Arrowsmith

On paper, 'Arrowsmith' sounded like it had potential to be a great film. Great source material courtesy of Sinclair Lewis. A fine director in John Ford, though he was early on in his career at this point, who went on to direct some of cinema's finest westerns. That it was a box office hit in the day. And a gifted cast in Ronald Colman, Helen Hayes and pre-stardom Myrna Loy. Did have a couple of reservations though, as the length did sound far too short for such a big and meaty book and the reviews here were very mixed.

Can totally understand the mixed critical reception here and am very mixed in 'Arrowsmith' myself. It is not a terrible film as there are good things, but there are just too many things wrong with it to consider it a good film. There are books that would either leant themselves much better to a mini-series or should have been left alone and 'Arrowsmith' is a case of both instances. In honesty though, one doesn't really to have read the book to see how heavily flawed it is. As far as Ford's films go this is a lesser effort.

'Arrowsmith' does benefit from some good things. Will agree that in some ways that Colman is miscast, but he does bring freshness and sincerity to the lead role. Hayes is noble and poignant and Loy is suitably vivacious in a rather underwritten role. The relationship between Arrowsmith and Joyce was quite bold back then and has spark. Richard Bennett is also very good in his role.

The production values are quite good too, especially the photography. Dark, vivid and atmospheric, plus Hayes and especially Loy look fantastic in their shots. The settings are handsome and evocative. The music score sweeps without being intrusive.

However, the film just feels far too rushed and choppy, which a couple of my friends who had not read the source material also felt. The heavily condensed story is very rushed in pace and with such a lot glossed over there is a sense of incompleteness which gives off a choppy feel structurally and a lack of coherence. The characters are underwritten, especially Joyce, and their motivations vague at best.

Furthermore, the script is very Cliff notes, a case of introducing one event and character and then moving onto the next without development. It is also very stilted. Ford went on to be a fine director, but here he didn't seem to know what to do with the material or seem right for it, too routine and lightweight while at other times too heavy. Do agree that although Colman does give his all, he was too old and artistocratic.

In summary, watchable but really doesn't live up to its potential. 5/10

Although the film has not aged well, "Arrowsmith" was well regarded when it was released and garnered four Academy Award nominations including Best Picture. Perhaps in those early days of sound, competent use of the camera and decent recording equipment were regarded as high values that merited praise. However, with the exception of some occasionally striking cinematography by Ray June, this John Ford adaptation of the Sinclair Lewis novel is choppy, unevenly acted, and betrays its age.

Later in the 1930's, Sidney Howard adapted the sprawling historical novel "Gone with the Wind" into a fine screenplay that left viewers with the feeling that they had seen the entire book on screen. However, his adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize Winning "Arrowsmith" omits the core message of the novel and rushes through events in the life of Dr. Martin Arrowsmith in brief vignettes that leave viewers confused. Characters appear and disappear, decisions and moves are made without deliberation or motivation, and Arrowsmith himself comes off as a shallow individual with little regard for either those he supposedly loves or those he supposedly has dedicated his life to saving.

Ronald Colman is generally a fine actor, and his idealism in "Lost Horizon" appeared genuine. However, Colman's suggested idealistic behavior in "Arrowsmith" is not convincing, despite a few effective scenes towards the end of the film. Helen Hayes has a few good scenes as the doctor's wife, although Myrna Loy has little to do but look seductive, which she does quite well.

Unfortunately, the scenes in the Caribbean seem demeaning to the characters, and a local doctor's willingness to allow what is effectively experimentation on his fellow countrymen borders on the criminal. However, these attitudes were considered the norm when the film was made and should be viewed in the context of the period. Although most films seem far too long, "Arrowsmith" is much too short to convey the canvas that Lewis painted in his novel. Almost like a Clift Notes version of the book, John Ford's "Arrowsmith" disappoints, especially when the talent expended on its production is considered.

The student of medical school Martin Arrowsmith (Ronald Colman) dreams on becoming a researcher. He seeks out Professor Max Gottlieb (A.E. Anson) that promises the position when Arrowsmith is an undergraduate doctor. Meanwhile Arrowsmith meets the nurse Leora (Helen Hayes) and they fall in love with each other. When Prof. Gottlieb invites Arrowsmith to work with him in New York, he declines since the salary is not enough to support Leora and him. He marries Leora and becomes a countryside doctor. After a while, the frustrated Arrowsmith decides to move with Leora to New York to work with Gottlieb. Soon he is invited to go to a Caribbean Island where there is an outbreak of bubonic plague to test a serum he has developed in the population and Leora decides to go with him despite the danger. Will Arrowsmith succeed in saving the inhabitants?

"Arrowsmith" is a deceptive film directed by John Ford. The story seems to be incomplete missing explanation, for example, about Mrs. Joyce Lanyon, performed by the gorgeous Myrna Loy. The relationship between Arrowsmith and his wife is also underdeveloped. Ronald Colman is too old for the role of a young idealistic doctor. Maybe the viewer that has read the novel may like this film more than one that has never read it. Last but not the least, the Brazilian title is awful. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Médico e Amante" ("Doctor and Lover")

Sinclair Lewis wrote ARROWSMITH in 1923, after the first two of his blockbuster novels that dissected American Society (MAIN STREET and BABBITT). Lewis decided to make a complete study about the medical profession. As such it was brilliant - far more brilliant than this movie is. If one can think of the novel as what it is - an expose about what is wrong concerning the medical profession - the novel is a glass of fine champagne, and this movie version is a glass of lemonade! Lewis takes us along the entire career of Martin Arrowsmith - through medical school, through practice in a small town, through his marriage to Leora Tozer, through his going to the big city (New York) where he is connected to a large, well-known Foundation, to his battling the plague (and losing his wife and his co-worker), and his finally coming to terms with what he wants from his profession. For the key to the novel is that medicine is extremely lucrative, but Martin is very idealistic. He does not seek riches, but wants to help his fellow man.

The problem, as the film proceeds, is that the people who run or control the profession (or society, for that matter) can care less for the idealistic goal. For one reason or another they want results that are pragmatic or banal. For example, one would think that the Foundation (a swipe at the Rockefeller Foundation, by the way) would be really gung ho about an idealistic medical researcher. They certainly have the laboratories and talent for real progress. But they also have a strong desire for immediate results that can be used for propaganda purposes. So they keep pushing aside certain desires for private testing that Arrowsmith and his mentor Max Gottlieb (A.E. Anson) are requesting on the bubonic plague serum. The director of the foundation insists that Arrowsmith goes to a plague saturated island with his co-discoverer, for immediate SUCCESSFUL results. This leads to massive tragedy in the novel and the film.

This doesn't come across too clearly in the film. Instead it looks like Martin (Colman) would like more time to test, but the emergency prevents it. This weakens the novel's criticism. And this is not the only example.

When Martin starts out in the small town, the local medical community has this idiot running it who knows squat about modern medicine, but is great at self-advertising. The man, who looks like Theodore Roosevelt, thinks that the height of local medical activity is running a "health day" parade. This too is not in the movie.

The film, in short, short-changes Lewis's wonderful novel. In fact, more of the spirit of Lewis's attack can be found in the Robert Donat - Rosalind Russell - Ralph Richardson film THE CITADEL (based on an A. J. Cronin expose novel). That's rough, considering how important the critique by Lewis really was.

The film's cast gives it their all, particularly Helen Hayes (still the young actress who won her first Oscar that same year for THE SIN OF MADELON CLAUDETTE), Myrna Loy (in a heavily cut role) and Colman. John Ford's directing was somewhat mediocre in this film, unlike later works of his. So I give it a "6" out of "10".

Ronald Colman,(Dr. Martin Arrowsmith),"A Tale of Two Cities" '35, is a young doctor who starts out in life and desires to progress into the laboratory and look under a microscope all day long. However, he no long completes medical school and meets up with Helen Hayes,(Leora Arrowsmith) and on the first date, asks her to marry him. Martin and Leora are madly in love with each other but it is difficult for Martin to establish himself as a doctor, so they move to South Dakota. Myrna Loy,(Joyce Lanyon),"The Mask of Fu Manchu",'32 plays a sexy gal who has eyes for Martin and could lead to some problems. In 1931 this was a big hit film because of Helen Hayes, a great theatrical actress and Ronald Colman the thrill of most ladies during this period of time. Myrna Loy was young and pretty and getting great attention from Hollywood and the general audiences. There was plenty of smoking through out this film and it clearly shows how the world has finally changed about its view on smoking.