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 Private Life of Henry VIII (1933)

 "

I wasn't surprised to see that this film is very, very good- the director and the star meant that would always be likely. What did surprise me, however, is how funny it is- and how relatively frank about sex- in a humourous way, yes, but this is hardly picture postcard humour.

Charles Laughton is, of course, definitive as Henry, with both his performance and the acript showing him as merry yet dangerously capricious. Intelligent, cultured, yet the ultimate spoiled brat, self-indulgent and able to turn on a sixpence.

Yet the film plays this largely for black humour, downplaying religious matters entirely, as well as foreign affairs... although Henry is made to say that "If those French and Germans don't stop killing each other then Europe will be in ruins"- hard not to see as a comment on the Europe of 1933, a decade and a half after the Great War and with Hiller yet to burn down the Reichstag.

I laughed out loud as the opening blurb dismissed Catherine of Aragon as being of "no particular interest", the opening scenes set on the day both of Anne Boleyn's execution and Jane Seymour's wedding to Henry, leaving us in no doubt whatsoever what a callous man he is, with scenes of Anne bravely facing her last couple of hours juxtaposed with Henry and Jane being frivolous... and Henry cynically sees Jane as a "stupid woman".

He is, again, callous as Jane dies in childbirth, caring only for his baby son. Yet the film focuses on the contrast between Anne of Cleves, who plays the game cleverly and ends up divorced, alive and rich... and the true tragic focus of the film, Katherine Howard, whose eagerness to court the king and have a crown eventually results in being trapped into a marriage to an old man, followed by her inevitable doom. These moments are dark, although it is not dwelt upon here that young Kate was only nineteen.

A superb, witty, funny, dark and tragic script all in one, and a strong overall cast with Charles Laughton giving the performance of his life. This is one of the triumphs of early historical sound cinema.