The Clandestine Marriage

The British cinema has often relied heavily upon literary sources, but certain parts of our nation's literary heritage have always appealed more to film-makers than others. Shakespeare has always been good box office, as have the great novelists of the 19th century, although even here there are discrepancies. (Dickens, for example, is more popular than Hardy, who in turn is more popular than George Eliot. Jane Austen is highly popular today, but until the 1990s there had only ever been one feature film based upon her works, and that was American rather than British). Restoration and 18th century comedy, however, has never really found favour in the cinema; "The Clandestine Marriage" is one of the few exceptions, and even that almost never got made; it ran into financial difficulties and had to be bailed out by two of its stars, Nigel Hawthorne and Joan Collins.

Beyond a few obvious big names such as Goldsmith and Sheridan, 18th century drama is largely neglected today, and "The Clandestine Marriage" by David Garrick and George Colman, dating from 1766, is a particularly obscure example. The film also seems to have slipped into obscurity since it was made in 1999.

The story is based on what has become a common theme in English literature, the uneasy relationship between the country's traditional aristocratic ruling class and those who have acquired wealth through trade or industry. At the heart of the play is Mr Sterling, a nouveau-riche merchant who aspires to join by the upper classes. He has acquired an elegant country mansion, and lives in the style of a gentleman, but realises that this is not enough to be accepted as the genuine article. Like many in his position, both before and since, he sees marriage as the route to social advancement and has therefore arranged the betrothal of his elder daughter Betsy to Sir John Ogleby, the son and heir of a once-grand aristocrat who would not have considered an alliance with a parvenu like Sterling were he not in a precarious financial position and therefore in need the money that such a match will bring him.

There is, however, an obstacle to the marriage of the young couple; neither is in love with the other. Betsy is in love with her future position as Lady Ogleby, but that is not the same thing as being in love with Sir John, who is a good-looking but vapid and generally useless young man. He is not, however, so useless as to be completely blind to Betsy's selfish, materialistic nature and has fallen for her prettier, sweeter-natured younger sister Fanny. An added complication is that Fanny has, unknown to her family, secretly married her father's handsome young clerk Richard Lovewell. (Yes, I know it's a silly name, but the dramatists of the period loved giving their characters names with symbolic meanings).

There is perhaps a good reason why plays like this one have fallen from favour in the modern era; in the wrong hands they can be intolerably dull. Here, however, in the hands of director Christopher Miles "The Clandestine Marriage" becomes a hugely enjoyable romp. It is ostensibly a romantic comedy, but in common with many 17th and 18th century comedies (and unlike most modern rom-coms) the emphasis is less upon celebrating the joys of the young lovers than upon satirising the follies of the elder generation. The best performances come from Hawthorne as the pompous, lecherous old Lord Ogleby, from Collins (obviously at 66 wanting a change from the sort of sexy older woman roles she had made her own in the previous couple of decades) as Sterling's old dragon of a sister Mrs. Heidelberg, from Timothy Spall as the bumptious, status-obsessed Sterling and from Emma Chambers (best- known as the dim-witted Alice in "The Vicar of Dibley") as the spiteful, scheming Betsy. Comedy and period drama are sometimes thought of as two quite separate genres; this film shows that they can be combined to good effect. 8/10

Not bad at all – a movie starring Joan Collins always has the possibility of being a dicey affair, and she may have produced and starred in this one, but that doesn't stop it from being a charming, mannered comedy of errors. Collins has some big IL' surprises up her sleeve for us – for her first trick, she does not play Alexis Carrington, or any variation on her, in this movie. And, as if that weren't earth-shattering enough, she – I kid you not – plays a woman approximately her own age, who also looks her age. That's right, no black eyeliner and no raven tresses. It is amazing. Don't get me wrong, though – we're still dealing with Joan Collins here, so she's still pretty glam, in her own way, and certainly her character is as over-the-top as any Joan Collins character is supposed to be – but she actually acts as part of an ensemble in which she is not center stage at all times. Set in a spectacular 17th century country estate, Stanway House, with all the requisite gorgeous accoutrement, the film does exceptionally well on what was obviously not an enormous budget. The costumes, hair and makeup are beautiful, and though the story gets somewhat messy in the middle of the film, the cinematography and art direction keep the eye glued to the screen. The supporting cast also serves the film well, with a variety of skilled actors who make the best out of minor roles. It is a fun movie to watch and it looks like the kind of movie that the cast and crew had a great deal of fun making. This is a valuable quality that is imparted in the finished product, and makes it easy to overlook any weaknesses.

Garrick and Coleman's play on which this is based really isn't all that good, but it's a harmless enough bit of period fun and so making this film wasn't a bad idea in itself. Making it like this however, displays very little of anything regarding talent in either its director or writer. The original doesn't have any sparkling lines and the screenwriter also appears too lazy to insert any. The shooting is similarly undistinguished and the soundtrack, over-intrusive and devoid of anything resembling a good idea.

The poor cast struggle manfully to keep the viewer interested, with particularly charismatic performances from Timothy Spall, the late great Sir Nigel Hawthorne and even the often disappointing Tom Hollander and Paul Nicholls clown and smoulder respectively. Joan Collins just struggles. There is little any of them can do, however, with this pretty dire succession of period drama cliches and falling-over gags. This film would be just about watchable if it wasn't such a waste of talent.

The costumes and locations are pretty though.

The costumes are just amazing! The dialog is wonderfully witty! The wigs are inspirational! The makeup is perfect! The locations are breath-taking! The acting is superb! If you like period films you'll need to add this lovely piece to your collection. An excellent ensemble cast who portray tangible characters. This feature must have fallen through the cracks of non-advertising land, because I don't remember it being in theaters. I find myself watching it about three or four times a year - it will really make you smile. It is indeed a film of "Quaalitaay." I'll have to hire Paul Nicholls for one of my films; would like to see more of him.

Hi, I agree that this a wonderful movie. I even heard that Nigel Hawthorne and Joan Collins both paid money to produce this movie....that gives one an particular good notion what a great couple of actors they are with such a big heart for their profession....Everyone who loves great acting , should watch this film,several times!!!! Seldom do we see this kind of acting. For me, as an professional opera singer, it is almost a guideline for acting in the 18 century, such finesse......Hawthorne and Collins are enjoying themselves enormous....

Maja from the Netherlands