Pasión de libertad

Título original: The Howards of Virginia

1940
Approved
1h 56min

CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb

TU CALIFICACIÓN

Cary Grant, June Hedin, Dickie Jones, and Martha Scott in Pasión de libertad (1940)

Agrega una trama en tu idiomaJust prior to the American War of Independence, aristocratic Virginian Jane Peyton marries unsophisticated rustic farmer and surveyor Matt Howard who takes her to his Shenandoah Valley plant... Leer todoJust prior to the American War of Independence, aristocratic Virginian Jane Peyton marries unsophisticated rustic farmer and surveyor Matt Howard who takes her to his Shenandoah Valley plantation and later goes to war.Just prior to the American War of Independence, aristocratic Virginian Jane Peyton marries unsophisticated rustic farmer and surveyor Matt Howard who takes her to his Shenandoah Valley plantation and later goes to war.

Dirección
- Frank Lloyd
Guionistas
- Sidney Buchman
- Elizabeth Page
Elenco

Ver la información de producción en IMDbPro

CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb

6.0/10

1.3 k

TU CALIFICACIÓN

Dirección
- Frank Lloyd
Guionistas
- Sidney Buchman
- Elizabeth Page
Elenco

Ver la información de producción en IMDbPro

Nominado a 2 premios Óscar
- 3 premios ganados y 2 nominaciones en total

Fotos16

+ 8

Opiniones de usuarios26

6.01.3K

Opiniones destacadas

5Doylenf

Possibly Cary Grant's worst performance...terribly miscast...

CARY GRANT insisted that he would never do another costume film after THE HOWARDS OF VIRGINIA and it's easy to see why after viewing the film tonight on TCM. Except for a couple of well played scenes with his sons (TOM DRAKE and PHIL TAYLOR), Grant's performance is way too broad to be acceptable as part of a serious historical epic.

Director Frank Lloyd never once tones down Grant's performance and lets the hyperactive Grant overact at any given moment in a role he clearly doesn't know how to play. At least we do get more restrained work from MARTHA SCOTT as Grant's aristocratic wife and SIR CEDRIC HARDWICKE as her snobbish brother who sides with the British during the Revolutionary War period.

Obviously a lot of expense went into creating the right atmosphere for this story of the turmoil surrounding America's independence among the colonies, and there are times when you wish even more had been spent to produce the film in the gorgeous Technicolor of that era. But the script is a weak one, never able to maintain the sort of interest it should have had over a running time of two hours.

The banal dialog that closes the film is about as jingoistic as you can get and enough to make anyone wince. The story was probably chosen because the producers hoped to make another DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK or GONE WITH THE WIND--but they failed utterly to do so.

Summing up: Sad to see Grant so badly miscast and not given proper direction.

6jamdonahoo

Cary was dreary

I liked this movie despite the dreadful miscasting of Cary Grant. His performance beggared all description. What were they thinking? Cary looked like he had been on amphetamines, jerky and hyperactive. He sounded like an Englishman trying to speak like he thought an American should sound. Grant realized that his performance was woefully bad and vowed never to do a costume drama again. Unfortunately he must have forgotten that pledge for seventeen years later he starred in The Pride and the Passion with Frank Sinatra and Sophia Loren. While he was bad in this role too, he did not stand out as much as Frank and Sophia were equally inept. Cedric Hardewick, Richard Carlson and Martha Scott were competent in their roles in HOV which contrasted Grant's fiasco.

5hannerac

Overacting abounds

I love the premise of this story about the founding of the U.S. but was disappointed in the acting. I am a big Cary Grant fan and have seen many of his films but this is a terrible performance, unlike any of his other films. No wonder he refused to do any more period pieces after the failure of this movie. However, it must be said that the director shares the blame and should have done a better job of directing Mr. Grant in this movie. His acting was over the top- too loud, too brash, a caricature of backwoods men of the late 1700s. His leading lady also did her share of overacting but nothing to compare to Mr. Grant. Overall, it is worth watching to get a sense of the events leading up to the Revolutionary War and the war itself and to see Mr. Grant in a role uncharacteristic of his usual fine acting.

8smokehill retrievers

Very good, overall

I was a bit surprised to see so many other reviewers panning this film, since I had seen it once before and thought it was quite good. I watched it again, and I still believe it's a far better-than-average costume drama.

Several people thought Cary Grant was miscast, and even criticized his British accent. Well, what accent do you think a British citizen from the 1760s WOULD have? His character was a "low-born" British colonist, for crying out loud! I thought he did well, definitely playing against type, and I thought his actual British origins, hardly high-born, made him an excellent choice for the part. His character's progression over time, in this film, was believable and, I thought, well done. I suspect it parallels, in some ways, Grant's life changes from humble British kid to acclaimed Hollywood star.

The film itself, with its use of the colonial Williamsburg settings and attention to detail about frontier life, was refreshing, as of course was the excellent casting overall. I also thought the very realistic historical treatment was commendable, laying out clearly many of the controversies and issues facing the colonies during these times. I'd recommend it for kids, especially, since what they get for American history class about this period of time is truly awful -- what little there is.

I'd give it a solid 8, easily.

6whpratt1

Unbelievable Cary Grant Film

Never realized that Cary Grant appeared in a film which concerned the American Revolution or that he even was willing to give his talents to this type of film. I later found out that Cary Grant did not like this role he was playing in the film and made it a point to never appear in such a film. Many people felt that Cary Grant was not suited for his role in this film and felt he should have turned down this role. There are great supporting actors in this film which are Martha Scott, (Jane Peyton Howard) and Cary Grant, ( Matt Howard) and also Cedric Hardwicke,(Fleetwood Peyton). This film deals with the Boston Tea Party which means that the British were enacting a tax on the people of Boston and the people of Boston were very rebellious against such legislation and made the statement, "No Representation with out Taxitation." You must agree this is not really a Cary Grant film, he was placed in a film which he should never had appear in.

Más como esto

7.0

Los caprichos de Eileen

6.3

Conciencia acusadora

6.6

Wicked as They Come

6.1

The Proud and Profane

7.1

6.5

6.8

7.3

6.4

6.7

6.3

The Toast of New York

6.2

El regalo de bodas

Argumento

Editar

¿Sabías que…?

Editar

Trivia
The film's failure hit Cary Grant so hard that he refused all period roles he was offered, until Orgullo y pasión (1957), which ultimately failed to make a profit.

Errores
There are several inconsistencies in the chronology of Matt Howard's life and the progression of the American Revolutionary milestones presented in the film. Matt's father is killed in the early years of the French and Indian War, which would place his death no earlier than 1754 (more likely no earlier than 1756). The film then shows a title card indicating that twelve years had passed, thus placing the timeline of the film in the mid-to-late 1760s. Matt, however, learns of the recent passage of the Stamp Act and England's taxation measures toward the colonies. The Stamp Act was instituted in 1756, making it impossible for Matt's father to have died in the French and Indian War and for twelve years to have passed. As an adult, Matt then meets, courts, and marries Jane Peyton (presumably in 1766 or 1768 according to the date of his father's death) and moves to western Virginia to homestead and fathers three children. Matt learns of the Boston Tea Party (December 1773) and the Intolerable Acts of 1774 near the time that his family visits the Peytons' home in Virginia. At this time, Matt's three children are an unspecified age, but Peyton (the oldest) appears no more than five years of age, and James (the youngest) is just a baby. The male children, however, join their father in the Colonial Army. It is strongly inferred that the young men join Matt during the lean Winter of 1777-1778, and it is clear that they are seasoned soldiers by the Battle of Yorktown (1781). The film depicts the sons as teenagers, slightly under the age of eighteen when they join their father and presumably older than eighteen by the Battle of Yorktown. However, using news of the Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party, and Intolerable Acts as points of reference, the oldest boy would have been no older than eleven and the youngest no older than nine by the date of the Battle of Yorktown, (Presumably they would have been even younger unless Jane conceived each child almost immediately after giving birth.)

Bandas sonoras
The Huntsman and His Master
(uncredited)
Composer unknown
Performed by an unidentified male (piano and vocal)
Reprised a cappella by Cary Grant