Overrated
-
WAIELLO — 20 years ago(September 24, 2005 09:20 PM)
I saw "Mrs Miniver" for the first time tonight. It's one of the few Academy Award winners I never saw.
Just like "It Happened One Night", I suppose at the time of its release it fit right in with the views, tastes and politics of the time. Seeing it today, in September 2005, I can't really find it relevant or exciting. I was not yet born in 1942, but if I had been, perhaps then I'd have seen it more favorably.
I also think a lot of it was propaganda to support the British war effort. The British have always had a powerful influence on the American media.
It kept me interested, for that I give it a good review. While watching, I tried putting myself into the time of its release. Europe was affected by the war more dangerously than America was, and I know the British are particularly fastidious about manners and class.
If "Mrs. Miniver" was released today it wouldn't be very popular or successful.
I will be honest, politics played a part in the decision to award it so heavily. I don't look at little errors, accents or minute details unless they have a significant effect on the story. But compared to other award winners, I didn't really find this one as exceptional. -
Recrem_Sirrah — 19 years ago(February 27, 2007 12:58 PM)
Furthermore, plot holes do not a bad movie make. ("Casablanca" is full of them.) Calling "Mrs. Miniver" a bad movie because it's historically inaccurate is like saying no science fiction movie based on a technology that could never exist can be entertaining.
"A critic is just a regular viewer withan overstocked memory and an underpowered social life." -
don-lockwood — 17 years ago(March 09, 2009 09:17 PM)
So she must've been acting a lot better than the cat.
Five years laterI agree with you, but then they don't give out Academy Awards for Best Animal Performance.
But Greer Garson was excellent, and unless you hate films that are at all didactic or dated, you'll enjoy this. -
eatonpl165 — 21 years ago(March 01, 2005 10:37 PM)
The accent thing is what bothered me the most. Why on earth wouldn't you cast Englishmen and Englishwomen in the lead roles (or at least people who can do a convincing British accent)? It just doesn't make sense. I still don't understand why Walter Pigeon was continually cast in UK roles when he blatently didn't even attempt at taking the accent. The other example is his role at the vicar in How Green is My Valley where he is supposed to be Welsh and sounds like he is from California. Why didn't the studios care about the huge problem with accents? Why didn't they try and make the film authentic?
-
girl_1_0_1 — 21 years ago(March 03, 2005 12:52 PM)
They did cast an englishwoman as a lead. Greer Garson was from the UK. The little girl (Judy?) seemed to have an accent - in the 2 or 3 lines she had.
But yes, the rest of the cast could have worked on having a bit of an accent.
And for the orginal poster of this thread - this film was made mostly to get the Americans sympathetic and into the the war. LIke another poster said, the British studios probably weren't making many great films at this time - they were too busy fighting a war, so it was left up to Hollywood. Deal with the bad sets and look past the cat and the rationing and the petrol. -
wmoores — 20 years ago(October 22, 2005 04:08 PM)
Wasn't Green Garson English? I detect a slight accent.
Henry Travers? Isn't he English?
Dame Mae Whittey? Isn't she English.
The maidsall English.
The little boy's accent is almost unintelligable.
I suggest you go back and watch the movie again.
Mrs. Miniver is one of the greatest movies of all times and it did what it was supposed to do - arouse American sympathy for the war. -
wmoores — 20 years ago(November 18, 2005 01:26 PM)
Maybe I should have said British Isles.
But according to the biography, her family moved to London when she was a child so her accent doesn't really reflect Northern Ireland, it reflects a 'cultured' British accent.
Anyway you cut it, MRS. MINIVER belongs right along with SINCE YOU WENT AWAY as regards life on the home front. I am sorry SYWA didn't win more awards. To me, it is one of the greatest achievements in black and white media I have ever seen. But, we are talking about MM. Look at these and compare them to what are called 'movies' today. The best movies have already been made. Don't waste your time or money on anything since the SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. -
Liza-19 — 19 years ago(March 31, 2007 07:16 PM)
The accent thing is what bothered me the most. Why on earth wouldn't you cast Englishmen and Englishwomen in the lead roles (or at least people who can do a convincing British accent)? It just doesn't make sense. I still don't understand why Walter Pigeon was continually cast in UK roles when he blatently didn't even attempt at taking the accent. The other example is his role at the vicar in How Green is My Valley where he is supposed to be Welsh and sounds like he is from California. Why didn't the studios care about the huge problem with accents? Why didn't they try and make the film authentic?
I have to agree about the accents. I love Teresa Wright, I think she was one of our best actresses, but I always thought her accent sounded terrible in this! Personally, I prefer Walter Pidgeon's not even bothering with it rather than Teresa's trying too hard.
And I do think this film is somewhat overrated. I don't think Teresa should have won the Oscar for this one (she should have won for
Best Years of Our Lives
, but that's another story) - and I don't really think it was the best picture of the year. This was the same year as
Pride of the Yankees
and
The Magnificent Ambersons
. I don't think this movie is better than those. But it was the sentimental favorite at the time, I suppose.
I don't care about money. I just want to be wonderful. - Marilyn Monroe -
rebeljenn — 21 years ago(March 10, 2005 11:25 AM)
I am not sure of the other films that were released that same year (1942) or whether or not they would have been worthy of the Oscars or not, but, more importantly, I don't think any of us completely agree with the Oscars. Many good films have been missed out completely or over-rated.
I thought that this was a beautiful film. It is fiction but I think they did a good job making it and it made me feel that there was a war going on, based on the stories I have heard from people who did go through this time. (It was also made in the 40s so I don't agree with the inaccuracies here.) I think you're reading too much into it. It's just a film.- Jenn
-
netstvdvs — 20 years ago(August 14, 2005 12:04 PM)
Well said, igatekeeperi. Many people seem analyze a film to death. For myself, goofs in accuracy or continuity, issues with dramatic license, and other technical details don't bother me if the story, the acting, and the filmmaking are of sufficient quality to entertain or enlighten me. Such is definitely the case with this film. It doesn't matter that "love" doesn't rhyme precisely with "prove". Just shut up and enjoy the poetry.
"I've been smart; I recommend pleasant. You can quote me" - Elwood P. Dowd -
NoirDamedotcom — 20 years ago(September 29, 2005 03:49 PM)
I'm surprised by the negative comments regarding this film, especially those concerned with the accents of the actors, how late it gets dark in England, what time flower festivals start, etc.
With all due respect, the real point of the film has been lost on some viewers. It's not just about World War II, or England, it's about survival and the human spirit.
I was thrilled to see this film airing on TCM this afternoon. Let me explain. Less than 24 hours ago, my family and I returned to the Texas area after fleeing Hurricane Rita. We dealt with incredible traffic jams getting out of the city, then gas, ice, water shortages. We drove to Arkansas in order to find an available hotel room. Once there, we shared our hotel room (one of the last ones available in the city) with another couple, friends who had evacuated Louisiana. Imagine four people and five animals sharing a room with one bed, a room which also lost power when Rita rode over Arkanasas. It was a once in a lifetime experience which I'd rather not repeat - although it had its moments, when people in the darkened lobby began singing and playing violin by flashlight!
On our way home, we drove through areas which had no electricity, and downed trees, in overpowering heat. At one gas station the cops had been called because customers were fighting over water and ice! And kid you not, we were incredibly lucky. Just read the Houston Chronicle about people in East Texas, or listen online to stories being broadcast from the United Broadcasters of New Orleans.
When people are faced with disaster, it brings out their true colors. The best thing to do is keep doing, and that's what's so special about Mrs. Miniver - the character and the movie. This family does not give up, no matter how difficult things get. The two parents do their best to provide as normal a life as they can for their children and everyone around them.
When I got up this morning, looking at the many things I have to do to get my family and business running again, I was overwhelmed. I happened to switch on the TV and see Greer Garson running her household with great aplomb, even as her husband and son participated in the great evacuation of Dunkirk. If she can keep going with such panache and a stiff upper lip, anyone can. That's the real point of the film. -
alistla — 20 years ago(October 15, 2005 12:02 AM)
Well said, NoirDame. Contemporary Americans are so spoiled, they don't understand deprivation or struggle. To all who criticize the accents, sets, cat's performance, etc., of this movie: Keep in mind that it was made during a war. A world war, in which Britain was literally fighting for its life. Thousands of German planes were flying overhead, trying to bomb the morale out of them. Virtually every able-bodied British man was deeply involved in the war, not free to take a cruise ship to America to act in a movie. That's why so many of the actors were American, and why the sets were less than perfectly authentic. What I really appreciated about the film was that it took time to develop the characters and differentiate them from each other. A contemporary version of this film (which is impossible to imagine isn't that sad?) would have gotten to the war part within 10 minutes of the beginning. In Mrs. Miniver, the war doesn't get started until at least 30-40 minutes in. By then we've gotten to know the characters quite well, and so we really care about them as the film continues. Such a refreshing change of pace. And I really beg to differ about the bomb shelter scene it was extremely affecting, especially how it built from the characters acting nonchalantly in the beginning (the cat too one assumes that by this point everyone, even the cat, have grown accustomed to this drill), then as the bombing gets closer things get more tense. The acting may be too subtle for some, but I found it wonderfully understated. Beautifully done, overall.
-
KRAZYLOU2 — 20 years ago(October 27, 2005 09:55 PM)
YOU ARE OVERRATED!
IT'S A MOVIE. IT CAN'T BE PERFECT.
YOU'RE NITPICKING ON EVERYLITTLE DETAIL YOU CAN FIND, WHEN IN FACT THE MOVIE TELLS THE STORY VERY WELL.
YOU CAN MAKE A LIST OF NITPICKING FOR ANY FILM, EVER MADE. GET A LIFE.
MISTAKES ARE FOUND IN SOME OF THE GREATEST FILMS EVER MADE, REMEMBER THAT.