Monthly Archives: March 2016

  • When We Are Married

    Lance Comfort (1943)

    Hard work by the cast and hard work for the audience (this member of it anyway); hard too to put your finger on why this is.  There are some good performances – especially from Raymond Huntley (Councillor Parker) and Ernest Butcher (Herbert Soppitt) – but the film is stolid.  I don’t know how many of the actors had been in the original stage production in 1938 but it’s as if they’re reproducing theatre performances without the dynamism that a live audience generates for actors, especially in comedy.  Plenty of people in the sizeable NFT1 audience responded as if they were in a different kind of theatre and applauded warmly at the end (this is getting to be par for the course for nearly anything in NFT1) but that was obviously no help to the players on screen.  The fact that they’re all now dead confirmed their absolute separation from the audience – and made me unhappy in a way that doesn’t happen, not to anything like the same extent anyway, when a film of this era has a life of its own.

    Because of this pervasive stiffness to the proceedings the lines plop heavily and  there are gaps between them long enough for you to become conscious of the limitations of the original, even though J B Priestley’s single-set play has been opened up reasonably well.  (Priestley did the screenplay.) You wouldn’t be aware of this if you were swept along by the verve of the production or the performances – as I recall, that did happen when I saw When We Are Married on stage in the mid-1980s[1].  This is serviceable social comedy – it puts across insistently the prejudices of time (the Edwardian decade) and place (Yorkshire) and class (petit bourgeois).  The idea that drives the story is a  good one:  three couples, married at the same time and now celebrating their silver weddings, discover that they’ve never been married at all because the clergyman who officiated wasn’t at the time qualified to do so.  Most of these people are no strangers to moral censoriousness so to discover they’ve been living in sin for a quarter century is a pleasing comeuppance.

    The experience causes the Helliwells, Parkers and Soppitts to look at their partners in a different light.  It’s an opportunity for worms to turn:  the henpecked Herbert Soppitt asserts his authority over his overbearing wife Clara; Annie Parker tells Albert how relentlessly boring he is; Maria Helliwell, when she finds out about her Alderman husband’s peccadillo in Blackpool, prepares to go back to mother. Since the couples are steeped in the detail of social convention, it’s hard to believe at least one of them wouldn’t have spotted from the certificates the thing that proves they were legally married (it turns out that a registrar’s signature was enough at a chapel wedding of the time).  But never mind – the material is potentially very enjoyable if played to the hilt.  That’s not what happens in Lance Comfort’s film.  The acting is too stagy for cinema and not defiantly theatrical enough to defy the medium.

    The problem is epitomised by Sydney Howard, who plays the increasingly drunken photographer sent by the local paper to record the silver wedding celebrations.  In a lengthy introduction to the screening by a BFI archivis we were told that Howard was an inexplicably forgotten comic genius of stage and screen.  You can see his talent in the elaborate and original movements, especially of his hands – but what he does is too evidently clever.  Howard’s speech patterns and sorrowful countenance both bring to mind Alastair Sim but, on the evidence of this film anyway, he’s nothing like as easy a screen actor.  Watching Sydney Howard  here is like watching from the very front of the theatre stalls:  the performance may look magical to people further away from the stage but from where you’re sitting you can see the mechanics of its construction.  The other members of the company are Olga Lindo (Maria), Marian Spencer (Annie), Ethel Coleridge (Clara), Lloyd Pearson (Alderman Helliwell), Marjorie Rhodes (Mrs Northup, the Helliwells’ irascible housekeeper), Lydia Sherwood (the Blackpool love interest), and Patricia Hayes (an eccentric but straight-talking maid).   It was surprising to see Barry Morse (Lt Gerard from The Fugitive) as the young man who uncovers the illicit nature of the three marriages – Morse is charming in the role.  Lesley Holmes plays his sweetheart, Nancy.

    21 September 2011

    [1] The actors in that production certainly included Patricia Routledge, Prunella Scales and Timothy West.  If the 1987 television version had the same line-up as the previous year’s theatre one – the TV cast comprised Peter Vaughan, Bernard Cribbins, Rosemary Leach, Patsy Rowlands, Joss Ackland, Liz Smith and Colin Douglas, as well as Routledge and the Wests – then it was an astonishing company.  I feel guilty that I don’t remember it better.

  • Husbands

    John Cassavetes

    The three protagonists – Harry (Ben Gazzara), Archie (Peter Falk) and Gus (John Cassavetes) – are middle-class professional and family men, living in suburban New York.   Gus is a dentist (we see him at work) and I assume Archie is too (at least Harry says that both his friends have their ‘hands in people’s mouths all day’).  Harry appears to be an art director in an advertising agency.  The prologue to the film is a montage of photographs of the trio fooling around by a swimming pool with a fourth man (David Rowlands – Cassavetes’ brother-in-law).  The live action starts with the funeral of this friend, named Stuart.  After the funeral, Harry, Archie and Gus go on a bender which lasts the best part of two days.  Harry returns home, has a violent row with his wife (Meta Shaw) and decides to go to London.  Gus and Archie decide to accompany him.   After what looks to be less than twenty-four hours there, these two return to their homes.  Harry stays behind.   The movie’s title presumably indicates how the men see themselves primarily and that identity is ruptured when Harry – playing away from home in more ways than one – doesn’t come back to New York.  He ceases to be a husband (temporarily at least – there’s no suggestion how long he’ll be gone).  ‘What’s he gonna do without us?’ Gus and Archie ask.  They also mean ‘What are we going to do without him?’

    Harry, Archie and Gus are physically affectionate towards each other – it’s probably true to say that they love each other.  This may be sufficient for Husbands to be included in BFI’s ‘Out at the Movies’ features one of these months (if it hasn’t been already), even though the three men are emphatically heterosexual.   Cassavetes’ technique means, however, that the dominant subject of the film is not friendship or love between male friends or the capacity of men to use their adult strength and sexuality to behave irresponsibly and childishly.  The subject is acting and, specifically, what actors create through improvisation.  (According to the BFI programme note, the improvisation in Husbands was worked out in lengthy rehearsal.)   Sometimes, Cassavetes’ camera makes this nearly explicit:  in a London casino it stays on the faces of the three principals – you never see what’s happening on the gambling table.  You’re watching the reactions of Cassavetes, Falk and Gazzara rather than what winning or losing their bet means to the characters they’re playing.  Cassavetes combines apparent super-realism of performance with frankly improbable plotting – it’s not clear why Harry chooses to go to London or believable that Gus and Archie would go too.   The idea seems to be that the cinéma vérité camerawork (the DoP is Victor Kemper) and the acting style reveal essential truths about the people in the story in a way that more conventional approaches could not.  But the result isn’t revelation of character.  It’s a display of skilled actors working up enough heat to strike sparks off one another.

    This is often achieved by concentration on and swapping of repeated or very similar lines.  Here’s an example from Husbands that pursues the combustion metaphor.   After Stuart’s funeral, Gus and Archie are talking and Gus takes out a cigarette.

    Gus  I need a light.  Gimme a light.

    Archie  You wanna light?

    Gus  I need a light.  Gimme a match.

    Archie  Do I have a match?  [Looks to see if he has.]

    Gus  I need a match.

    Archie  I’m not sure I have a match …

    Gus  I need a match!

    Archie  I don’t have a match!

    This isn’t verbatim but that’s the gist of it.  The exchange isn’t realistic:  it greatly exaggerates the tendency of people to say things more than once and unnecessarily.  Nor is the situation – Gus’s need for a light – particularly urgent.  (He could ask one of the many other mourners.)  But the insistent repetition enables John Cassavetes and Peter Falk, by investing their energies in the lines, to build up an urgency that suggests that both men’s lives depend on a match being forthcoming.   Once this kind of routine has been gone through a few times (as happens pretty soon in Husbands), the effect reminds me of an art form which, on the surface, couldn’t seem more different from the cinema of John Cassavetes.  A ballet performer conventionally describes emotion by elaborating in dance a character’s response to a particular event or situation.  This tends to make me say to myself, ‘Get on with it’, but that’s simply an expression of the difficulties that I have tuning in to this mode of performance, and the fact that I prefer the rapid economy of screen acting.  Ballet doesn’t, however, claim to present emotional truth in a realistic way:  the acting in Cassavetes movies, which also amounts to dynamic circumambulation, is widely seen as remarkable, and has been much praised, for its exceptional realism.

    I nearly walked out of Husbands (as Sally and I walked out of Faces a few years ago).  I’m glad I didn’t because, in spite of the inherent unlikeliness of the trip to London, the film improves somewhat on this side of the Atlantic.   Cassavetes’ view of London is almost affectionately mocking:  it pours with rain continuously and room service in the hotel never arrives.   When the trio start trying to pick up women in the casino, Archie’s conversation with an elderly woman (Delores Delmar) is grotesquely incredible.  Why would he try it on with her, except to give Cassavetes the chance to dwell on the woman’s raddled face and incongruous false eyelashes?   (Cassavetes has already shown he’s not averse to a cheap (unrealistic) laugh when it suits.   In the fight between Harry and his wife, her mother (Lorraine Macmartin) joins in.  ‘You keep out of this!’ yells Harry until his wife starts brandishing a kitchen knife.  ‘You get that!’ he then tells his mother-in-law.)   Archie’s eventual partner in the hotel is a young Chinese girl (Noelle Kao) but it’s the girls picked up by Harry and Gus, particularly Gus’s one night stand Mary (Jenny Runacre), who transform proceedings.  Harry and Gus become more challenging characters here because they’re offensive, ridiculous and charming  at the same time – and there’s much more variety in the playing, especially from Cassavetes himself.  (He is a superb actor.)   The British performers in these small parts are good:  as well as Runacre, there’s Jenny Lee Wright, who Harry starts the night with, and an older woman called Peggy Lashbrook (I’d never heard of her before), who’s in his hotel room with two other girls by the next morning.  Husbands ends with Gus arriving home to be greeted by his kids – played by Cassavetes’ own children, Nick and Alexandra.   ‘Boy, are you in trouble!’ says the boy.  If you didn’t know that Gena Rowlands was the wife in waiting, this might almost be the writer-director’s own return home, after completing a long-winded and self-indulgent movie.

    9 October 2012

Posts navigation