Wizarding Times

Regardless of your personal feelings about Valentine's Day, it's become something of a Western tradition to celebrate all things romantic in February, and who am I to argue with tradition? Of course, there are, like, a frajillion romantic films from classic Hollywood to choose from, but I wanted to do something a little different. I wanted to highlight some old Hollywood movies that feature love stories, but in an interesting or unique way, to give us a less saccharine view of love and romance this month.

As it turns out, the movies I choose can be generally described as "Unusual Romantic Dramas of the 1940s starring award-winning actresses." In fact, two of the lead actresses won Academy awards for their portrayal in the films I'm highlighting, and the third one the Academy Award the same year as our movie came out (and, quite frankly, would probably have been nominated for our film had she not made her award-winning film as well).

So, join me for a romantic, if unusual, trip through the 1940s with Kitty Foyle, Random Harvest, and Johnny Belinda. (Though, I should point out that this time 'round, I'm going to talk about key plot developments — a.k.a. spoilers — that would reveal the endings, so if that sort of thing bothers you, just watch the movies first. :D)

Kitty Foyle (1940)

(Directed by Sam Wood. Starring Ginger Rogers, Dennis Morgan, and James Craig.)

In 1940, Ginger Rogers was probably best known as Fred Astaire's dancing partner in nine films. But, unlike Astaire, Rogers had always made a picture or two a year without Fred. So, in 1939, when their last film for the foreseeable future came out, there was less of a concern for Ginger's career as there was for Fred's (who, since he'd began dancing on film with Ginger Rogers, had only made one film without her). That said, Kitty Foyle was an ambitious, and perhaps even a little daring, choice for her.

Kitty Foyle: The Natural History of a Woman is about Kitty Foyle (Ginger Rogers), a young working woman during the Depression. Told through a series of flashbacks, framed by the dilemma of having to choose which man she's going to spend her life with, we learn about Wynnewood Strafford VI (Dennis Morgan), the heir to a Philadelphia banking family, who wants to get out of the family business and strike out on his own. For a while, Kitty works for him, and, as these tales go, they fall madly in love; however, the differences in their financial and social situations make life difficult. Kitty decides to leave town and move to New York City, where she meets Mark (James Craig), a down-to-earth doctor looking to make a difference in people's lives, not money. Mark is smitten. Kitty is left, trying to decide whether to pursue her mad, passionate love with Wyn or to settle down for a quieter, perhaps more meaningful life with Mark.

Ginger Rogers played all sorts of characters throughout her career, of different backgrounds, abilities, and social stations, but she was best when she played the sort of white-collar working girl, like she does here. Her lower-class characters come off as a bit too brash and broad, while her society characters tend to be overly arch and false. But, when she hits that middle ground (which she did a lot; you'd be surprised how many working girls with fabulous wardrobes Ginger played *g*), it all just gels. And, really, Kitty Foyle is the pinnacle of her working girl performances. In fact, the only time there's a slip in reality of the character is in the earliest flashback scenes, when Kitty is supposed to be 15; at least for me, she plays it way too young. Luckily, she gets to be 18 or 19 within a couple of scenes, so it's not too bad. Otherwise, it's a pitch-perfect performance.

As for the male leads, they don't have nearly as much juicy material to work with — because this really is a movie about this one woman — but they do a lovely job with their roles. Dennis Morgan is someone I've always liked; he tended to play the romantic lead a lot, and sometimes he even sang, too. In the early '40s, he was in movies the likes of Bette Davis, James Cagney, and Olivia de Havilland. And, as Kitty points out, he does sound rather like an American Ronald Colman (who'll you'll meet in our next film). But, as likable as he generally is, there's just something a little... spineless about Wyn. He's a weak character (not that the characterization is bad; the character himself is a weak-willed person), so it can be hard to root for him. Dr. Mark, though, is such an odd sort of guy, but that's what makes him rather appealing. James Craig didn't have a lot of screen time to make us like Mark, but his natural charm and openness does a lot to make Mark's oddness more approachable.

In trying to find a way to describe this story, I decided that it could best be classified as a pragmatic romance. For the era, it's not very surprising that Kitty chooses marriage with the doctor rather than running away with the (married, with a son, and no intention of divorcing his wife) banker, but, at the same time, it's not the sort of 'romantic love trumps all' fairy-tale story that is typical for Hollywood, in any era. In that way, I find it refreshing. At the same time, the movie spends a lot — and I mean a lot — of time with Wyn and about Wyn, while poor Mark gets only a handful of scenes, which makes the ending kind of bizarre, since we barely got to know Mark. Though, I suppose we know enough about him to know that he's the honorable sort and will treat Kitty with the respect and decency she deserves (something that Wyn had kind of a problem with).

Overall, Kitty Foyle is quite the romantic film, with plenty of moments for awwing and whatnot. It's not necessarily traditional in its romance, but life doesn't always give us the traditional romance, and it's nice to see something less rosy come from Hollywood.

Random Harvest (1942)

(Directed by Mervyn LeRoy. Starring Ronald Colman, Greer Garson, Philip Dorn, and Susan Peters.)

I have to tell you, I love this movie. There's not a second of it I would change. When it was released on DVD, I was thrilled and couldn't wait to get my hands on a copy. It's one of the first non-musical (or not-related-to-musicals) films I encountered in the early stages of my classic movie obsession, and it remains one of my favorites.

Random Harvest opens on the verge of Armistice, in 1918, at a British asylum. We meet an amnesiac soldier (Ronald Colman) recovering from shell shock; his only symptoms are memory loss and troubled speech. His doctors bring in a family who think he's their son; both are disappointed that he's not. News of the Armistice breaks and, in the chaos of victorious celebration, the soldier escapes and heads into town. He meets a dancer named Paula (Greer Garson), and she takes him under her wing. Smithy, as she starts calling him, falls ill and, rather than take him back to the asylum, Paula looks after him. They head out to the country, in order for him to get better, and, as these things happen, they fall in love and get married. Life is grand for the Smith family; they have a little son, and Smithy starts getting work as a writer. He heads to Liverpool for a potential staff job and, before the interview, gets in an accident. It's not serious, but it does knock him on the head and restore his memory... to before his amnesia. He goes back to his old life as Charles Rainier, a bit sadder and more wistful. In the meantime, Paula, reeling from the loss of her husband and their son (who died shortly after Smithy went missing), trains to be a secretary and eventually works for Mr. Rainier. Will Paula reveal their past to Charles before Charles remembers?

Of the three films in this column, this is probably the most overtly — and traditionally — romantic. The love at first sight, the blissful happiness of being together, the wistfulness of being apart, and the triumph of love are all there. But, it takes a rather circuitous path to its traditional end. And, while some stories about memory loss seem to thrust the cure in for the story's sake, that doesn't happen here; it all feels very natural. And, while everything ends up rather rosy, there are some really interesting philosophical questions about identity and what makes a person that unique individual, as well as questions about memory and even happiness. So, while it's a beautiful story, there are other things happening, too, which can make the experience of the film that much better.

Not that you need to be any better than Ronald Colman and Greer Garson. They're two of the screen's most elegant performers, I think, and they have lovely, melodious voices. It's no surprise that they performed a radio version of the film twice within the decade; they're simply a joy to listen to. Plus, they're terrific actors. They both subtly change the way they carry themselves, and even the quality of their voices, as their characters change. Charles is more physically upright than Smithy, and his voice is a bit sharper; Margaret is a bit more prim both physically and vocally than Paula ever was. These are not the sort of acting choices that smack you across the face; they're subtle enough that you're not jarred out of the moment, but you still recognize that something has changed.

I don't know that I can say enough about Greer Garson in particular. This movie made me a fan of hers, and she's just lovely here. She almost sparkles with joy and cheer at the beginning of the movie; I kind of love her. Her little musical number is just charming. And she's got great chemistry with Ronald Colman, though they don't get to revel in that chemistry for half of the movie. In fact, towards the end, when Charles and Margaret are together on their anniversary, there's this weird emotional distance, underneath the marital familiarity, between them that's heartbreaking, particularly in comparison to their scenes earlier in the movie, particularly the first proposal.

If I were to pinpoint one thing about this movie that isn't right, it would be that Ronald Colman is much too old to play Smithy, particularly at the beginning of the film. I mean, he was over 50 when this was filmed, and Smithy is supposed to be in his early-to-mid 20s when the movie starts. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except for the romance between Charles and Kitty (played by 22-year-old Susan Peters). Because of the huge age difference between Colman and Peters, it makes that relationship seem a bit more cradle-robbing than it is. Based on story cues, there's about a ten year difference between Charles and Kitty, which isn't terribly eyebrow-raising. Unfortunately, Peters' 27-year-old version of Kitty wasn't quite old enough, and Colman's 27-year-old version of Charles wasn't quite young enough, and there was no happy medium. Watching it, the fact that Kitty and Charles have known each other for twelve years by the time they're engaged is really hard to believe. That could be mostly due to the way the script handles the passage of time, but I suspect a smaller age difference between the actors might have helped.

Otherwise, I consider this movie near about perfect, regardless of any hinky age things. It's a beautiful story about love and identity, with pitch-perfect performances. I love it. (Though, I can't help but think about what sort of conversation Charles and Margaret have after the credits roll....)

Johnny Belinda (1948)

(Directed by Jean Negulesco. Starring Jane Wyman, Lew Ayres, Charles Bickford, and Agnes Moorehead.)

Of the three movies, this is the least conventional romance. In fact, it's not so much a romance as it is a drama, and any full-on romantic elements are, for the most part, not there. At the same time, it's very apparent where it will ultimately lead. But, it's very sweet, too, and it's worth a look. It does deal with some adult concepts, though, so do be aware of that.

Johnny Belinda is the story of Belinda McDonald (Jane Wyman), a deaf-mute living in a small fishing village in Cape Breton with her father Black (Charles Bickford) and her aunt Aggie (Agnes Moorehead). Everyone in town simply calls her "the dummy" and think she's stupid and not capable of doing anything more than the most menial jobs. A new doctor, Dr. Robert Richardson (Lew Ayres), comes to town and, after helping deliver a calf at the McDonalds, decides to try to teach Belinda sign language. Belinda is a natural student and really blossoms under Dr. Richardson's tutelage.

Unfortunately for her, she catches the attention of the town lothario, Locky McCormick (Stephen McNally), who attacks and rapes her. Belinda has a son, named Johnny, but the gossiping townsfolk think the baby is the doctor's and essentially boycott him. Without an income, the doctor leaves to work at a hospital. The townspeople decide the McDonalds can't care for the baby and send Locky and his new bride to take custody of Johnny. Things, well, they go downhill from here.

Everyone talks about Jane Wyman's Oscar-winning performance in this movie, and for good reason. It's a masterful performance from beginning to end. Everything she feels is written on her face, but not in an arch, silent-movie-parody sort of way. There's an innocence to Belinda, but not a weakness to her, which is an interesting — and difficult — balance to play. Without making a sound, Wyman gives Belinda a depth you wouldn't necessarily think possible, particularly from a movie more than 60 years old. I mean, really, it's hard to say anything much about the performance, because its perfection speaks for itself.

Of course, for anyone who's read the "About Me" section of my HOL profile, I'm, ahem, something of a fan of Lew Ayres, and this movie is one of the reasons why (in fact, it was this film that finally made me sit up and take notice of the guy, metaphorically speaking). While Belinda blossoms into a strong, capable young woman, Dr. Richardson's journey is more subtle. He opens himself up to life — and people — through his relationship with Belinda and the McDonalds. When he first meets Belinda, he's intrigued by her, not for her sake, but for what he can teach her; she is, in essence, his own private test subject. That's not to say that he's cold or distant or unfeeling toward her; he's been through a lot and seems to hold people at an emotional distance. Of course, over time, he warms up to Belinda and her family, and he feels a real fondness and responsibility for them.

Like I said at the beginning, this is not a conventional romance; in fact, its romance it very dependent on how you see the story. I'm sure others will disagree, but I find it a lovely story of a quiet romance, without the huge highs and lows of a burning passion. There's no mistaking Belinda's love for Richard; it's there almost from the beginning, and certainly by the time she has Johnny. His feelings are slower to grow, but they are there, and by the time he leaves Cape Breton, there's a real affection there. Ultimately, they're two people who can find a real happiness together.

For me, the real draw of the movie is Belinda, Dr. Richardson, and the McDonalds. The drama surrounding Locky and the town and everything is totally secondary, and it kind of shows. I'm not sure how the original play ended, but the movie's ending is rushed, predictable, and a little trite. And Locky, as a villian, is sort of paper-thin and one-dimensional. I mean, two or three scenes in, the music gives us the "this is the bad guy, rawr" theme, so... yeah, it's not subtle. But, when it comes down to it, the important part, what makes us care at all about the story and what sticks with us when it's all over, are Belinda and Robert, and the movie delivers this in spades. There are a good half dozen scenes with the doctor and Belinda that I could watch and rewatch for hours. The first signing scene in particular is great, with Dr. Richardson being so earnest (and a little contradictory with his, "watch me talk except now look where I'm pointing and now watch me again" thing) and Belinda going from bemused at being talked to, to her catching on so quickly and one-upping the doctor.

Johnny Belinda is at once unconventional and predictable, but what it lacks in innovations it more than makes up in wonderful character moments. Plus, Jane Wyman gives the performance of a lifetime. What more could you want?