Letters in Old Movies

Humphrey Bogart stands on the train platform in the rain, reading the letter Ingrid Bergman has written to him.  The next few frames of the movie are focused on the letter, its handwriting melting to a blur as the ink bleeds down the page from the rain.

Today we join the Words, Words,Words Blogathon sponsored by the Classic Movie Blog Association.

Some classic films, such as The Letter (1940) and Love Letters (1945) discussed here, and The Shop Around the Corner (1940) discussed here, have plots that are predicated on a letter.  A letter is the catalyst for conflict in the story.  There are a lot of movie plots we could add to this category, like A Letter to Three Wives (1949).  A letter is the incriminating evidence, or provokes a mystery, or a love letter may bring the wrong lovers together, or incite jealousy. 

But the use of letters, moreover, showing the handwriting on the letter is such a typical device used in old movies that we might regard it a cliché, though I don’t think I’ve ever seen it parodied.  It certainly could be, but perhaps the image of handwritten letters is so natural to this era that we accept it without thinking.  In this previous post, readers responded with what were their favorite images commonly seen in old movies: the passage of time with flipping calendar pages, or the candle stick desk phones, men’s broad-brimmed hats, etc.  We can also see all of these in modern movies set in the 1930s or 1940s, and we can see them in parody skits, but I don’t think the use of a handwritten letter has been used in decades since the era when handwritten letter were the major form of communication, in business and in personal use.

I especially love moments in old movies where a letter has nothing to do with the plot, but it’s there as a convenience.  Consider White Christmas (1954), where Anne Whitfield passes a letter written by Rosemary Clooney to her sister, Vera-Ellen.  The letter informs Vera-Ellen that Rosemary, not wanting to stand in the way of what she thinks is her sister’s impending marriage, breaks up their stage act and has taken a job in New York.  Vera-Ellen merely glances at the letter to know all the contents, and passes it to Danny Kaye, who, likewise, merely glances at the letter to know all its contents.  They may be speed readers, but the director gives us a few frames of the actual letter to read because we don’t read as fast.

We are included in the letter reading.  It is as if Vera-Ellen has passed the letter around to us too.  The audience shares the news “real-time.”  We are reading over her shoulder.

Who really wrote the letters in the movies?  Was it a staff of talented handwriting stand-ins?  A studio secretary with a high school prize for penmanship?  I’d love to know.  A reader commented once that the handwriting in two different letters in two different movies looked the same.

I suppose the most famous letter in literature is the very long and detailed letter Mr. Darcy wrote to Elizabeth Bennett in Pride and Prejudice, explaining the back story of his relationship with Mr. Wickham and the treachery done to his sister, and why Darcy interfered with Mr. Bingley’s relationship with Elizabeth’s sister Jane.  It’s a bomb dropped in the middle of the story, and turns the whole plot on its head. 

He may be a closemouthed fellow when it comes to talking, but in a letter, Darcy goes on forever, yadda, yadda, yadda.  We would not likely see such a long letter printed verbatim in a modern novel. Even modern film adaptations of Darcy’s famous letter tend to abbreviate his epistle, or illustrate its points instead in dramatic flashback scenes.  The directors must think modern audiences will not sit still for a little juicy letter reading.

In many schools today, cursive handwriting is no longer taught.  Many of us have youngsters in our families who cannot write or read cursive handwriting.  This is unfortunate on many levels, most especially that they will not be able to read historic documents, including the personal letters preserved in their own families.

But it also means they will not be able to read Rosemary Clooney’s letter to Vera Ellen, or Ingrid Berman’s letter to Bogie, or any of the notes and handwritten clues as to why the actors are behaving the way they do—remember, their actions are not always explained.  Reading the letter saves us from having to say what has happened off screen.

“Why is Bogie sad, Mommy?”  Now, doesn't that just tear your heart out? 

The letter writing and letter reading scenes are passive, yet still powerfully dramatic.  The letters convey intimate news.  Sometimes they are kissed or embraced because they represent the person that wrote them.  Sometimes they are stashed quickly in a hiding place.  Sometimes they are burned, or crumpled and thrown away. 

This is what Bogie does when the goodbye letter that kicks his guts out has become illegible from the rain, substituting for tears, as Ingrid’s words bleed down the page.  He stands on the steps of the now moving train, crushes the soggy paper in his fist, and tosses it to the tracks.

Deleting an email, or "un-friending" someone was never so dramatic, or so satisfying.

What are some other favorite “letter scenes” of yours?

Please have a look at the other great posts in the Words, Words, Words blogathon.

****************************

"Lynch’s book is organized and well-written – and has plenty of amusing observations – but when it comes to describing Blyth’s movies, Lynch’s writing sparkles." - Ruth Kerr, Silver Screenings

"Jacqueline T. Lynch creates a poignant and thoroughly-researched mosaic of memories of a fine, upstanding human being who also happens to be a legendary entertainer." - Deborah Thomas, Java's Journey

"One of the great strengths of Ann Blyth: Actress. Singer. Star. is that Lynch not only gives an excellent overview of Blyth's career -- she offers detailed analyses of each of Blyth's roles -- but she puts them in the context of the larger issues of the day."- Amanda Garrett, Old Hollywood Films

"Jacqueline's book will hopefully cause many more people to take a look at this multitalented woman whose career encompassed just about every possible aspect of 20th Century entertainment." - Laura Grieve, Laura's Miscellaneous Musings

"Jacqueline T. Lynch’s Ann Blyth: Actress. Singer. Star. is an extremely well researched undertaking that is a must for all Blyth fans." - Annette Bochenek, Hometowns to Hollywood

Ann Blyth: Actress. Singer. Star. 

by Jacqueline T. Lynch

The first book on the career of actress Ann Blyth. Multitalented and remarkably versatile, Blyth began on radio as a child, appeared on Broadway at the age of twelve in Lillian Hellman's Watch on the Rhine, and enjoyed a long and diverse career in films, theatre, television, and concerts. A sensitive dramatic actress, the youngest at the time to be nominated for her role in Mildred Pierce (1945), she also displayed a gift for comedy, and was especially endeared to fans for her expressive and exquisite lyric soprano, which was showcased in many film and stage musicals. Still a popular guest at film festivals, lovely Ms. Blyth remains a treasure of the Hollywood's golden age.

The eBook and paperback are available from Amazon and CreateSpace, which is the printer.  You can also order it from my Etsy shop. It is also available at the Broadside Bookshop, 247 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts.

If you wish a signed copy, then email me at JacquelineTLynch@gmail.com and I'll get back to you with the details.

**************************

My new syndicated column SILVER SCREEN, GOLDEN YEARS, on classic film is up at Go60  or check with your local paper.

Becoming Janeite

“Becoming Jane” the latest Jane Austen film, has inspired the usual controversy among “Janeites” for taking liberties with certain facts and making up others. From the details of the courtship between Tom Lefroy and Jane Austen, based on research, to the end scene where she is an older woman and yet not wearing a day cap, the film has its share of inaccuracies. But, I’m still glad they made it.

The producers of the film purport that this version of the romance with Tom Lefroy was possible. It is also possible that Jane Austen invented jet propulsion and discovered penicillin, but it is not likely that she did. If the film’s producers had concentrated on what was likely and not what was possible, we might have a more interesting film. Miss Austen was an interesting person.

Films like this, however, have a wonderful purpose which even disgusted Janeites must allow. They bring newcomers to Jane Austen’s work.

I recall being about 14 when my mother suggested I read “Pride and Prejudice” because it was a classic and I might like it. Kind of like eat your spinach, it’s good for you. She had first become acquainted with the book while dutifully plowing through a high school summer reading list decades before. I read it. I liked it, but I really didn’t see what all the fuss was about. The language Austen used went right over my unsophisticated head, and I figured this book must be a classic simply because it was old, like classic cars were old.

It was not until some years later when I was in college that I encountered the “Masterpiece Theatre” production of “Pride and Prejudice,” the Elizabeth Garvie/David Rintoul version which was, I believe, the gold standard before the Jennifer Ehle/Colin Firth version came along. I enjoyed this production, shown, I think, in five episodes, and it made me realize something I didn’t realize when I was 14. Jane Austen is funny. The young woman was an acute, introspective, and intelligent observer of people around her, and her parodies were wicked. The woman was a hoot.

I immediately re-read “Pride and Prejudice,” which instantly became one of my favorite books, with a new perspective, and read all her other novels as well. I’ve become an Austen fan, but might never have been were it not for watching a filmed adaptation.

This goes as well for many classic films of old Hollywood, which were made of popular novels of that era. “Alice Adams” (1935) with Katharine Hepburn led me to the novels of Booth Tarkington, and “The Good Earth” (1937) introduced me to the novel by Pearl Buck. I read “How Green was My Valley” after seeing the 1941 film, and this goes as well for “All Quiet on the Western Front” (1930), “The Grapes of Wrath,” (1939), “Lost Horizon” (1937), and “Gone With the Wind” (1939). Also, “The Little Minister” by James Barrie because of the 1934 film with Katharine Hepburn.

So, bring on the films about Jane Austen and her novels. I may watch them with a grain of salt if I have to, but enjoy them nonetheless.

Frankly, I’m not sure my mother was being completely honest when she recommended “Pride and Prejudice” to me based on it being a favorite from her old high school reading list. I’m not so sure it wasn’t the 1940 movie with Greer Garson and Sir Laurence Olivier that made her a fan. For her, Greer Garson was the definitive Lizzie.

If young people who are fans of Anne Hathaway will head to the library because of this film, then huzzah for “Becoming Jane.”

That’s all for this week. See you Monday. Pray, have a most delightful weekend.

Sponsored Links:
BBC Classics Collection [DVD] DVD

Pride And Prejudice (10th Anniversary Limited Collector's Edition) [DVD](1995) DVD

Pride and Prejudice (1940)

If you can stomach the ladies’ costumes, it’s not a bad movie. “Pride and Prejudice” (1940) has all the elements of a delightful film including a well-known and beloved story by Jane Austen, two superb stars at the top of their game, and some of the best character actors of the day. Only a restoration of parts of the story line to Austen’s original intent, and the correct period costumes are all that is needed to make this an excellent adaptation.

Greer Garson and Sir Laurence Olivier are the iconic Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy, and their stagecraft and chemistry are evident. Ms. Garson’s twinkling eyes and slightly nose scrunching smile are charming, and her attentiveness to the other actors bears a history of ensemble work on stage. She is feisty, he is haughty, so far so good. Mary Boland and Edmund Gwenn are spot-on as Mr. and Mrs. Bennett, and Edna May Oliver as Lady Catherine is marvelous. Edna May Oliver as anything is generally a hoot. No actress could make pomposity as endearing as she.

In Marsha Hunt we have one of the funniest Mary Bennetts on screen, with her broad, almost campy playing of the unattractive and dull sister, particularly in her too-eager reaction when her mother admonishes her to smile at a party. The sour note she hits in her performance of “Flow Gently, Sweet Afton” is priceless.

In Mary, and in several aspects of the film we have a slapstick element being thrown in, and a tweaking of Austen’s verbiage to relate to a modern audience, as when Edmund Gwenn saves the Bennetts from looking more ridiculous by stopping Mary from performing another selection. Instead of insisting to his daughter that the other young ladies must have a chance to exhibit, he says, “Give the other young ladies a chance to make exhibitions of themselves.”

Frieda Inescort plays a suitably frosty Caroline Bingley, and she is perhaps the most recognizable element of the novel. Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice,” not surprisingly, undergoes some alteration in the interests of time, pacing, and translation to a modern audience in this film. Austen’s subtle wit is stretched to slapstick at points, and her wry observations on society are poured through a Hollywood sieve to make them commercial and relevant to what the executives felt audiences would understand and accept. The story becomes a kind of Cinderella story, with Lady Catherine playing matchmaker. Austen’s story was really more a parody of fairy tale romance, but evidently the studio felt this might not play in Peoria.

Interestingly, the aspect of five unmarried daughters desperately in search of husbands does not undergo any necessary explanation in this 1940 film, at least in the same way it does in the 2005 film starring Keira Knightley. This latest version of the story famously departed from the Regency period (more costume issues) and, according to some critics, “dumbed down” if you will, Austen’s narrative to explain a world which no longer exists to modern audiences, (younger audiences). The 1940 version was filmed in an era where the getting of a husband was still considered a career move for young ladies, and so required no explanation.

Inevitably both versions, any version of “Pride and Prejudice” is compared to the fine 1995 BBC film, which had the luxury of telling the story over several episodes, which is what such an intricate plot takes. In attempting to tell the story in under two hours, much is whittled out by necessity, and there are times when the 1940 version feels less like the novel and more like the Cliff Notes. It is odd that with so much removed, a few extra scenes including the opening segments are entirely made up and it takes a while for us to finally get to the famous line, “Netherfield Park is let at last!”

Back to the costumes. They are garish, distracting, anachronistic, and mostly left over designs by Walter Plunkett from “Gone with the Wind.” Evidently the Empire style wasn’t flashy enough, and we end up with everything from enormously cartoonish mid-19th century bonnets to Gilded Age leg-o’-mutton sleeves. The dancing sequences (you can’t have an Austen novel without a ball), are another hodgepodge of waltzing, mazurka and other dances not performed in England of Austen’s time, though “Drink to Me Only with Thine Eyes” is lovely enough to be performed wherever and whenever.

However, if one accepts this film only as a well-meaning version of “Pride and Prejudice” and not an attempt at the definitive, it remains a charming and enjoyable film, based on a novel that will undoubtedly continue to be remade, because it is just that good.

Sponsored Link:
Pride And Prejudice [DVD](1940) DVD

The Production Code

The Production Code, established in 1930 but not really enforced until 1934, gave us a world on screen that did not always mirror real life. Its existence, however, was deeply rooted in cold, hard reality: if the film industry played too freely with the sensitivities of the public, the government would clamp down. In order to keep their relative autonomy and keep the box office coffers filled, the industry decided to police itself. It was always more about money than morality.

The Code gave us such rules that stipulated the law was not to be ridiculed and wrongdoers must always be seen to be punished. That’s why gangster James Cagney and gangster Humphrey Bogart were always being gunned down or sent to the big house. Nudity was forbidden. Religion was not to be ridiculed and the clergy were not to be seen as comic or villains. This would explain why the sycophant character of Mr. Collins in “Pride and Prejudice” (1940) was changed from a minister to a librarian.

Depiction of drug use was forbidden, largely because the deaths by overdoses of a few well-known Hollywood stars of the 1920s nearly destroyed the public’s good opinion of movies in general and their willingness to spend money on them.

Crimes were not to be detailed explicitly, so that the public would not use a film to study the fine art of murder, arson, etc., much as in the same way today we might be leery of the publication of how to make a nuclear device.

Vulgarities in speech and behavior were forbidden. This was pretty broad. Everything from “damn” to homosexuality and miscegenation was considered forbidden in this vein. “Damn was conquered first in 1939 with Rhett Butler’s famous farewell to Scarlet, but homosexuality and racial intermarriage would take rather longer.

It is interesting that the real-life scandals involving Hollywood drug deaths, murders, and especially the case of the unfortunate Fatty Arbuckle’s manslaughter trial would be the touchstone of so much distortion of reality or even the absence of certain aspects of real life, including depictions of childbirth, in the make-believe universe of the screen. In Arbuckle’s case, most of the lurid charges against him were actually brought by the Hearst newspapers and many of them fabrications. In court Arbuckle was eventually vindicated, and the jury even apologized to him, but that did not alter the downward spiral of his film career. He was destroyed. Art did not imitate life, it was twisted by it.

The Code was eventually replaced by a ratings system in the late 1960s, for much the same reason as it had been implemented: business. The film industry was competing with television and with foreign films, which were not subject to the strict code. The bottom line, more than morality, was the inspiration for the code, and conversely, also for trends in filming “realistic” movies of today. Strong scenes of a sexuality explicit or violent nature are not always there to provide for a “realistic” plot, but to increase the box office. The make-believe universe of the screen is just as phony today as it was back then.

Sir Laurence Olivier - 100th Anniversary

We cover three giants this week with a great many differences between them, but one particular thing in common, which is the 100th anniversary of their births. Katharine Hepburn, born May 12th, Sir Laurence Olivier, born May 22nd, and John Wayne, born May 26th, all in the year 1907, have different strengths and talents, but all with such remarkable screen star quality.

Sir Laurence, though he belongs unquestionably to the theater world, especially noted for his interpretation of Shakespeare’s plays, nevertheless found himself a place in Hollywood as well. “Hamlet” (1948) is the only filmed version of one of Shakespeare’s plays to win an Academy Award, in which he stars, directed, and also produced.

This same elite performer of classics appeared at home as Mr. Darcy in “Pride and Prejudice” (1940) as he did playing the dapper and aloof Mr. de Winter, haunted by his past in “Rebecca” filmed that same year, coming in off the success of “Wuthering Heights” (1939) that made his brooding, anguished portrayal of Healthcliff the definitive.

In 1941, there is an odd about-face in the role of boisterous French-Canadian Johnnie the Trapper in “49th Parallel,” a British film made by Ortus Films, Ltd. Even in character parts (which not too many stars of the day would stoop to taking when they had achieved star status), Sir Laurence takes over the screen. He is also to have reported to have worked at half salary on behalf of the United Kingdom’s war effort. He may have been as well known for his marriage to actress Vivien Leigh during these years, but name recognition does not seem to be something he had a problem with once the camera, and the public, discovered him for his own prodigious talent.