Howard le révolté

Titre original : The Howards of Virginia

1940
Approved
1h 56min

NOTE IMDb

MA NOTE

Cary Grant, June Hedin, Dickie Jones, and Martha Scott in Howard le révolté (1940)

Juste avant la Guerre d'indépendance américaine, l'aristocrate de Virginie, Jane Peyton épouse Matt Howard, simple fermier de campagne et géomètre, qui l'emmène dans sa plantation de Shenand... Tout lireJuste avant la Guerre d'indépendance américaine, l'aristocrate de Virginie, Jane Peyton épouse Matt Howard, simple fermier de campagne et géomètre, qui l'emmène dans sa plantation de Shenandoah Valley et plus tard prend part à la guerre.Juste avant la Guerre d'indépendance américaine, l'aristocrate de Virginie, Jane Peyton épouse Matt Howard, simple fermier de campagne et géomètre, qui l'emmène dans sa plantation de Shenandoah Valley et plus tard prend part à la guerre.

Réalisation
- Frank Lloyd
Scénario
- Sidney Buchman
- Elizabeth Page
Casting principal

Voir les informations de production sur IMDbPro

NOTE IMDb

6,0/10

1,3 k

MA NOTE

Réalisation
- Frank Lloyd
Scénario
- Sidney Buchman
- Elizabeth Page
Casting principal

Voir les informations de production sur IMDbPro

Nommé pour 2 Oscars
- 3 victoires et 2 nominations au total

Photos16

+ 8

Avis des utilisateurs26

6,01.3K

Avis à la une

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.

9planktonrules

this was MUCH better than I expected

Despite rather mediocre reviews here on IMDb and in Leonard Maltin's guide, I really liked this movie. Unlike the few other American Revolution films Hollywood has made, this one was both interesting and did an excellent job in conveying WHY the Colonists were rebelling and didn't paint the British as total buffoons or Nazis (like in THE PATRIOT). Plus, the main character's father-in-law is a loyalist, so the real tensions that existed within families was given decent treatment. As an American History teacher, I must point out that despite coming from Hollywood in 1940, the realism in spirit is quite surprising and I could recommend this to kids, as they'd learn a lot.

It was odd to see Cary Grant as a bit of a rag-tag outdoorsman, but he carried it off better than I'd expected. Plus, his British accent really wouldn't have been out of place in the Colonies at that time.

Another big plus for the film was the relationship between Grant and his sons. Yes, it's a bit manipulative, but I really liked the way the writers dealt with this relationship in the movie. All in all, an excellent film.

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.

5AlsExGal

Even Cary Grant has a "worst film" in his catalog...

And this is his. This is a slightly dopey, cornball historical romance from Columbia Pictures and director Frank Lloyd, and yet it always seems to make the cut for Turner Classic Movies' 4th of July films. Colonial Virginia farmer Matt Howard (Cary Grant) wants to travel to the dangerous Ohio frontier to claim land, but his well-meaning friend Thomas Jefferson (Richard Carlson) convinces him to stay, even playing matchmaker between Matt and wealthy socialite Jane Peyton (Martha Scott). Despite the protestations of Jane's snobbish brother Fleetwood (Cedric Hardwicke), she and Matt marry and head to the Shenandoah valley to cultivate Matt's new thousand acre farm. However, differences in temperament and upbringing cause marital woes that are slightly alleviated by having children, and when Matt becomes involved in the brewing American independence movement, their marriage may not withstand the strain. Also featuring Alan Marshal, Paul Kelly, Irving Bacon, Elisabeth Risdon, Anne Revere, Includes Jason Robards Sr., Richard Gaines as Patrick Henry, George Houston as George Washington, and even Peter Cushing shows up in this one.

I've heard of this being one of Cary Grant's worst films, and one that he regretted the most. It's not as horrible as all that, but it's not very good, either. Grant is miscast, and his acting is frequently terrible in it. Martha Scott comes off better able to sincerely sell the often hokey dialogue. The settings and costume work are good, as is the score. I liked seeing Peter Cushing in one of his small Hollywood roles he made during his ill-fated initial attempt at film stardom in the US. He would return to his native England in 1941 and wouldn't find success in movies until the mid-50's. The movie earned Oscar nominations for Best Score (Richard Hageman) and Best Sound.

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.

Histoire

Modifier

Le saviez-vous

Modifier

Anecdotes
The film's failure hit Cary Grant so hard that he refused all period roles he was offered, until Orgueil et passion (1957), which ultimately failed to make a profit.

Gaffes
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.)

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