evening1 A devastating portrait of a father's tyranny over his favorite daughter whom he tutored to be the spouse he would have liked to have.Charles Laughton plays this perverted man to perfection and Norma Shearer excels as the poet Elizabeth Barrett, who starts out as a sophisticated ninny but grows to embrace her rights and independence after Frederich March playing Robert Browning questions the status quo in this stifling residence.This is a period drama with picture-perfect sets, including an exquisite street-side snow, and sumptuous costumes. The title of this piece is accurate to a fault, though; a significant amount of time is wasted on silly and tedious tangential family members.Still, the movie is worth seeing for the vigor and sensitivity of the central literary couple. It has left me with a curiosity to know more about their lives and their work.

Stormy_Autumn I had seen the 1957 version of "The Barretts of Wimpole Street" so I wasn't going to take time for this one. My scheduling changed, I ended up with time and decided to watch the 1934 film. In it were Norma Shearer and Fredric March. I was surprised to note that they were superb. They played off of each other's characters. That spark of emotions were there.Edward Barrett's (Charles Laughton) lustful feelings for his eldest daughter, Elizabeth, become obvious right away. You know he's intentions are not honorable. The fact that he forbade any and all of his children to marry and have a life and family of their own shows that he is mean and self-centered. He isn't above belittling and tearing them down until they give up any idea of breaking away from the family. Edward Barrett wants total control over his complete family. This becomes obvious in the treatment of his own niece in front of her intended husband. How would you like to have the old monster sucking face with you? Ugh! Then comes Robert Browning who reads several of Elizabeth's poems. He falls in love, decides to meet her and convinces her to leave her father, family and marry him. Elizabeth agrees. They leave together with Wilson her maid. (Una O'Connor has that role.) They, also, want to take Elizabeth's beloved spaniel, Flush.Barrett is furious when he discovers their leaving. His cruelty quickly becomes definite. He is going to do away with Flush to get even with Elizabeth for leaving her father for Robert. Will his attempt succeed? Will he ever see his daughter again? What happens with the rest of the family once he loses his hold on Elizabeth? Will Flush make it to the wedding? There's one way to find out, see the movie.

theowinthrop There are few films regarding the lives of great poets or poets at all. I can think of "Shakespeare in Love" (Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe), "The Bad Lord Byron", "Tom and Viv" (T.S.Eliot and his first wife), "The Great MacGonigal", and the two versions of "The Barretts of Wimpole Street". Although the second version of the film is considered better by some viewers (who think John Guilgud's performance as Edward Barrett is more subtle than Charles Laughton's), most film lovers thing the 1934 version is better. It certainly showed that Norma Shearer could act more than competently (her 1931 Oscar for "The Divorcée" seems justifiable due to the number of character changes she undergoes in the film, but the film was weak to begin with). Here she had a great script, and "The Barretts" remains one of her top three performances with "The Women" and "Marie Antoinette". Her jousting with Laughton as her tyrannical father is worthy of attention, and look at their eyes in their last confrontation scene. Laughton could not be too explicit about his character's incestuous motives, but his eyes tell the story - and Shearer's frightening reaction tells the revulsion and fear she feels. Fredric March's Robert Browning is optimistic and caring - which is what the character calls for (it is also what Browning apparently was like - he seems to have been ever the optimist). His willingness to admit his less than perfect side is admirable - witness how he realizes that a passage in one of his poems that Shearer cannot understand is one that does not make sense to him either (the lines concluding that sequence are quoted on this board). He is not weak reed, but a firm support for Barrett's need to flee her father. One cheers him on through the film.It was not the first film he made with Laughton. In fact, one can make a case that March and Laughton almost made a dramatic "Laurel & Hardy" pair: "Sign of the Cross", "The Barretts of Wimpole Street", "Les Miserables". To be fair Laughton got the juicier parts ("Nero", Edward Barrett", "Javert"), but March held his own in their scenes together. No small acting here, given that Laughton can steal the thunder of the picture each time by his characters and their personalities.For most of the film Laughton's character is detestable by his combination of selfishness, self-righteousness, and control-freakishness. Check out the brief scene where he is with a niece and her weak husband (Ian Wolf), which ends when he gives an overwhelmingly passionate kiss to the niece. He is a monster just barely in control of his "id". But there is one scene stands out for another reason. It is nearly comic.Edward's second oldest daughter Henrietta (Maureen O'Sullivan) has also found a boyfriend, Captain Surtees Cook (Ralph Forbes). They have been stealing away every now and then for some time together, and Forbes has even ventured into the Barrett home. They have not been caught by Edward, but he comes in early one day and finds them together. Barrett of course is surprised, and quickly realizes that Cook is a local barracks soldier who has latched onto his daughter. Barrett is also a tax payer (and a wealthy one) and he knows his tax money is spent on the upkeep of those barracks, and the training of the soldiers there to defend his country. The scene is dramatic in that it will lead to one where Edward will browbeat poor Henrietta into emotional surrender (although also eternal hatred), but for a moment the situation becomes comic. Edward stands at the door listening to first Henrietta and then Cook explain their love and devotion. He is not really impressed by this, and pulls out his watch, which he looks over. Gradually Cook realizes that his explanations are not helping him and Henrietta, and that Mr. Barrett is getting tired of his presence in his home. Eventually poor Cook leaves with some vague promise to contact Henrietta at some later date with her father's permission. As he leaves a bored and stern Edward just remains looking at his watch. In the context of the movie it is just one more reason to detest Edward Barrett, but it is a hint of Laughton's later performance as Henry Hobson in "Hobson's Choice". One wonders if it was in the original play or screenplay. It certainly helps enliven the darkness and gloom surrounding Edward Barrett.

EightyProof45 The Barretts of Wimpole Street is one of the finest play-to-film adaptations of the 1930s. Although its script, photography, and direction are all first-rate, it is still the grand performances that make this film appealing even today. The above-the-title trio had all won Academy Awards in the two or three years prior, and demonstrate their supreme thespian abilities in their roles. Towering above all is Norma Shearer, as bedridden invalid Elizabeth "Ba" Barrett. Although she speaks the lines in that sophisticated voice of hers, the scenes that strike the viewer greatest are ironically those without dialog at all. Take for example the scene immediately following her first visit with Browning. After he leaves her bedroom, the invalid struggles to her feet, and in one take, tries with all her heart to get over to the window so she can see him once more, leaving. In another scene, set a few months later, she is informed that Mr. Browning has come to visit her. Again, overcoming her bedridden state, she not only gets up, but also decides to go to see him downstairs instead of having him come up. Her eyes and hands express so much, and as she descends (without much dialog), her whole self-sense seem to elevate. Only a short while later, however, her domineering father orders her back upstairs. He wishes to carry her, but she insists on walking. In a magnificent William Daniels close-up, the camera stays on her face as her father tells her off camera that she will not succeed. Shearer's genius here lies in the change of facial expressions, as her reactions to her father's criticisms finally take their toll and she collapses. Quite simply, its another of Norma Shearer's brilliant characterizations, and one of the most different roles the actress ever played. March, second-billed as Browning, is a little histrionic. He gave a better performance opposite Shearer in 1932's Smilin' Through, but his performance here does not detract from the film, and his forcefulness seems strangely potent at times. As the glowering father, Laughton is amazing. The infamous "gleam" in his eye is there in many scenes, and when he carries his daughter up the stairs, its almost perverted (albeit brilliant). Maureen O'Sullavan is phenomenal as Elizabeth's young-and-in-love, rebellious sister, and Una O'Connor is in great form as her graceful maid. A feast for fine acting, The Barretts of Wimpole Street is one of the most appealing of all costume dramas of Hollywood's golden age. It still stands (as it shall for many years to come) as a lasting tribute to two larger-than-life literary icons. ****point of interest****in 1957, Barretts was admirably remade by the same director (Sidney Franklin) at M-G-M (as was this version). Although not nearly as good as the original, fine performances from Jennifer Jones (Elizabeth) and John Gielgud (Papa Barrett) again captured on film Rudolph Besier's classic roles.