Canción inolvidable

Although a biography about any composer is a rare gift, even if it's largely fictionalized, this film suffers from some of the most exaggerated over-acting caught on film by an actor.. and that is Paul Muni as Prof. Joseph Elsner. His character is almost embarrassing. It seems as though he was directed to play it to be "comic relief" to Cornel Wilde's "Chopin", which is beautifully performed ... but he comes off more as a buffoon and a caricature than a believable person.

The film is saved by Wilde, Nina Foch, Merle Oberon, and a fantastic performance by Stephen Bekassy as Franz Lizst. The piano playing by Jose Iturbi is superb, as expected. The stunning costumes and magnificent set designs, not to mention the cinematography executed in glorious Technicolor make it fun to watch, but what had the potential to be a masterpiece is cut short by the direction and Muni's performance, which seems to be more suited to the Vaudeville stage than to the big screen.

A Song to Remember looks bad now not because it is 54 years old but because it is bad and, notwithstanding its blockbuster reputation, it was bad in 1945. The story is a falsification of Fredric Chopin's life. The miscasting of muscular Cornel Wilde as the consumptive composer is a travesty. And the over-acting of Paul Muni, uncontrolled by the director, is an insult to the intelligence and good taste of the spectator; besides, too much footage is dedicated to him. The magic is, of course, the music, the way Jose Iturbi plays it, and the magnificent color and art direction. But the writing, the direction and the acting are all abominable.

It must have taken courage to cast Cornel Wilde as the frail composer and Merle Oberon as George Sand, but in the Hollywood of 1940s all of the studios were busy churning out inaccurate biographies of musical greats. (Biggest miscasting was Cary Grant as Cole Porter in "Night and Day").

So, it was no surprise when Columbia cast Cornel Wilde, handsome, debonair and athletic, as the composer and proceeded to create a script that had little to do with Chopin's actual life. But they can be forgiven. Film buffs who love serious music will have no qualms with the superb piano work by Jose Iturbi. Wilde does an excellent job of fingering as though he is doing the actual playing--perhaps the reason he won an Oscar nomination.

Handsomely photographed in fine technicolor, it's certainly pleasing to look at and easy to listen to. The only major flaw is Paul Muni, whose acting style here is so grotesquely hammy it belongs to the silent period of film acting. He's given too much footage.

Movie buffs will certainly enjoy this one for the pleasure of seeing Cornel Wilde in his star-making role and Merle Oberon at the peak of her beauty. If it's accuracy you insist on, stay away. It takes all the artistic liberties imaginable--and then some!

Knowing that this was Liberace's favorite film should give you an idea of what this film is like--in fact, his trademark candleabra on the piano was taken from one of the most memorable moments in the film.

This was a high profile production for Columbia in 1945, with lots of money thrown at the sets and costumes, and actually filming in color (remember, Columbia was still a second-rank studio during World War II--usually only spending major money on its Rita Hayworth films). Consequently, this biography of Chopin is beautiful to look at--but a bit overboard at the same time. It's certainly not minimalist!

As if competing with the lavishness of the design, the acting (particularly by Paul Muni) is waaaay over the top, and the storyline refashions Chopin's life into a very heavy melodrama. The dramatics are so ham-handed that the Harvard Lampoon in 1945 gave the film an award for the "ketchup on the keys" sequence. Possibly the most interesting aspect of the film (other than its campiness) is how this costume biography is inflected with aspects of 40s film noir. Merle Oberon as author George Sand is the film's femme fatale, potentially drawing Chopin down the wrong creative path. And, since the film was made while World War II was still being fought, the film has to make allusions to patriotic duty (especially since Chopin was Polish, and World War II officially broke out when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939).

So--you have tons of visual excess, some sumptious renditions of Chopin pieces, and a weird discussion of gender relations and wartime responsibilities. All in all, it's a wild piece of gorgeous junk.

There is a trick about movies concerning great or even good composers. Few of them have lives that (outside of musicologists or curious people) are worth talking about. Also, as their music is the reason for their greatness, the music is going to dominate the film - any activity on screen is going to be less interesting (unless the composer's life is interesting) than what they created for their audiences and posterity.

Which composers have popped up on screen? Beethoven in several films (best, possibly, by Gary Oldman in 1994's IMMORTAL BELOVED). Chopin in the film about to be discussed here. His pal, Franz Liszt (Dirk Bogarde) in SONG WITHOUT END. Johann Brahms and Robert Schuman (Robert Walker Sr. and Paul Henried) in SONG OF LOVE. Wagner in the television series of that name (by Richard Burton), and Verdi in the television series of that name (by Ronald Pickup). Douglas Montgomery (MELODY LANE) and Don Ameche (SWANEE RIVER) both essayed Stephen Foster. Clifton Webb was John Philip Sousa in STARS AND STRIPES FOREVER. Walter Connelly was the title composer in THE GREAT VICTOR HERBERT. Jimmy Cagney (and Joel Grey) were George M. Cohan (in YANKEE DOODLE DANDY and GEORGE M.). Robert Alda was George Gershwin in RHAPSODY IN BLUE. Tom Drake and Mickey Rooney were Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart in WORDS AND MUSIC. Robert Morley and Maurice Evans were the title characters in THE STORY OF GILBERT AND SULLIVAN. Richard Chamberlain was Pyotr Ilytsch Tschaikowski in THE MUSIC LOVERS. Fernand Gravet was Johann Strauss Jr. in THE GREAT WALTZ.

But few of them were really exciting people. Webb's performance as Sousa was good, but the biographical material of the story was passably interesting (but no more - the music carried the film). Chamberlain's film was more interesting because of Tschaikowski's homosexuality. Cagney's breeziness and the theater background of the story of Cohan made that film a permanently popular one. Foster's tragic failure to succeed as our first professional composer (and his alcoholism) did give some grip to his biography, but sappy construction and writing hurt the Ameche film (especially that profoundly stupid conclusion).

Chopin was "blessed" in several ways biographically. He was a patriot, and part of the film is devoted to his support for the Poles fighting for their freedom from Russia. He did have a long time affair with George Sands, France's leading female novelist in the 19th Century. And he struggled with increasing ill health due to his tuberculosis. He only lived forty years, and oddly enough his birth and death dates almost correspond to his American contemporary Edgar Allan Poe, who was also plagued by ill health through much of his life.

Cornell Wilde had been playing supporting parts up to this film, such as the cowardly inside-man in the heist in HIGH SIERRA. It was here that he finally came into his own as an actor, even getting nominated for an Academy Award for his performance. Merle Oberon had an unusual role. Normally she was a supportive lover (her Cathy is ultimately deeply in love with Heathcliff, but proud and snobbish when she meets Edgar Linton in WUTHERING HEIGHTS - that was an exception for her). Here she is committed to her own literary success, and she does little to understand the musical success at the core of the man who adores her. There is a hint of nymphomania in her - a seeming hard incapacity to love that drives men wild (not only Chopin, but his predecessor in her bed Alfred de Musset the poet (George Macready)). In the end she is the villain in the film, breaking the spirit of her Polish lover, and dooming him to early death.

How true is this? Not totally. While two creative spirits like Chopin and Sand could clash they both were deeply attached to each other. In a television series on the career of Sand, starring Rosemary Harris, it turned out that a message from Chopin on his death bed was withheld from Sand by her jealous daughter - a fact she did not learn until many decades later.

Paul Muni gave a weak, over the top performance as Chopin's mentor Joseph Elsner in the film. He had done older men for years, and Elsner was a slightly comical one (look at his scene with Howard Freeman as a music publisher). But it is overdone, and one of the weaknesses of the movie. Still it is not too serious a weakness. On the whole it is a good film, for the two leads and some of the supporting cast. But it is not true history.