This is one of those movies I've heard of at various times in my life and assumed I would see eventually. Finally did last night, on PBS television.
It was made in the 1940s, my favorite decade for movie-making. It seems that movies then were more serious. They didn't get distracted with special effects, gadgets, trying to show how cool they are, or trying to further some political agenda. They could concentrate on story, character, human relationships, the drama of ordinary people in extraordinary situations. Three of my top ten all-time favorites are from the 1940s. So I was predisposed to like this one.
I was disappointed. As others have posted, the movie has many good parts: underlying well written novel, good acting, great photography, memorable events, memorable characters. It provides a wonderful glimpse into a culture now gone. Yet even around the halfway point I was getting disappointed. Why?
I think the basic problem is that the novel it's based on is just too long to be made into a two-hour movie. Too many characters aren't developed well. Too many scenes had to be cut. Some examples:
I hope I don't seem to be nitpicking. As I said above, this movie provides a loving look at a time and place now gone, and does it well. It is good. But it should have been two movies.
It was made in the 1940s, my favorite decade for movie-making. It seems that movies then were more serious. They didn't get distracted with special effects, gadgets, trying to show how cool they are, or trying to further some political agenda. They could concentrate on story, character, human relationships, the drama of ordinary people in extraordinary situations. Three of my top ten all-time favorites are from the 1940s. So I was predisposed to like this one.
I was disappointed. As others have posted, the movie has many good parts: underlying well written novel, good acting, great photography, memorable events, memorable characters. It provides a wonderful glimpse into a culture now gone. Yet even around the halfway point I was getting disappointed. Why?
I think the basic problem is that the novel it's based on is just too long to be made into a two-hour movie. Too many characters aren't developed well. Too many scenes had to be cut. Some examples:
- I'm sorry, but I really couldn't keep all the brothers straight. I was glad when some went off to America. When one died (fairly early on), I wished I could have easily rewound the film to remind myself what he looked like. Ten minutes later when I saw another brother I could have sworn that was the one who died.
- The youngest boy, Huw, should have been made to age over the three year or so span of the movie. It really was distracting. Maybe they could have used a 14 year old actor who could be made-up to look 10 at the start. Maybe they could make him look shorter at first by having him stand on a lower floor than the other actors. He also seemed to behave like he was 10 the whole time.
- Huw seems to fall in love with the widow of his brother. This is only hinted at. It should be developed!
- How did the strike get resolved? What was the compromise?
- Why did the boxer who helps Huw become blind? It struck me as odd. Why bother including that part, since time is limited?
- The Maureen O'Hara character, Angharad, and her marriage didn't make sense. We get to see her husband in only two very brief scenes. He is a stereotype. When did they meet? Doesn't his father object? Show us more of his character and personality. Show us at least one scene of their married life.
- The Walter Pigeon character, the minister, is a very important part of the film. We see him teaching and helping Huw, which is great. But his decision relative to Angharad needs more development. And at the end, we are left to figure out for ourselves what will happen.
- The part about one of the older brothers who gets invited to sing before the Queen is wasted. I would drop two of the older brothers, including this one, from the film entirely. Use the time saved there to develop the relationship between Angharad and her husband.
I hope I don't seem to be nitpicking. As I said above, this movie provides a loving look at a time and place now gone, and does it well. It is good. But it should have been two movies.