My Man Godfrey
This lovely remake caught many of the best aspects of the original (1936 Oscar nominee), and is difficult to judge purely on its own merits, especially as the original was such a favorite.
David Niven truly does capture a very proper sophistication that strikes a true chord. He proves himself a man of unusually sound moral character, and it doesn't hurt his image that the character has a probably aristocratic family history.
June Allyson plays the slightly mad younger daughter almost believably. She's possibly a little old for the role, but her body type and acting ability compensate. The actress who plays Cordelia, her sister (Martha Hyer), is very beautiful, and puts Ms. Allyson into something of an unpleasant relief.
This film is older, and the colors have faded a little, making the whole thing seem a little drab. The contrasting scenes could have been used much better in a kind of visual symbolism, but they weren't. Sad. The set builders could really have done a better job. The costuming was adequate.
I think this film is simply too new - too much newer for my taste. I prefer the thirties and early forties, with its extravagance and more natural lines, and it's rawness. The fifties were too posed and artificial for my tastes. I shall try to find a better example of David Niven's cinematic skill.
David Niven truly does capture a very proper sophistication that strikes a true chord. He proves himself a man of unusually sound moral character, and it doesn't hurt his image that the character has a probably aristocratic family history.
June Allyson plays the slightly mad younger daughter almost believably. She's possibly a little old for the role, but her body type and acting ability compensate. The actress who plays Cordelia, her sister (Martha Hyer), is very beautiful, and puts Ms. Allyson into something of an unpleasant relief.
This film is older, and the colors have faded a little, making the whole thing seem a little drab. The contrasting scenes could have been used much better in a kind of visual symbolism, but they weren't. Sad. The set builders could really have done a better job. The costuming was adequate.
I think this film is simply too new - too much newer for my taste. I prefer the thirties and early forties, with its extravagance and more natural lines, and it's rawness. The fifties were too posed and artificial for my tastes. I shall try to find a better example of David Niven's cinematic skill.
Comments
Post a Comment