrama of the script (like a puff of air) and the fairly comfortable mid-shot most of the film is shot in. There are some flashes of invention – the film’s opening is a neat misdirect, with Dorothy kitted out in wedding attire for what turns out to be a fashion parade at her department store; there is a neatly shot toboggan ride – but largely Borzage’s main achievement here is not making it seem totally ridiculous. The drama around Eddie’s investment in a top notch apartment they can’t afford actually carries a fair bit of impact – helped by the shocked horror of Eilers when its unveiled in front of a room of their friends – and the film’s final, slightly ridiculous reveal of the truth manages to just about work even though it’s the most swiftly contrived thing you can imagine.

Bad Girl is an entertaining enough little melodramatic semi-comedy of misunderstandings, that powers through with its genuine earnestness and rather winning sweetness. It may not be anything particularly special or striking, but it slides past with a crowd-pleasing ease.

Here Comes the Navy (1934)

Run-of-the-mill odd-couple buddy movie, that somehow landed a nomination for Best Picture

Director: Lloyd Bacon

Cast: James Cagney (Chesty O’Connor), Pat O’Brien (CPO Biff Martin), Gloria Stuart (Dorothy Martin), Frank McHugh (Wilbur ‘Droopy’ Mullins), Dorothy Tree (Gladys), Willard Robertson (Lieutenant Commander), Eddie Acuff (Orderly), George Irving (Admiral)

Why did Here Comes the Navy get nominated for Best Picture? The only answer that makes sense why this run-of-the-mill mix of odd-couple buddy movie and flag-waving recruitment piece ended up in such hallowed company is that it was the only contender Warner Brothers had that year and the full company block vote went behind it. Either way, Here Comes the Navy has disappeared as swiftly as a rock dropping to the bottom of the sea.

Chesty O’Connor (James Cagney) is a happy-go-lucky builder with a chip on his shoulder who takes it badly when Chief Petty Officer Biff Martin (Pat O’Brien) woos his girl Gladys (Dorothy Tree), wins Chesty’s own dance competition with her and even knocks Chesty down in a fight. Chesty decides the best revenge is to join the navy and get on board Martin’s ship USS Arizona for round two. Unfortunately for him, he finds the navy is harder work than expected, with its rigid discipline. Doesn’t stop Chesty continuing his feud with Martin – especially when he falls for Martins sister Dorothy (Gloria Stuart). But will Chesty find honour, decency and a love of duty in him while serving in the navy?

Since the film was made with the full co-operation of the US Navy, you can be pretty confident he will. Bacon’s film zips along in a pacey 85 mins, hitting every expected beat you would expect. It’s almost completely reliable on the charm and comic timing of Cagney, so it’s just as well he’s on fine form, with just the right level of cheek and cynicism alongside his deadly sin of pride. It further helps that he’s sparking much of his odd couple bickering against long-time real-life pal Pat O’Brien, spot on for the stiffer, less entertaining role of the rule-abiding killjoy who can still win a dance contest and will put up his dukes when needed (but only off duty).

The sparring and bickering between these two – with the inevitable heroic deed that brings them together as feuding best pals – is fairly formulaic but decent enough. That’s par for the whole film, which is all a formula delivered exactly to plan, that barely stands out from hundreds of similar movies. It feels rather like a light-and-jolly B-movie, the sort of thing that might pop up before you watch a more prestige product afterwards.

It gets lifted to A-movie status due to the scale from that Naval investment. Here Comes the Navy’s subtle, military-approved, message is that the atmosphere of the navy, its discipline and the pride in the institution of officers and men can turn even the most unlikely waster into a stand-up pride of the service. With that message firmly in place, the film got enviable access to the USS Arizona, with scenes above and below deck, with Chesty and Droopy polishing guns, swabbing decks, loading and firing the guns, climbing on board… every chance is used and to show the navy equipment (several stock clips shows various ships on practice manoeuvres) and the same thing continues when Chesty is re-assigned to the US Naval Air Service, with vast hangers and airships.

Plot wise, among all this impressive military hardware, there is little to get anyone’s creative juices really flowing. It’s all shot with competent professionalism but no real inspiration (or lasting interest) by Lloyd Bacon. Gloria Stuart gives a perfectly fine performance as Martin’s decent, kind sister. Cagney has almost as much chemistry with her, as he does with the tender bond he displays with Frank McHugh’s quietly amusing Droopy. (There is a hint of a homoerotic bond between Cagney and McHugh, that I am pretty sure must have passed the Navy by when they watched the film).

The shenanigans are all fairly amusing, except perhaps for an unfortunate sequence where Cagney blacks up to slip ashore as part of a ticket-of-leave party. The make-up renders him unrecognisable to Martin (!), but that’s not as bad the Black sailor he purchases the ticket from, who is only a few degrees away from the sort of “yes massa” portrait of dimness and docility that filled out the cast of Gone with the Wind.

Aside from that it’s all fine, in a totally forgettable way (I’d be amazed if Cagney had any memory of making the film). It’s main interest today is the way it captures on film two doomed naval vessels. The airship USS Macon that Chesty serves on was lost at sea (fortunately with only two crewmen lost) less than a year after Cagney’s stunt double shinned down a rope mid-air. Even more tragic, the USS Arizona would be sunk at Pearl Harbor seven years later, with 1,177 officers and crew lost, its carcass still lying at the bottom of the harbour today. It’s a tragic footnote to a film that is itself a footnote in Oscar’s history.

L’Atalante (1934)

Vigo’s gorgeous, marvellous, magical film is his only finished work but exceeds the resumes of director’s with dozens of credits

Director: Jean Vigo

Cast: Michel Simon (Père Jules), Dita Parlo (Juliette), Jean Dasté (Jean), Gilles Margaritis (The Peddler), Louis Lefebvre (The cabin boy)

In his short life Jean Vigo made only L’Atalante, the anarchic short film Zéro de conduit (a surrealist black comedy about rebellious school kids) and two brief documentaries on Nice and the swimmer Jean Taris. But you could argue, in L’Atalante alone, he presented the sort of cinematic resume that would make a director with decades of work behind them green with envy. Vigo shot L’Atalante’s astonishing mix of poetry and realism while dying from tuberculosis (he may even have never seen the final film, leaving instructions for the shooting of its final shot and the final trims for its editing) but he would surely have been delighted at the film’s lasting impact.

It’s story, like some of the greatest, is beautifully simple. Juliette (Dita Parlo) is a country girl who marries Jean (Jean Dasté), captain of a commercial canal barge L’Atalante, crewed by young cabin boy (Louis Lefebvre) and crusty old sea dog Père Jules (Michel Simon). Juliette dreams of escaping her village to see the sights of Paris, Jean’s dreams are more humdrum and the clash between these will play out over the first days of their marriage as the couple get to know each other, feel the first flush of passion and go through their first real argument. Will love find a way to bring them back together?

L’Atalante takes this simple set-up, and invests it with something truly magical and universal, in a film crammed with as much cinematic bravura and beauty as it is gentle observation of human foibles. You can see why a film as beautifully assured and playful as this has such a legion of admirers. It mixes detailed observation of Jean and Juliette walking through the industrial docks of the various towns they stop at (shots that look like they come straight from Godard) with splashes of magical realism, as Jean throws himself into the canal to experience a mystical vision of Juliette dancing underwater. It’s a film that shifts and embodies different moods and styles from moment to moment while feeling like a remarkably coherent whole.

It’s also a strikingly humane film which develops richly multi-layered characters of intriguing depth and contradictions. Juliette and Jean’s marriage is, in many ways, a true love match (it will become clear that Juliette honestly believes in Jean as her soul mate), but Vigo still shoots the marriage procession (from church to barge) like a funeral march, black-clad villagers following behind pair-by-pair and standing at the dock staring as they depart like mourners. (There is even a low-angle tracking shot taking us past a foreboding grandmother, almost like she’s a prophet of doom). From the beginning, Vigo makes clear that there is a disconnect somewhere along the line here, between romantic hopefulness and the reality of two people who have perhaps made an impulsive decision.

Juliette boards the boat, but heads straight to the prow to stare forward into the mist (how unclear is that future!), startled when Jean approaches (he frequently struggles to find her in the barge, including losing her in the mist). It feels at first as if this is a marriage of convenience between two strangers: so much so that it’s a surprise that Juliette seems to remember herself and allows herself to be wrapped into Jean’s warm embrace. And Vigo shows their obvious sexual bond as soon as they relax.

It leads into a scene that plays like a few days of a glorious honeymoon. They share a bed together (so passionately, that when one of Père Jules’ many cats spawns a litter on their bed, Jules jokes they must be the parents), they laugh and joke and playfully wrestle on the roof of the barge. Jean crawls across the barge roof towards the waking Juliette first thing in the morning like a cat in heat. They are a couple who cast aside any hesitancy or shyness they felt at first into a burst of giggling, heady passion.

It’s also though a passion that’s matched with a mix of poetic romanticism. Juliette tells Jean she saw a vision of him when she plunged her head into a bowl of water years ago. It’s a feeling, it becomes clear, she has total faith in – it’s part of the deeply charming romanticism that’s in Dita Parlo’s beautiful performance as Juliette, who is both a fragile dreamer and a hardened realist who can just get on with it. So much so, that she’s more than a little annoyed when Jean implicitly mocks it by sticking his head into first the bowl and then plunged into the canal itself and claims, try as he might, that he can’t see her vision at all. He’s joking of course, but she really means it.

And perhaps she’s right, since Vigo returns to this theme with the full force of romantic poetic realism in the film’s final act. But first that has to come after the couple have found themselves in far more tumultuous waters. Juliette finds the rough-and-ready life of Jean on the boat (where he stuffs his laundry mountain into a cupboard almost literally for a rainy day) trying, throwing herself into domestic drudgery to add some order. It’s a pay off she’s willing to make, while sewing a dress to wear around the streets of Paris Jean has promised to take her. Dreams shattered, when the rest of the crew leave the barge when it is docked there forcing Jean to cancel their planned night (much to her crushing disappointment).

Jean offers her a back-up at Le Havre, taking her to a dance bar – where, to his jealous fury, Juliette enjoys dancing far more with a garrulous, charming, relaxed peddler (Gilles Margaritis, with energy pouring out of him). We already know Jean can be jealous – he throws a teenage-angst fit of rage when catching Juliette spending time alone with Jules, smashing parts of the room up). When Juliette sneaks into town, its enough for Jules to disappear over the horizon with his barge.

So far, so everyday realism of a marriage gone wrong, a love match founded on shallow roots. Only Vigo returns to the magic realism he had played with earlier. Separated by miles, the depressed Jean and the lonely Juliette seem to bond and hear each other from miles apart. Sleeping, they toss and turn in a mix of frustration, loneliness and increasingly erotic connection as the film cuts between the two of them. Jean runs from his bed to hurl himself into the canal, to see the vision of Juliette. Suddenly we are in a film of almost magical unreality, where spiritual and vocal bonds (like Jane Eyre) stretch over miles and bring people together in ways they can’t imagine.

It’s also fitting that the couple’s reconciliation is powered by Michel Simon’s Père Jules, who had at first seemed like the ogre at the heart of the ship. Simon’s performance is animalistically brilliant, a lunk of a man with seemingly bestial appetites (and there is a sneaking suspicion part of Juliette is excited by his rawness) who also displays a sensitive, tender side. His den on the boat is filled with exotic mementoes of his life on the seas (including the severed hand in a bottle of an old friend who he talks about with the wistfulness of a lover), as is his tattoo-covered body. He will delicately repair a gramophone, loom over Juliette with sexual suggestiveness and the dance around for her entertainment in a patchwork dress. It’s a brilliant, visceral, inventive performance.

It’s part of a patchwork put together with such luminescent brilliance by Vigo, that even thinking back on how it’s staged and assembled is exciting and moving. L’Atalante constantly stuns and surprises, with the gorgeousness of its filming and the power of its emotions and sexuality. It manages to take a story that could feel small and everyday and give it a quiet mythic force that lends it a universality. So brilliantly done is the film, that it makes you even more heart-broken that Vigo was not granted the time for a full body of work. But it this was to be his only film, it was a beauty.

A Farewell to Arms (1932)

Hemingway hated this lusciously made high romance version of this novel, very well-filmed

Director: Frank Borzage

Cast: Helen Hayes (Catherine Barkley), Gary Cooper (Lt Frederic Henry), Adolphe Menjou (Captain Rinaldi), Mary Philips (Helen Ferguson), Jack La Rue (Priest), Blanche Friderici (Head Nurse), Mary Forbes (Miss Van Campen)

If there was one thing Ernest Hemingway got out of David O Selznick’s A Farewell to Arms it was a lifelong mate in Gary Cooper. Presumably, they agreed never to discuss the film during their boozing sessions, as Hemingway loathed it. Probably because Selznick’s crowd-pleasing version carefully strips out the political and moral themes of Hemingway in favour of ramping up the romance. Of course, Selznick was right that it’s quite a damn big part of the book. But it’s not how Hemingway liked to see it.

In any case, a romance is what we get – and, of course,it’s tinged with tragedy. Lt Frederic Henry (Gary Cooper) is an American serving during the First World War with the Italian Army ambulance corp. Returning to hospital, he encounters English nurse Catherine Barkley (Helen Hayes), herself mourning the death of her fiancée. After an initial bad impression, they start a romance. One that’s hard to sustain across the vast distances of war and the jealous censoring of their mail by Henry’s friend Captain Rinaldi (Adolphe Menjou) who hates his pal losing his head over a woman. When a pregnant Catherine has desperate news, fate conspires to keep them apart.

Hemingway was of course right that this version of his novel was more a tragic romance, rather than the sort of state-of-moral-consciousness story he felt it was. It almost wasn’t even a tragic romance, since Selznick had two endings shot, with the happy ending attacked to many out-of-city screenings. The film still struggled, cut down by ten minutes after its release to meet the stringent requirements of the production code. But I wonder, did Hemingway really prefer the more serious, self-important remake that followed? (Probably not, since he famously told Selznick to shove it up his ass).

At least with this Farewell to Arms he had the rich, imaginative camera work by Frank Borzage. There are several striking tracking shots, as Borzage follows in the wake of characters entering the grand houses converted into hospitals. There is also some gloriously imaginative work where the camera takes the place of Cooper as he is wheeled into hospital on a gurney in a sustained POV shot. Ceilings track past us, faces loom in over the frame and it culminates in an almost completely unclear close-up of Hayes as she looms tightly into shot to inspect him. Combine that with a striking filmic montage that plays out the horrors of combat in one well-edited montage (in addition the very first shot is a corpse on a hill – no doubt war is hell) and you’ve got some striking film-making throughout from a director with an impressive visual eye.

Farewell to Arms also has a perfectly cast lead for Hemingway. Cooper is everything you might want from this novelist’s hero: a man’s man without a shadow of a doubt but, in true Cooper style, also sensitive, innocent and strangely child-like and vulnerable. There is no relish for combat in him, he’s an architect who lingeringly chats about his ideas. He’s got a playful bashfulness with women – few other actors would have made their character seem more innocent when framed playing with a good-time-girl’s foot across a table in a bar. By the end of the film, Cooper genuinely feels like a lost soul, like a big kid waiting for an adult to come along and fix things.

It works particularly well, because it’s important to Farewell to Arms construction that Cooper should never feel like a rogue. It’s only awful circumstances and terrible deeds that keeps him apart from Hayes. Left to his own devices he would have course rushed to her side: the film using this moral fidelity to justify the pre-marital sex the couple engage in. Much of the content more openly addressing this was, of course, snipped in the post-code re-edit – but it’s hard to escape when the entire plot revolves around Catherine being pregnant in the end.

The romance element remains however the primary calling card. Borzage, who often favoured high romance (especially in the face of adversity), clearly felt A Farewell to Arms was made for him. He even manages to work around the vast height difference (nearly a foot!) between Hayes and Cooper (who towers over her in mid-shot). Much of A Farewell to Arms is given over to their courtship and romance: from a muddled first meeting, confusion over a kiss to the warm embraces of Henry’s sick leave under Catherine’s care. Hayes gives a decent performance as Catherine, even if she seems a little more forced and mannered than Cooper’s relaxed naturalness. The increasingly grand tragedy of the film’s closing moments also leads to her leaning in a little too much towards intense stares and breathy line-deliveries.

Perhaps most interestingly though, there is another unspoken romance at the heart of A Farewell to Arms. The adaptation dials up the importance of Adolphe Menjou’s spaghetti-accented Captain Rinaldi. Menjou does fine work as this fun-loving, irreverent surgeon, but by making him the jealous reason for the lovers’ separation, it’s hard not to infer a homoerotic element in his feelings for Cooper’s Henry. Surely, it’s more than friendship that cause Rinaldi to travel across country to treat his friend. It’s hard not to read something into his continued irritated complaints about how ‘unmanly’ Henry is by allowing himself to he wrapped up in a woman, or the casually spiteful way he prevents them writing to each other. There is more than a little of the jilted lover to Rinaldi, a fascinating sub-plot you wish the film could explore more.

Borzage’s film may have been despised by the novelist, but it has some fine moments. Sure it’s romance often seems to fit very naturally into a traditional Romeo and Juliet style-template and its frequently more inspired in its framing than it is in the pace and depth of its storytelling (there is also, as well, a faint lack of chemistry between the stars). But there is a fine performance by Cooper and much to enjoy in its tight, lean frame, even if it never manages to find true inspiration.

Since You Went Away (1944)

Overlong attempt to make an American Mrs Miniver which can’t sustain its focus over three hours

Director: James Cromwell

Cast: Claudette Colbert (Anne Hilton), Jennifer Jones (Jane Hilton), Joseph Cotton (Lt Tony Willett), Shirley Temple (Bridget Hilton), Monty Woolley (Colonel William G Smollett), Lionel Barrymore (Clergyman), Robert Walker (Corporal William G Smollett II), Hattie McDaniel (Fidelia), Agnes Moorehead (Emily Hawkins), Nazimova (Zofia Koslowska), Albert Basserman (Dr Golden), Keenan Wynn (Lt Solomon)

With America embroiled in the Second World War, David O. Selznick felt it was his duty to do his bit. And what better way than making a movie. So was born Since You Went Away, adapted by Selznick himself from Margaret Buell Wilder’s epistolary novel, about a woman writing letters to her husband while he fights the good fight abroad. It was nothing more or less than Selznick’s attempt to create a Mrs Miniver for America, to bring the tribulations of those left behind to the screen.

Our family is the Hiltons. Over the course of 1943, they wait for news of husband and father Tim as serves abroad. With Tim’s income gone, wife Anne (Claudette Colbert) needs to make economies and bring in a lodger, avuncular retired Colonel Smollett (Monty Woolley). This brings into their lives Smollett’s nephew Bill (Robert Walker), who begins a romance with Anne’s oldest daughter Jane (Jennifer Jones), while her younger daughter Bridget (Shirley Temple) builds a friendship with their lodger. The family is aided by friends, not least Tim’s best friend Tony Willett (Joseph Cotton), the subject of a long-standing crush of Jane’s and is himself in love with Anne. Over the year, the family does everything they can to support the war effort.

There is probably a fine couple of hours in Since You Went Away. Unfortunately, it’s buried in a film so long it sometimes feels like you are living a year in the life in real-time. It’s not helped by the film’s sentimental scope often repeating the same beats over and over again, a soapy message of the overwhelming importance of hearth and home and the unbreakable bonds of love that keep families faithfully together forever (it’s ironic that this paean to duty and fidelity was made while Selznick was breaking up his marriage for an affair with Jones, while she ended her marriage to Robert Walker).

Essentially, the film has made most of its points and observations by the half-way mark, and is reduced to repeating them again in the second half, all accompanied by Max Steiner’s overly insistent score (which won the film’s only Oscar) which hammers home every single emotional point with laboured riffs on songs like No Place Like Home or Come Let Us Adore Him. Much of the drama is undermined by having almost no sense of threat: unlike Mrs Miniver there is zero chance of any of the characters actually being bombed at home but, just like that film, there is also absolutely no chance at all that Anne will be tempted by the heavily suggestive flirtation of Tony.

Instead, there is a slightly cosy air of gentleness under Since You Went Away. We are told the war, and loss of Tim’s salary, has caused hardship for the family – but it’s the sort of hardship that sees a hugely wealthy family adjusting to merely being comfortably well-off. The main concessions seem to be setting up a vegetable patch and taking in a well-paying lodger (who, of course, becomes an honorary family member). Even their Black maid (Hattie McDaniel, in a truly thankless part) is so devoted that she continues to serve them during her time-off from her new job (for no pay). There is never even a suggestion they may need to move from their massive five-bedroomed house or stop moving in their affluent circle.

This circle is represented by Agnes Moorehead, sneering like a suburban witch wrapped in ostentatious furs, who scorns any idea of pulling her weight during the war and crows about how cleverly she’s exploiting rationing loopholes. This is contrasted with the families growing civic duty, embodied by Jennifer Jones’ Jane casting aside her giddy teenage years to devotedly work as a volunteer nurse with war wounded (much to the disgust of Moorehead) and Anne’s shift to training as a welder in a munitions factory. Since You Went Away heavily pushes the angle that everyone must do their bit, hammered home by refugee welder Nazimova who gives a misty eyed reading of the famous Statue of Liberty message.

What Since You Went Away starts to feel like at times is an over-inflated, Little Women-ish drama, with war as a backdrop. There are moments of loss: Tim is reported missing, cause for much stoic resilience and heartbreak and the son of the local store is killed early on. The film has a tragic romance in the form of Jones and Walker’s Smollett Jnr, which goes through a gentle flirtation, playful hay-rolling into an overly empathetic departing train goodbye (expertly parodied in Airplane!), that holds together due to the charm of the actors. But the main message is one of cosy reassurance: it’s a million miles away from the more doubtful The Best Years of Our Lives – there’s no doubt Tim will settle straight back into a world unchanged from that he left behind.

The characters are pretty uniformly predictable and conventional, but are delivered effectively. Colbert, in many ways with a rather dull part, effectively underplays as the endlessly patient, dutiful and calm Anne, bottling up her doubts and fears into her diary. She makes a generous still centre of the film, even if the film doesn’t call for one minute of playfulness for her as an actor. She cedes much of the best ground to Jones (Selznick’s complete control of the film surely played a role in this), who is full of radiant sparkiness, even if her teenage giddiness gets a little wearing. Jones, looking in her twenties, plays the role as if she was in her teens while Shirley Temple, looking in her early teens, plays her like she was still at elementary school. Needless to say, there is no chance of either of these girls causing serious trouble or going off the rails.

Opposite them, Monty Woolley delivers exactly what is required as the outwardly gruff Colonel whose frosty exterior inevitably melts over time. Woolley does bring a lot of depth to Smollett’s quiet grief and playfulness from Smollett’s love-hate relationship with the families pet bulldog. Joseph Cotton just about manages to make Tony charming – charming enough that his hanging around and constantly flirtation with both mother and daughter isn’t too reminiscent of his psychopathic uncle in Shadow of Doubt. (In many ways, Tony is an overly insistent creep).

But the successes of the film are drowned by its absurd length and overly insistent sentimental hammering home of every single point. It does look fabulous – the shadow-laden photography of Lee Garmes and Stanley Cortez adds a great deal of noirish emotional depth – but it’s flatly directed (Cromwell was one of many directors on the project, including Selznick himself) and lacks pace. In trying to present a reassuring celebration of all-American family values, it frequently lets character and drama drift and never presents a plot development that surprises or challenges. It’s no Mrs Miniver.

Romeo and Juliet (1936)

Tediously reverent version, lacking drama and energy with two miscast leads

Director: George Cukor

Cast: Norma Shearer (Juliet), Leslie Howard (Romeo), John Barrymore (Mercutio), Edna May Oliver (Nurse), Basil Rathbone (Tybalt), C. Aubrey Smith (Lord Capulet), Andy Devine (Peter), Conway Tearle (Prince Escalus), Ralph Forbes (Paris), Henry Kolker (Friar Laurence), Violet Kemble-Cooper (Lady Capulet), Robert Warwick (Lord Montague), Reginald Denny (Benvolio) Virginia Hammond (Lady Montague)

In The Hollywood Revue of 1929, Norma Shearer takes part in a comic skit as Juliet alongside John Gilbert, where they play the balcony scene in modern slang. It clearly gave her a taste for the role, since six years later she and powerhouse-producer husband Irving Thalberg bought the play to film for real. And not just any production: this cost north of $2million, hired an army of cultural consultants and was determined to prove Hollywood could do the Bard. It’s bombing at the Box Office (despite Oscar nominations) meant it would be years before Hollywood tackled Shakespeare again.

And you can see why. Decades later, Cukor called it the one film he’d love to get another go at, to get “the garlic and the Mediterranean into it”, by which I guess he means the spice. This production of Shakespeare’s play of doomed love is singularly lifeless, painfully reverential, lacks almost any original ideas, labours several points with on-the-nose obviousness and slowly curls up and disappears into a miasma of uncomfortable actors dutifully reading poetry. Is there any wonder it’s been lost by time?

It’s all particularly sad since it starts with something approaching a bang (once it gets the earnest, classical-inspired credits and list of literary consultants out of the way). Cukor stages the opening brawl between the Capulets and Montagues with a certain pizzazz, missing from almost all of the dialogue-heavy scenes that follow. Perhaps it was felt a dust-up in a lovingly detailed recreation of Verona, with sword fights and slaps, was far less stress for Hollywood folks who saw this as their bread-and-butter?

Either way, it’s an entertaining opening that grandly stages two lavish parades of the rival families arriving in parallel processions to a church, Dutch angles throw things into tension while extras whisper “It’s the Capulets! It’s the Montagues!”. The fight, when it comes (provoked by Andy Devine’s broad Peter, with his whiny, creaking voice and slapstick thumb biting) is impressive, with lashings of a Curtiz action epic, rapidly consuming the whole square in violence. Romeo and Juliet certainly puts the money on screen here – just as it will do later with a costume-and-extras-laden Capulet ball. Briefly, you sit up and wonder if you are in for an energetic re-telling of the classic tale. Then hope dies.

It dies slowly, under the weight of so much earnest commitment to doing Shakespeare “right” that all life and energy disappears from the film. Suddenly camera work settles down to focus on dialogue mostly delivered with a poetical emptiness that sacrifices any beat of character or emotion in favour of getting the recitation spot-on. That extends to the sexless, sparkless romance between our two leads, neither of whom convince as particularly interested in each other, let alone wildly devoted to death.

It doesn’t help that both leads are wildly miscast. It’s very easy to take a pop at them for being hideously too old as teenage lovers (Howard’s lined face looks every inch his forty plus years). But, even without that, both are brutally exposed. Ashley Wilkes is no-one’s idea of a Romeo, and Howard’s intellectually cold readings make him a distant, tumult-free lead it’s hard to warm too. His precision and cold self-doubt make him more suitable for a Macbeth, a thought it’s impossible to shake as he sets about his own destruction with a fixated certainty.

For that matter Norma Shearer would probably have made a better Lady Macbeth. Instead, she makes for a painfully simpering, vapid Juliet. She tries so hard to play young and innocent, that she comes across as a rather dim Snow White (not helped by her introduction, playing with a deer in the Capulet’s garden). Her ‘youthful’ mannerisms boil down to toothy grins and an endlessly irritating constant turning of her head to one side. Rather than making her feel younger, it draws attention to her age. It’s notably how much better she is in Juliet’s pre-poison soliloquy: even if her reading is studied, she’s better playing older and fearful than at any point as naively young.

Truth told, almost no one feels either correctly cast or emerges with much credit: except Basil Rathbone, clearly having a whale of a time as a snobbishly austere Tybalt (it’s joked this was the only time on screen Rathbone won a sword fight, and even then, it was only because Leslie Howard got in the way). Edna May Oliver mugs painfully as the Nurse, C Aubrey Smith makes Capulet indistinguishable from the army of Generals he had played. John Barrymore was allowed complete freedom as Mercutio, but his grandly theatrical gestures, camp accent and overblown gestures (not to mention looking every inch his drink-sodden fifty plus years) feel like he has blown in from an Edwardian stage.

Throughout an insistent score, mixing classical music and Hollywood grandness, hammers home the cultural and literary importance at the cost of drama. It’s combined with an increasingly painful obviousness. Romeo drops a dagger in Juliet’s bedroom for her to use later. Juliet lowers a rope ladder in expectation of an arrival of Romeo she can know nothing about. The Friar literally has a Frankenstein’s Lab cooking up industrial levels of his knock-out potion (what on Earth does he need this for? Investigation needed I think!). Poor Friar John gets a sub-plot we return to multiple times (to make the irony really clear) of being locked up in a plague house (“Hark ye! Help!” he cries, a fine example of the film’s occasional laughable mock-Shakespeare) as the other characters ride back and forth past the house oblivious to his vital news.

The whole production marinates in men-in-tights traditionalism, where the nearest thing approaching an interesting interpretative idea is Mercutio tossing wine up to some prostitutes on a balcony. Otherwise, all the beats you’d expect to see in a school production are ticked off – but done so on sets that cost a fortune, and in some impressive location setting filled with hordes of costumed extras. But it’s presented in a lifeless, passion-free, poetic sing-song; a dutiful homage, that drains all meaning.

Romeo and Juliet feels like a very long film. Any cinematic invention has long-since disappeared by the end (where you are rewarded with a brief burst of expressionist lighting for the Apothecary and a decently moody, shadow-lit sword-fight in the Capulet tomb). It’s replaced with a dry, lifeless, reverential deference to the Bard, as if everyone in the film was either apologising for having the gall to make it or defensively trying to prove they were doing their best. Either way, it doesn’t make for a good film or good Shakespeare.

Children of a Lesser God (1986)

Clumsy Pygmalion drama that very uncomfortably mixes its messages during its obvious plot points

Director: Randa Haines

Cast: William Hurt (James Leeds), Marlee Matlin (Sarah Norman), Piper Laurie (Mrs. Norman), Philip Bosco (Dr Curtis Franklin), Allison Gompf (Lydia), Bob Hiltermann (Orin)

Adapted from a hit Broadway play, Children of a Lesser God (its title plucked from Tennyson’s The Passing of Arthur – though, like much of the film, I’ve no idea what point it’s trying to make) was hailed as a landmark in disability representation. Truthfully, it’s possibly slightly more retrograde than Johnny Belinda (made almost forty years earlier) and certainly not as good a film, its plodding plot and confused message not salvaged by two excellent performances.

James Leeds (William Hurt) is a charismatic teacher, newly arrived at a New England school for the deaf. His mission is to encourage the kids to speak, as he’s convinced they will struggle in the world on sign language alone. He becomes fascinated with the school’s janitor Sarah Norman (Marlee Matlin), a recent student, whipper-smart but defiantly silent, speaking only through fluent, witty sign language. Determined to teach her to speak and open-up a panorama of new opportunities for her, James and Sarah start a passionate relationship that increasingly flounders on the language barrier between them and Sarah’s own insecurities.

The positives first: both leads are excellent. Hurt is dynamic, engaging and charming – so much so it’s easy to overlook what a dick his character is (of which more later). Hurt accompanies all his dialogue with fluent sign language (no mean feat) and convinces utterly as the sort of maverick teacher who wins minds while carrying a prickly ego from uninterrupted success and validation. Opposite him, Matlin (still the youngest winner of the Best Actress Oscar) is electric: defiant, unaccommodating, sensual and damaged but able to burst into a radiant smile of confidence. Matlin makes her prickly but sensitive, defensive but determined and passion bursts out of her.

These two leads display obvious chemistry (although Matlin’s later recounting of Hurt’s serious domestic abuse during their relationship, barely denied by him, casts an uncomfortable shadow over the film). This lifts an otherwise straightforward film. It’s awash with expected plot points and beats from a meet-cute, to growing passion, falling outs and reconciliation. Aside from a few under-water shots (Sarah feeling completely comfortable under water, where her hearing is the same as everyone’s), it’s flatly filmed (it’s not a surprise Haines lost out a Best Director slot to David Lynch for Blue Velvet) and would not have looked out of place as a TV movie-of-the-week.

However, it’s main issues are the plays it makes for representation, while presenting deafness as an obstacle where the onus is on the deaf people themselves to fit in as much as possible. For a film about two people struggling to find a middle-ground between sound and silence, it never once dares us to experience the world as Sarah does. From its insistent score onwards, sound is an ever-present. None of Matlin’s dialogue is subtitled (she speaks aloud only once), with all of it translated by Hurt. For a film about finding common ground, its not interested in letting us experience even a taste of Sarah’s world.

Would it have killed them to have one scene where, perhaps, we walked around the school hearing what Sarah hears (nothing)? Or a scene where James and Sarah speak only through sign, with captioned translation? Instead, without really realising it, the film largely vindicates James’ position that not being able to speak is an abnormality Sarah is sticking to out of wilful, self-damaging stubbornness, rather than a choice she is entitled to make to engage with the world on her terms.

Unpack this stuff, and suddenly the whole film is a confusing mess of unclear positions and perspectives. James’ maverick teacher – in true Dead Poet’s style he wins the kids over by being unstuffy – is peddling a message that the deaf kids would be better off, if they became as much like him as possible. The film never once comments on James ignoring the one student in his class immune to his charm, essentially exiling him from his ‘in crowd’ during class. Is this great teaching? James has an unattractive messianic complex and a large part of his initial interest in Sarah is based on an arrogant belief that he can ‘save’ her from life as janitor, expecting her gratitude in return.

This Pygmalion like set-up quickly demonstrates it has way less insight about the self-occupied arrogance of its teacher than Shaw. It becomes clear to Sarah, that her successes (and the successes of James’ students, who under his tutelage perform a song-and-dance routine at parents day) are seen as his successes. When she wows James’ colleagues at a poker night with her wit and skill, they praise him (right in front of her), which he soaks up with a smug pleasure. The film never quite puts these dots together, or sees the irony in James’ bored disengagement with her deaf friends or his giving up on explaining Bach to her.

Worse than this, James ignores her early comment that she doesn’t want to be made to speak (she tells him that, as a teenager, she used sex to silence boys who pushed her to talk). Despite his vows, he increasingly, insistently demands she speaks, and fails to recognise when she resorts to using sex to try and shut him up. The film never pulls him up his selfishness and pushy imposing of his views, its sympathy for Sarah not changing its quiet view that her own problems are a major brick in the wall between them.

The film doesn’t really question James’ arrogance, because it can’t shake its habit of viewing her a problem to be solved. It effectively endorses James’ view that she should adjust and change as much as possible. Is it really wrong for Sarah to want to live on her own terms, not other people’s? To refuse to perform as James demands?

In fact, much as the film wants us to dislike Philip Bosco’s rules-bound obstructive headmaster, he makes two very valid points: one, it’s not for James to decide what’s best for Sarah and it’s not appropriate for James to fuck someone who is both a junior member of staff and (effectively) his student. Children of a Lesser God doesn’t even try to explore the moral complexities of any of this, instead settling for the idea that a disability can be overcome if someone works hard, overcomes their own issues and defers to an inspirational teacher. Combine that with its plodding, unoriginal story and you’ve got a film that hasn’t aged well.

Roman Holiday (1953)

Gorgeously light romantic comedy that invented and mastered a whole genre

Director: William Wyler

Cast: Gregory Peck (Joe Bradley), Audrey Hepburn (Princess Ann), Eddie Albert (Irving Radovich), Hartley Power (Hennessey), Harcourt Williams (Ambassador), Margaret Rawlings (Countess Vereberg), Tullio Carminati (General Provno), Paulo Carlini (Mario Delani), Claudio Ermelli (Giovanni), Paola Borboni (Charwoman), Alfredo Rizzo (Taxi driver)

Everyone loves a fairy tale, which is probably why Roman Holiday remains one of most popular films of all time. The whole thing is a care-free, romantic fantasy in a beautiful location, where it feels at any time the chimes of midnight could make the whole thing vanish instantly in a puff of smoke. It’s like a holiday itself: a chance to immerse yourself in something warm, reassuring and utterly charming. This fairy tale sees a Princess escape to freedom. Only she’s not escaping imprisonment by some ghastly witch or terrible monster: just from the relentless grind of never-ending duty.

The heir to the throne of an unnamed country (one of those Ruritanian neverwheres you’d find in a Lubitsch movie), Princess Anne’s (Audrey Hepburn) every waking moment is a never-ending parade of social and political functions. Just for once she’d like to do what she wants to do for the day. Something she gets when she escapes into Rome (after being given a dopey-inducing drug to sleep) and finds herself in the company of American newshound Joe Bradley (Gregory Peck). Joe quickly works out he’s harbouring the most famous woman in the world and dreams of the scoop of the century. Pretending not to know ‘Anya’s’ identity, they spend the day shooting the breeze in Rome – only to find themselves falling in love. Will Joe sell the story? And will Ann stay free or return to her duties?

Truth be told, like many fairy tales, it’s a very light story that leads towards familiar (and reassuring) morals, with a big dollop of romance along the way. It works however, because it’s told with such lightness, playfulness and gentle innocence, that it washes over you like a warm bath. A director like Lubitsch would have found sharper wit (not to mention sexual tension) in the material, but Wyler’s decision to hold back arguably works better. It lets the magic of the plot weave without directorial flourishes overbalancing things. It works because it’s so soft touch and unobtrusive in its making that it allows the actors to flourish.

It helps as well that they had Audrey Hepburn. Hepburn’s entire life changed with Roman Holiday (surely the last time she could have walked through Rome unnoticed!), winning an Oscar for the sort of dream-fit role that comes once in a blue moon. Hepburn looks perfect as a fairy-tale Princess, but her performance succeeds because of her gift for light comedy and flair for slapstick. She’s an acutely funny and hugely endearing performer, and your heart warms to her instantly. From stretching her foot and losing a shoe (under her billowing dress) in the film’s opening reception, Hepburn launches into a perfect low-key comic routine as she attempts to restore it. That comic physicality carries through her doped-out first night of freedom, including an impressive roll across a bed into a sofa, fully committed to the word-slurring ridiculousness. She’ll bring the same daft energy to her disastrous Vespa riding. Hepburn has become such an icon of class, it’s easy to forget what a bouncy comedian she was.

These comic touches make us root for her, and it’s made even easier through Hepburn’s ability to make naivety combined with touches of austere distance effortlessly charming. Watching her react with blithe confusion (and then charmingly embarrassed realisation) as she accepts shoes and flowers from retailers without realising they expect payment is never less than charmingly hilarious. Her wide-eyed excitement at everyday things like ice cream or getting an (iconic) haircut is winningly loveable. You find it funny rather than frustrating that she expects help undressing (much to Joe’s flustered surprise) or for problems like policemen to melt away. Hepburn’s performance is nothing less than transcendent, a sprinkle of Hollywood magic.

Opposite her, the film wisely casts that bastion of decency Gregory Peck. Other actors would have leaned into Joe’s background as a fast-living reporter constantly in hock to a parade of gamblers, landlords and newspaper editors. But Peck is so clean-cut he feels like Walter Cronkite on leave and removes any audience concern that Joe might do something caddish. We never once feel for a moment Anne is at risk of being taken advantage of when she sleeps in his apartment (would we have felt the same certainty with, say, Tony Curtis or even Cary Grant?) and Peck is so straight-shootingly decent, the implied threat that he may betray Anne by reporting her day of freedom as a glossy tell-all of outrageous behaviour very easily drifts from the audiences mind when watching the film. We all know Peck would never do that!

All this allows us to fully relax and enjoy the bulk of the film, which is essentially watching two beautiful, likeable people have a lovely day looking among the gorgeous sights of the Eternal City. It’s hard to credit it, but the Roman authorities initially refused the right to film as they were worried it would demean the city. Just as well they changed their mind, as perhaps no film has driven more people to Rome. Roman Holiday (even the title is a subliminal suggestion to the viewer) is full of wonderful locations, from the Trevi fountain to the Spanish steps and it single-handedly turned the Mouth of Truth into a must-visit tourist spot – not surprising, as Peck’s improvised pretence to lose his hand and Hepburn’s wails of laughter are one of the film’s most lovable moments.

Moments like that showcase the natural warmth and chemistry between the two actors, and Roman Holiday leans into it to create one of the most romantic films ever made. There is a genuine palpable spark between the two, from their meet-cute in a taxi (a dopey Anne confusedly mumbling that she lives in the Colosseum) to the ice melting between them, to the little glances they give each other as they make each other laugh on Vespas or their bond growing as throw themselves into fending off a parade of besuited goons from Anne’s embassy (this moment includes the hilarious moment when Hepburn bashes a goon over the head with a guitar).

It’s all leading of course to the inevitable bittersweet ending – because, such is the decency of Peck and Hepburn, we know they are never really going to chuck it all aside when duty and doing the right thing calls – which is equally delivered with a series of micro-reactions at another interminable function that is genuinely moving in its simplicity. Even Eddie Albert’s hilariously cynical photojournalist gets in on the act.

It’s the perfect cap to a wonderfully entertaining, escapist fantasy which never once leaves you anything less than entertained. You could carp that there is never any threat or peril at any point – and that the paper-light plot breezes by – but that would be to miss the point. But Roman Holiday invented and mastered a Hollywood staple: two likeable people fall in love in a gorgeous location. And who hasn’t dreamed of a holiday like that?

Madame Curie (1943)

Halting science biopic, that’s really an attempt to make a spiritual sequel to Mrs Miniver

Director: Mervyn LeRoy

Cast: Greer Garson (Marie Curie), Walter Pidgeon (Pierre Curie), Henry Travers (Eugene Curie), Albert Bassermann (Professor Jean Perot), Robert Walker (David le Gros), C. Aubrey Smith (Lord Kelvin), Dame May Whitty (Madame Eugene Curie), Victor Francen (University President), Reginald Owen (Dr Becquerel), Van Johnson (Reporter)

Marie Curie was one of History’s greatest scientists, her discoveries (partially alongside her husband Pierre) of radioactivity and a parade of elements, essentially laying the groundwork for many of the discoveries of the Twentieth Century (with two Nobel prizes along the way). Hers is an extraordinary life – something that doesn’t quite come into focus in this run-of-the-mill biopic, that re-focuses her life through the lens of her marriage to Pierre and skips lightly over the scientific import (and content) of her work. You could switch it off still not quite understanding what it was Marie Curie did.

What it was really about was repackaging Curie’s life into a thematic sequel to the previous year’s Oscar-winning hit Mrs Miniver. With the poster screaming “Mr and Mrs Miniver together again!”, the star-team of Garson and Pidgeon fitted their roles to match: Garson’s Marie Curie would be stoic, dependable, hiding her emotions under quiet restraint while calmly carrying on; Pidgeon’s Pierre was dry, decent, stiff-upper-lipped and patrician. Madame Curie covers the twelve years of their marriage as a Miniver-style package of struggle against adversity with Pierre’s death as a final act gut punch. Science (and history) is jettisoned when it doesn’t meet this model.

Not only Garson and Pidgeon, but Travers, Whitty, producer Sidney Franklin, cinematographer Joseph Ruttenberg, composer Herbert Stothard and editor Harold F Kress among others all returned and while Wyler wasn’t back to direct, Mervyn LeRoy, director of Garson’s other 1942 hit Random Harvest, was. Heck even the clumsily crafted voiceover was spoken by Miniver writer James Hilton. Of course, the Miniver model was a good one, so many parts of Madame Curie that replicate it work well. But it also points up the film’s lack of inspiration, not to mention that it’s hard to think either of the Curies were particularly like the versions of them we see here.

Much of the opening half of Madame Curie zeroes in on the relationship between the future husband-and-wife who, like all Hollywood scientists, are so dottily pre-occupied with their heavy-duty science-thinking they barely notice they are crazy for each other. Some endearing moments seep out of this: Pierre’s bashful gifting of a copy of his book to Marie (including clumsily pointing out a heartfelt inscription to her she fails to spot) or Pierre’s functional proposal, stressing the benefits to their scientific work. But this material constantly edges out any space for a real understanding of their work.

It fits with the romanticism of the script, which pretty much starts with the word “She was poor, she was beautiful” and carries on in a similar vein from there (I lost count of the number of times Garson’s beauty was commented on, so much so I snorted when she says at one point she’s not used to hearing such compliments). Madame Curie has a mediocre script: it’s the sort of film where people constantly, clumsily, address each other by name (even Marie and Pierre) and info-dump things each of them already know at each other. Hilton’s voiceover pops up to vaguely explain some scientific points the script isn’t nimble enough to put into dialogue.

It would be intriguing to imagine how Madame Curie might have changes its science coverage if it had been made a few years later, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been eradicated by those following in Curie’s footsteps. Certainly, the film’s bare acknowledgment of the life-shortening doses of radiation the Curies were unwittingly absorbing during their work would have changed (a doctor does suggest those strange burns on Marie’s hands may be something to worry about). So naively unplayed is this, that it’s hard not to snort when Pierre comments after a post-radium discovery rest-trip “we didn’t realise how sick we were”. In actuality, Pierre’s tragic death in a traffic accident was more likely linked to his radiation-related ill health than his absent-minded professor qualities (Madame Curie highlights his distraction early on with him nearly being crushed under carriage wheel after walking Marie home).

Madame Curie does attempt to explore some of the sexism Marie faced – although it undermines this by constantly placing most of the rebuttal in the mouth of Pierre. Various fuddy-duddy academics sniff at the idea of a woman knowing of what she speaks, while both Pierre and his assistant (an engaging Robert Walker) assume before her arrival at his lab that she must be some twisted harridan and certainly will be no use with the test tubes. To be honest, it’s not helped by those constant references to Garson’s looks or (indeed) her fundamental mis-casting. Garson’s middle-distance starring and soft-spoken politeness never fits with anyone’s idea of what Marie Curie might have been like and a bolted-on description of her as stubborn doesn’t change that.

Walter Pidgeon, surprisingly, is better suited as Pierre, his mid-Atlantic stiffness rather well-suited to the film’s vision of the absent-minded Pierre and he’s genuinely rather sweet and funny when struggling to understand and express his emotions. There are strong turns from Travers and Whitty as his feuding parents, a sprightly cameo from C Aubrey Smith as Lord Kelvin and Albert Bassermann provides avuncular concern as Marie and Pierre’s mentor. The Oscar-nominated sets are also impressive.

But, for all Madame Curie is stuffed with lines like “our notion of the universe will be changed!” it struggles to make the viewer understand why we should care about the Curie’s work. Instead, it’s domestic drama in a laboratory, lacking any real inspiration in its desperation by its makers to pull off the Miniver trick once more. Failing to really do that, and failing to really cover the science, it ends up falling between both stools, destined to be far more forgettable than a film about one of history’s most important figures deserves to be.