Discuss A Farewell to Arms
Discuss → Movies → A Farewell to Arms → General
High quality Gary Cooper, Helen Hayes WWI drama
posted by genplant29STAFFMOD on January 26, 2020 at 10:11 PM
An Academy Awards Best Picture nominee, this is a very good film that, despite its occasional experimentation and evident striving for greatness, doesn't quite reach the mark it hopes to. Nonetheless, it's unmistakably high quality and remains very watchable, enduringly appealing, and, in places, impressive.
The big glaring shortcomings are the experimental moments - which don't work and are distracting - and the fact that Miss Hayes is, much of the time, given over-ripe, unnaturally worded and stagy sounding dialogue to speak - and so much of the time, despite that she does give a fine, clearly talented performance, she does so in stage-performer mode and with "impress them with my craft" line delivery, rather than in the much more subtle and truly naturalistic way that's right for movie acting. I'm not faulting Miss Hayes' performance, instead am opining that she gives a stage star's version of subtle movie acting, rather than a movie actor's version thereof.
For some reason, all the stagily worded dialogue was given only to Miss Hayes to speak. Other characters are given infinitely more real and believable sounding dialogue. Perhaps Paramount expressly wanted to capitalize on Miss Hayes' stature and deserved reputation as one of the greatest stage stars of her time, therefore ordered script writers to "pour it on thick" when it came to lines for her to speak.
An additional shortcoming of this film, for me, has always been that I never have found Cooper and Hayes to seem like a credible couple; his chemistry with and towards her seems 100% natural and believable, though her interactions with him always feel, to me, like she's performing, rather than it being convincingly real life-like. I don't mean to sound like I'm faulting Miss Hayes, as she was, as we know, tremendously gifted. Her performance in this movie feels, to me, like it would have been spot-on on the stage. Another issue is that Miss Hayes has always struck me as miscast in this, as she seems neither remotely British nor the irresistible beauty that characters express to one another that she is.
Very strong points of the movie are the cinematography (winner of the Best Cinematography Oscar), which is superb throughout, particularly throughout the impressive and memorable roughly four minutes exodus to Milan montage; it's outstanding. Too, the sets (nominated for the Best Art Direction Oscar) are marvelous. Also the performances by Cooper, Adolphe Menjou (as Cooper's surgeon best friend Rinaldi), Jack La Rue (as the priest), and Mary Philips (as Catherine's nurse best friend Fergie) are each perfect and wonderful.
This is a movie that, despite my having the stated issues with it - and heretofore I failed to also mention its at times shameless ultra-melodrama (the letter-writing scene, or the final scene, anyone?) - I nonetheless always very much enjoy watching it, whenever I periodically do, and am always readily able to appreciate the things about it that are terrific. I would rate it 7.5 (out of possible max of 10) on TMDb, if we were able to do half stars on the 10-points rating scale. Since that can't be done, I rate this 7, since 8 feels like it would be a little too high. Still, I do consider this a terrific film, and appreciate and enjoy it as such. I find myself feeling drawn to watch this again a time or two just about every year - and usually do.
Please check out the following list of titles and celebrities I've created TMDb threads for: https://www.themoviedb.org/list/118052
Reply by DonGable
on July 15, 2023 at 3:10 PM
Whilst I absolutely did not like the book, the film is too short and really skips a lot of stuff that would've improved the pacing. It changes a bit too much, too, because of that. Some was okay, some was okay. All they really had to do, from my perspective, was change most of the dialogue from the horrible book, make Henry likeable and tell the story. Cooper and Hayes played pretty well, though. So did Menjou as Rinaldi who was my favourite in the book. :) It's a shame the Priest does not get more screen time because he was also a highlight in the book. Going to watch the 1957 adaptation next, which is considerable longer, hopefully making a better adaptation out of it. I can't say I'd rate this one too high, though.
One thing that I really liked was how they had some shots from Henry's point of view in the hospital bed, even when being kissed. That was not something done a lot back then. It was a nice touch of cinematography.
Reply by genplant29
on July 15, 2023 at 3:48 PM
Don, is it the 89 mins. restored full-length version of the 1932 movie you watched, or one of the shortened old public domain cuts? If the latter, it may have been missing some scenes or perhaps parts thereof.
It's now been a few years since I last watched this movie, so may give it a new whirl sometime this summer.
I've seen the '57 version a time or two, years back, and recall not caring for it at all. In the Wikipedia article about it, check out the "Reception" section.
Reply by DonGable
on July 16, 2023 at 2:13 AM
Yes, I watched the 89-minute version where Catherine dies in the end. When I was about halfway through the film, I could already see that it had to be about 2 hours long to properly convey the story from the book, resulting in a better pacing. This 1932 review of the film pretty much hits the nail on the head: "There is too much sentiment and not enough strength in the pictorial conception of Ernest Hemingway's novel ... the film account skips too quickly from one episode to another and the hardships and other experiences of Lieutenant Henry are passed over too abruptly, being suggested rather than told ... Gary Cooper gives an earnest and splendid portrayal [and] Helen Hayes is admirable as Catherine ... another clever characterization is contributed by Adolphe Menjou ... it is unfortunate that these three players, serving the picture so well, do not have the opportunity to figure in more really dramatic interludes."
I don't expect the '57 version to blow me away either, since the source material isn't of that quality either. There's also been made a TV series in '66 starring Vanessa Redgrave and George Hamilton. You can barely find information on it, so I guess it's kind of lost, sadly.
Reply by genplant29
on July 16, 2023 at 3:19 AM
A big part of the reason I've always had a fondness for the '32 film is that during my growing-up and teens into early adulthood years, when, back then, the movie (heavily cut so there could be several long commercial breaks during each broadcast) got numerous t.v. daytime, evening, weekend, and late-night airings as it was in the public domain, therefore was super cheap to broadcast, I watched it in full or part so many times (this was throughout the '70s through early '80s) and always liked and was kind of fascinated by it, that it wound up becoming part of my comfort zone.
To date, I've never read the Hemingway novel, so always have known only Selznick's 1932 version of the story.
Reply by DonGable
on July 16, 2023 at 7:23 AM
I can certainly understand that, and I am very happy for you that you have such a nice little comfort flick. :)
I can't say I'd recommend reading it, really. Henry was far more likeable in the film.
Reply by DonGable
on July 21, 2023 at 3:35 PM
I just watched the '57 version, and overall I liked it more. It's certainly closer to the book, but I don't like how they handled Rinaldi. The Priest was handled better, though. I really think you should watch it, as it really does a fantastic job at solidifying the romance. I liked some of the casting more in the 1932 version, but Jennifer Jones absolutely carries the '57 version. She was absolutely astounding!! Gary Cooper was certainly better, but Rock Hudson fits the vision I had from the book more. If only I could pick the best parts of both films. :D I don't think it'll beat your nostalgia, but I'd love to know if you get around to watching it! :)