An Ideal Husband (1947)

 "I don't know that women are always rewarded for being charming. I think they are usually punished for it."

I thought I knew An Ideal Husband, having read the play several times when I was younger. Let us say that it feels very different, and much less of a straightforward comedy, in my middle age. But perhaps that's also a result of seeing the film rather than reading it.

There are, of course, many witty lines, several of which I remembered. But this is, at its heart, a serious tale of blackmail and integrity. Indeed, we are reminded that, despite the milieu of balls, "society", the "season" and the London of the upper classes centred on Grosvenor Square that are the focus of this and other plays, Oscar Wilde was himself, despite his aestheticism, rather left wing in his views.

The focus of the film is Sir Robert's dark secret, an act of financial impropriety done in his youth. Yet, as he tells Lord Goring, who has never wanted for anything, poverty- even the genteel type- is crushing, overwhelming. Without wealth, there can be no freedom. The script notably takes a forgiving view of Sir Robert, who ultimately goes unpunished. Mrs Cheveley, whose sins do not have the excuse of poverty, does not get such understanding, although it is notable that the film ends with her free to prey on others.

The film is mostly a straightforward and well-acted version of the play, allowing the performances and Wilde's words to carry the film. Michael Wilding is particularly good. A very young Glynis Johns also impresses. Yet I was intrigued to see the opening narration, introducing the world of 1895 and "society", only fifty years before the film was made- as the 1970s are to us- but a world away from an existence of rationing, Indian independence and the setting up of the Welfare State.

This may be a straightforward telling of the play, for the most part. But, with Wilde, that's no bad thing.

The Importance of Being Earnest (2002)

 "Thirty-five is a very attractive age. London society is full of women of the very highest birth who have, of their own free choice, remained thirty-five for years."

Oscar Wilde is awesome. I've read everything he ever published at one time or another. And, of all his plays, The Importance of Being Earnest is the most fun, just edging out An Ideal Husband. So I should enjoy this film, right?

Well... obviously the script is faultless, as it's Wilde with only minor, functional changes. And the cast is broadly excellent- especially Reese Witherspoon, Colin Firth and Rupert Everett. There are some creative visual touches behind the basic dialogue and scenes- Cecily's fantasies, the revelation that Aunt Augusta was a chorus girl before meeting Lord Bracknell, and that Jack, at the end, is telling a bit ofa porky about being called Ernest. I can see why these were done.

But... well, there's a rather brilliant 1952 film of this play, one that looms over this version like an intimidating mountain. It's quite plausible that I'd have enjoyed this version more if I hadn't seen and enjoyed its magnificent predecessor. We'll never know. But... it just isn't as good, and isn't really different enough or quirky enough to make upfor that.

Plus, although I can understand the desire to expand the settings and locations and to try and make this film not look like a static,filmed stage play... that's what the play is. It's people standing in rooms talking. Pretending otherwise doesn't work.

And finally... a production of The Importance of Being Earnest always stands or falls on its Lady Bracknell. And Edith Evan's languidly witty version of the character is quite definitive. Judi Dench is very good here, but her inevitably sterner interpretation simply cannot compare with her truly great predecessor.

Still, taking this film on its own terms, there are things to like here. it's good to see a more modern cast speaking these lines. But, if it's not too late, I'd recommend watching this first and the 1952 version second.

The Importance of Being Earnest (1952)

 "To lose one parent, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose both looks like carelessness."

Somehow, in twelve years of blogging, I've somehow contrived never to blog and adaptation of an Oscar Wilde play, something which must be remedied forthwith. Comedy, often though not always, tends to date as the decades pass. Not only to tastes in humour change but so so the social more on which the humour depends. Yes Oscar Wilde remains as funny in 2023 as in 1895, as shown by this, the last of the style of plays for which he is most known, before his sad, complex, undeserved and much misunderstood downfall. Wilde should have lived and written for many more decades.

We no longer live in a world defined by the Season and the obliquely shifting snobbish oddities of the aristocracy: indeed, most of us never did. Yet we do not feel alienated. There is no anger aimed at the upper classes here, mainly observation, yet the humour skewers this world with perfection. Interesting that this, the result of aestheticism, should come from an author who, wearing another hat, happened to be a socialist.

This film is, perhas, unambitious in its direction, being little more than a stage play with a camera pointed at it, which it cheerfully confesses by presenting itself in this way. Yet it is perfection. Oh, Michaels Redgrave and Denison are merely quite good as Jack and Algy. Joan Greenwood is better, the poshest woman who ever lived and born to play Gwendoline. Yet Dorothy Tutin excels as Cecily. Any version of this play, though, stands or falls by its Lady Bracknell. And Edith Evans is simply THE Lady Bracknell. All other performances of the part are but a shadow of hers. It is she who makes this production simply unsurpassable.