My Brother Jonathan

Ran across it by accident. Excellent performances, great plot, learned some historical stuff to boot. Great old drama with a tissue needed now and then but more dramatic and captivating than depressing. Good for a rainy night. Nice to see one of the first performances by Leslie Howard's son Ronald, who went on to do a TV series of Sherlock Holmes. There is some great medical background to be learned in this movie, as well as the conditions in hospitals in the early Twentieth Century. Some great lines about WWI also, and some heartwarming parts that make it endearing. It is a story of two brothers whose familial relationship - trials and tribulations - are the same as many through the centuries.

The story revolves around the life of Jonathan Dakers, a small-town doctor. He is training to be a surgeon when his father dies. Due to the resulting financial problems, he cannot continue his training. The story goes briefly into flashback: to 1900. Jonathan and his brother go to a new private school. As soon as they arrive they join a game of cricket, where a young girl Edith (Edie) keeps the score.

We return to the death of his father (in a car accident). It is revealed that the father had misspent Jonathan's inheritance (which was in trust). Jonathan promises his brother Harold that he will still be able to finish his degree at Cambridge University.

He buys a share in Dr. Hammond's general practice in Wednesford, a poor foundry town in the north. He maintains a relationship with Edie, writing to her as she winters in Monte Carlo on the French Riviera. The local cottage hospital refuses him permission to bring his patients there and as he is not a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons also refuse him permission to operate.

Harold tells Jonathan that he loves Edie and is going to marry her. They celebrate together on New Year's Eve 1913/14. Jonathan moves his affections from Edie to Rachel, his assistant. Harold (Hal) joins up at the start of the First World War. He is killed leaving Edie pregnant but unmarried so Jonathan returns to her and marries her to preserve respectability.

When Dakers notes that many patients have been injured in industrial accidents at the foundry, he comes into conflict with its owner Sir Joseph Higgins, and the owner's son-in-law Dr. Craig, who owns the town's competing medical practice. He writes a report criticising the condition of the foundry and buildings the workers live in but Craig, who is also the local Health Officer, deliberately mislays it.

When Dakers performs a life saving tracheotomy on a child with diphtheria, and takes the child to the cottage hospital, he is charged with misconduct, as the hospital charter precludes infectious cases. He is asked to attend a medical tribunal. Jonathan explains he had no choice in order to save the child. He is charged with not reporting a case of diphtheria and operating without permission. Dakers publicly accuses the medical authorities of suppressing health issues in the town and not serving the town. Dakers suggests public subscription to support medical treatment of the poor. The public are very much behind Dakers.

They decide to change the operation of the hospital. The corrupt officials (Higgins and Dr. Craig) resign. As the meeting concludes a siren sounds... there is a big fire at one of the foundries. Craig is injured and Jonathan operates on him and saves his life.

Dr. Hammond meanwhile serves at the birth of Edie's son. However Edie dies soon after, first telling Jonathan to be happy with Rachel.

The story jumps to 1939. Jonathan and Rachel are married. Edie's son is fully grown and in army uniform.

Although not surprising in its plot this film is well made and acted. (With fine film score too) The story is told mainly in flashback by Jonathan Dakers,an ageing doctor to his son who has just come back from war. The old doctor talks about his relationships and also his medical career and how they intertwined. It is the kind of film almost impossible to make these days as it is a story of a decent man who does decent things. Films about ordinary people and their ordinary goodness are difficult to make without being dull or worthy but this film pulls it off.

The acting is solid. You can believe in the idealism of Michael Denison's character. Sterling support is given by Dulcie Gray, Finlay Curry, Ronald Howard, Mary Clare and Stephen Murray. James Robertson Justice appears too briefly though.

There are many good scenes in the film; the boys cricket match, the hospital emergency meeting, the new years eve party. There is an excellent scene where Dr Dakers performs a tracheotomy on a boy. No music in the background, just the laboured breathing of the boy. There is also a touching scene on a hill (shot on location) with Denison and Gray where she quotes AE Houseman, where you can tell they are in love even without them uttering it. Such subtle film making has long gone in British films.

This was a topical film when released because the National Health Service had recently been inaugurated.is stars Michael Dennison and Dulcie Grey and is told in flashback.So we get to see what life was like before the NHS.Some good performances by lots of very familiar actors.Very typical film of its period and a very interesting threesome.

My Brother Jonathan is a product of its time with a trite moralistic story and somewhat cardboard main characters. However there is a liveliness to the film that makes it enjoyable. The story moves forward briskly, the dialogue is crisp and there is a range of well-acted minor characters. On the other hand the direction is painfully inept. Characters squash up together in an awkward way to fit into the shot, and often the physical action is somewhat out of kilter with the dialogue.I had to laugh when a character having knocked at the door is told to"come in" and replies "I'm already in"! I wonder if that was an adlib because this sort of thing happens throughout the film. While watching I never lost the awareness that there were some hamfisted aspects to the film, but I still enjoyed it. British character actors are to the fore and they deliver with verve and conviction. I'd rate the lead,Michael Denison, as one of the weakest. He has an irritating fatuous smile throughout and altogether appears to be somewhat of a stuffed shirt, but is still acceptable as a "good guy". I guess it is plausible that some of the best people among us are not the ones with wit and charm.