The reviews on here really range from very positive to very negative, and I'm not sure why. I found this a very well-paced comedy that works in great part because the Warner character actors are so good, starting with Edward Everett Horton and Melville Cooper. Cooper in particular gets to do more than his usual upper-class type-casting. (Think *Pride and Prejudice*)
One of the reviewers wrote that he could only remember one scene with de Havilland an hour after having viewed the picture. I would strongly recommend glasses - and a testosterone check. She is astonishingly beautiful in this movie in scene after scene, captured ravishingly by a very sympathetic cameraman. Her part is pretty straight-forward, it's true, and doesn't give a lot of room for acting in a movie about acting - and over-acting. But when she's on screen, it's hard to take your eyes off her.
With no disrespect to her, that may be, in part, because of her leading man, Brian Aherne. His is certainly a major role, and a tricky one, because sometimes he is acting and, at least in principle, sometimes he is not. And there lies the problem. Aherne has chosen to play Garrick as an excessive actor, what we would call a ham. And perhaps that was the style in England in the 18th century. I can't say. But it was very hard for me not to imagine Errol Flynn in this part, and Aherne did not benefit from the comparison. I think the movie would have worked better if the "sincere" Garrick had been played as a real romantic, to create a clear contrast between the real one and the on-stage one. That is supported by his scene near the end where he gives acting lessons to the members of the Comédie française, and emphasizes realistic acting, rather than overly theatrical.
Though I realize that it was the basis for much of the comedy here, I wondered why the premise was that the Comédie française actors all over-acted outrageously. I have no answer for that.
The script here is good, and the directing really first rate. I do strongly recommend this movie.
One of the reviewers wrote that he could only remember one scene with de Havilland an hour after having viewed the picture. I would strongly recommend glasses - and a testosterone check. She is astonishingly beautiful in this movie in scene after scene, captured ravishingly by a very sympathetic cameraman. Her part is pretty straight-forward, it's true, and doesn't give a lot of room for acting in a movie about acting - and over-acting. But when she's on screen, it's hard to take your eyes off her.
With no disrespect to her, that may be, in part, because of her leading man, Brian Aherne. His is certainly a major role, and a tricky one, because sometimes he is acting and, at least in principle, sometimes he is not. And there lies the problem. Aherne has chosen to play Garrick as an excessive actor, what we would call a ham. And perhaps that was the style in England in the 18th century. I can't say. But it was very hard for me not to imagine Errol Flynn in this part, and Aherne did not benefit from the comparison. I think the movie would have worked better if the "sincere" Garrick had been played as a real romantic, to create a clear contrast between the real one and the on-stage one. That is supported by his scene near the end where he gives acting lessons to the members of the Comédie française, and emphasizes realistic acting, rather than overly theatrical.
Though I realize that it was the basis for much of the comedy here, I wondered why the premise was that the Comédie française actors all over-acted outrageously. I have no answer for that.
The script here is good, and the directing really first rate. I do strongly recommend this movie.