Rembrandt

Charles Laughton's heartfelt performance as the famed Dutch painter, Rembrandt, highlights this stylish biography, produced by Alexander Korda. Laughton's real-life wife, Elsa Lancaster, and Charles work together beautifully, and the film boasts a performance by the legendary stage actress, Gertrude Lawrence. One can see that Laughton really loved this role, and gave it his all. Certainly this is one of the more successful artist bios on film.

Charles Laughton is "Rembrandt" in this 1936 film he made for Alexander Korda, one of three films he made in England during this time.

The story takes us through Rembrandt's sad life, and manages at the same time to leave out a lot of sadness. The film shows his son Titus, but there were several other children who did not survive. The great tragedy of Rembrandt's life was the death of his wife Saskia, whom he painted often. Rembrandt was also known for asking Jews to pose for his Old Testament paintings, which are informed by his knowledge of the Bible.

There were two other women in Rembrandt's life: his common-law wife Hendrickje Stoffels (Elsa Lanchester) and his housekeeper, Geertje Dirx (Gertrude Lawrence) who evidently became his lover. She later sued Rembrandt for breach of promise, and he had to pay her 200 guilders a month. For years he tried to get her committed.

Rembrandt is shown falling into poverty here. When his fortunes dimmed as an artist, he continued to work as a teacher. Bad investments were the main cause of his problems. In truth, his paintings remained popular throughout his lifetime, and the one for which he is chastised in the film actually was a huge hit.

Laughton portrays Rembrandt as a man of tremendous artistic integrity, a learned man with soul, heart, and a great feeling for language. Indeed, Laughton's monologues are absolutely beautiful; had he read the phone book, I would have been just as enraptured. Elsa Lanchester is very young here, all eyes, and gives a very sweet performance as the frail Hendrickje. Gertrude Lawrence is an absolute spitfire as Geertje.

Wonderful film. Don't miss this breathtaking Laughton performance.

Why *can't* they make films like this anymore? Today, a film has to be the best part of three hours long and packed with special effects. In this film we see the story of a man's life told in half that time, made at a studio outside London. (Having said that, it was a box-office failure, presumably the audiences who shunned this flocked to see Clark Gable in 'San Francisco'.)

Charles Laughton's performance is truly great, portraying Rembrandt's vision and artistic integrity (which appears as perverse stubbornness to his fellow citizens), and his deep humanity. His speeches at the inn which mirror each other at the beginning and end of the film, on the glory of perfect love and the vanity of human life, are so beautifully delivered I almost held my breath so as not to miss a word.

More than that, the film succeeds in recreating Rembrandt's world. We see the business-like merchants, self-important local politicians and hard-living peasants who made up Dutch society in the 1600's. One of the most moving passages of the film shows Rembrandt trying to return to his home. He is physically unsuited to his father's work and derided by the villagers. He returns to Amsterdam realising he can't fit in with the merchant-class or the peasant-class where he was raised - he is a man alone.

The supporting cast is noteworthy, including Elsa Lanchester (Mrs Laughton, of course) as Rembrandt's last love, Gertrude Lawrence (although I'm still not sure why audiences seemed to fall in love with her, maybe her histrionics were more suited to theatre) and a large crop of Liveseys (Roger, Jack, Sam - I'm sure there were others).

Charles Laughton returned to his native Great Britain in 1936 for three years and made a series of films there. The first and best of these was for Alexander Korda about Rembrandt Van Rijn, arguably the greatest of all Dutch painters.

Later biographical pictures, Lust for Life about Van Gogh and Moulin Rouge about Toulouse-Lautrec had good location photography going for them. Alexander Korda did create some nice sets to depict the Netherlands of the 17th century, but it just isn't the same.

Another difference between Rembrandt and the other two later pictures is while Van Gogh and Toulouse-Lautrec died young, Rembrandt lived to be an old man by the standards of his century. The film takes us on a forty year journey of his life from the death of his first wife until just before he dies. Laughton is great at capturing Rembrandt at every stage of his life.

As compared to those other two 19th century artists, Rembrandt's life was also not the tormented one the others had. Rembrandt is not a deformed cripple like Toulouse-Lautrec nor is he dealing with the onset of mental illness like Van Gogh. Tragedy happens in his life, but the tragedy isn't out of his own character.

Like the other two Rembrandt was constantly plagued with money problems. That's actually what takes up most of the film, the compromises he makes with his artistic vision and the need he has to put bread on the table.

Gertrude Lawrence and Elsa Lanchester do fine as the two women in his life. Laughton and Lawrence did not get along during the making of Rembrandt, that may have helped give their scenes some real bite. Three members of the performing Livesey family are in this film and Roger Livesey is a standout as the beggar who Rembrandt uses to paint his portrait of King Saul from the Old Testament.

Rembrandt is a finely crafted piece of film making and Charles Laughton gives one of his best screen performances. I wish though it had been done on location the way Lust for Life and Moulin Rouge were.

This was a superbly acted movie. I happened across it on TCM and was instantly sucked in. The dialogue was written very well and beautifully portrayed by all of the actors. This is not a typical movie from 1936 with over the top deliveries from the talent. I just can't say enough about it.

Additionally, it was shot very nicely. Keep in mind that this is a very old movie, but the black and white photography is put together in an almost Rembrandt way.

If you haven't seen Rembrandt then go and get it. You won't be disappointed. Well done!