El agente británico

Well, a film starring Leslie Howard and Kay Francis and directed by Michael Curtiz could never be a complete disaster. "British Agent" from 1934 is far from that, but because of the script, it's a little strange.

This film is based on the memoirs of R.C. Lockhart. "British Agent" is only 80 minutes long and it packs in a tremendous amount of plot. Leslie Howard is Steven Locke, who works for the British embassy in Russia at the time of the revolution. He falls for Elena Moura (Francis), a woman he saves. This is the first problem because they meet in one scene and are madly in love in practically the next.

Locke is instructed to keep Russia from signing a separate peace with Germany, which would be harmful to England. Elena holds to a different ideology, being a follower of Lenin. The two clash, and when Elena finds out Locke's assignment, she's quick to tell the other side. That's the second problem -- in the midst of a revolution, Locke receives a dispatch from London and reads it out loud while Elena is in the house.

Elena continues to be in love with Locke, betraying him at the same time.

The acting is very good, and Howard and Francis have wonderful chemistry. It's just not very plausible. Possibly if the love story had been developed more, it would have been more believable.

It's always a delight to see Leslie Howard in a film, as well as Kay Francis. I'll take them any way I can get them, and here, it's in "British Agent."

'British Agent' did have a good deal of potential. Have always found both Leslie Howard and Kay Francis very watchable, the source material is a thoroughly gripping and well crafted piece of literature and the subject matter is so intriguing. Films like this can risk being convoluted, but many films and television series in this genre have not fallen into this trap. Michael Curtiz also directed two of my favourites 'Casablanca' and 'The Adventures of Robin Hood'. 'Mildred Pierce' is also a classic.

Watching 'British Agent' recently, to me the film could have been a good deal better than it turned out. It is definitely worth seeing for the two leads and is always intriguing with a good deal of atmosphere, but the writing and storytelling fall short of living up to full potential. With a longer length and if it took its time more, 'British Agent' would have felt a lot more fleshed out. While Curtiz doesn't fare too badly in his directing, he definitely went on to do better in subjects that were more in his comfort zone.

Starting with the negatives, 'British Agent' is too short, would have given it about 15-20 minutes longer, and too rushed. The romance especially suffers, far too hastily written and underdeveloped as well as straining in credulity later on. With so much going on in a short length and some of it complicated, it does give a bit convoluted at times.

The dialogue at times rambles and the film can be a little too talk heavy. While the cast are fine mostly, William Gargon came over as too annoying for my tastes.

Howard and Francis however are both very strong in their roles, Howard subtly charismatic and steely and Francis glamorous and forceful without being melodramatic. Despite issues with the way the romance is written, their chemistry is smoldering. The supporting cast on the whole do fine, Gargon is the exception. Curtiz's direction is accomplished, despite moments where a still finding his feet feel creeps in, and has great atmospheric style.

Furthermore, the production values are very stylish and atmospheric. The music is suitably ominous and the dialogue generally is tight and provokes a lot of thought. The story, while flawed in execution, is intriguing and suspenseful at least.

Concluding, a lot to like but falls short. 6/10.

The cast is tremendous in this 1934 Warner Brothers film, "British Agent." Based on a 1932 book, the movie takes place mostly in Russia in the early days of World War I and of the Bolshevik Revolution. My high rating of the film is partly because of its historical value. It depicts very well those events and that time in history. Few movies have been made of these two events in relation to each other. Even with Hollywood changes and the natural nuances of the source writer, R.H. Bruce Lockhart in his memoirs, the movie has value for the historical events it covers. It also is credible in its portrayal of the culture and people, as well as costume and dress of the time.

It would be interesting to know how much the characters in the film are based on real people. Some are obvious – Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky. But many others have fictitious names. Still, some are obvious from people in Lockhart's book. It's not hard to get his connection with the male lead, Leslie Howard. In name – Lockhart and Locke, as well as in character. Howard plays Steve Locke who is vice-consul to the British embassy in St. Petersburg and Moscow. When the revolution breaks out and the embassy officials are called back to England, he is left behind as the sole British representative. He's then the acting Consul for Great Britain to Russia. In real life, Bruce Lockhart was Acting British Consul- General in Moscow when the first Russian revolution broke out in early 1917. But he returned to England before the Bolshevik Revolution of October. In January of 1918, he returned as the UK's first envoy to the Bolsheviks. His main purpose was to persuade Russia not to sign a peace pact with Germany, and to come into WW I on the side of the Allies. That's very close to the portrayal of Locke's character and his movements in this film, if not the exact titles he carried.

Kay Francis plays Elena Moura. She is the secretary to Commissioner of War Trotsky. She and Locke are the romantic element of this film, and it comes across as a believably deep-felt love between the two. Howard and Francis carry off this relationship very well, with a respect for each other's ideology. In real life, Lockhart did not have this romance, but he helped the couple that did. British writer Arthur Ransome had been living and writing in Russia when he met Trotsky's secretary, Evgenia Petrovna Shelepina. After the end of the Bolshevik Revolution, Lockhart helped her get to England. She later married Ransome who became famous for his children's books.

Lockhart's life itself is very interesting for his wide travels and experiences. It's every bit as intriguing as this film that is based on a short span of that life. Sir Robert Hamilton (R.H.) Bruce Lockhart, was a journalist, author, secret agent, British diplomat to Moscow and Prague, with other travel and business experiences as well. He also played football at Cambridge. He was a secret agent also in his consulate positions in Russia. He was a friend of Sidney Reilly. Lockhart's son, Robin, wrote the book about Reilly, "Ace of Spies." It was the basis for the 1983 TV miniseries, "Reilly, Ace of Spies."

The rest of the cast in this film are excellent. William Gargan, Cesar Romero, J.Carrol Naish, and several others play their parts superbly. The only drawback to this film is the sets and quality of the film. In places it seems very stagy.

As I said the historical aspects and book connection raise this film a couple notches. The only criticism I have is with the conduct of Howard's character, Locke. I don't know if Lockhart or anyone else in British intelligence of the time advised on this film. But if British intelligence operated as loosely in that day as it appears in this film, it would be no wonder to any viewers how the enemy could find out so much about Britain's operations. An example is the repeated scenes when Elena is visiting Steve and someone brings him information. Old Steve leaves doors open and talks freely about the matters so she can overhear him with no difficulty. And then, when he sees she's gone a couple of times after that, he doesn't seem to think any more about it, or he disregards it. I would suppose that by WW II, British intelligence would have improved to a point that such loose and stupid behavior would get one shot or locked up as a collaborator or very bad source of leaks at the least. I wonder that no one thought about that when making the movie. Or was it shown that way on purpose? Perhaps it really was that way?

The movie opens in 1917 Petrograd outside the British embassy. The city's name had been changed from St. Petersburg at the outbreak of WW I. St. Petersburg/Petrograd was then the capitol of Russia. In 1924 its name was changed to Leningrad, and after the fall of the Iron Curtain and collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the city's name was changed back to St. Petersburg. There are many more interesting details about that time and those events. History buffs will have no difficulty finding articles on line. In the meantime, and for all others, this film serves as a good peek at the events and time. And, it's a film that most people should enjoy.

With Michael Curtiz as the director I was expecting better .Howard had very little to work with and though Kay Francis was beautiful and acted well enough but the relationship fails to convince .Not enough time is taken to make the relationship believable and the writing is really poor; it's a pity because it could have worked.

Leslie Howard's first diplomatic posting is to St. Petersburg, where it is feared the Kerensky government will make a separate peace with Germany, freeing thousands of German troops for the Western Front. No sooner does he arrive than he meets and falls in love with Bolshevik agent Kay Francis and witnesses the October Revolution. With no official position, he tries to convince the new government to not make peace, but Miss Francis, who loves him, keeps betraying him because of her loyalty to the State, as he clubs with other foreign diplomats to destroy the Soviet Union. Can their love survive?

Howard seems to be a futile sort of individual, the headliner who gets to witness others trying to do great things while he makes impassioned speeches to Miss Francis. It's those other actors who keep the futile plot alive and offer interesting performances, like Cesar Romero, William Gargan, and Ivan F. Simpson. It's constantly interesting, but there's far too much talk. In its efforts to make no one a villain, it makes no one particularly heroic, which is probably why it has vanished from consciousness: just another competently rendered potboiler that kept everyone working.