21 Days

he film begins with two happy lovers (Laurence Olivier and Vivian Leigh) returning to her home. There, waiting for her is her husband--a man who she hasn't seen in three years. He demands money and then attacks Olivier--trying to stab him. In self-defense, Olivier kills the husband and dumps his body in an alley. He then visits his brother, a respected judge (Leslie Banks) and confesses. However, the brother surprisingly does NOT want him to go the police--which is odd, since it was a case of self-defense. It seems that he doesn't want this dirty laundry to be aired in public. For a time, things appear fine...until some other guy is arrested for the killing. Olivier cannot allow this to happen but his brother encourages him to be quiet--the defendant is sure to be found innocent. But, as the trial progresses, things look worse and worse for the defendant. And, all the while his brother, a respected judge, encourages the couple to leave the country and forget about the case. The problem is that Olivier's character has character--much more than his supposedly upright and respectable brother.

While the story is very simple and relatively easy to predict (though the ending was a bit of a twist), I liked the idea of two brothers who appear one way but are the opposite. Olivier's character is a bit of a rotter--gambling and living a rather frivolous life--but down deep, he has a conscience. His proper brother, however, is truly evil and can live with an innocent man being convicted and hung! Because it is a very good film, it is perplexing why Gainsborough Pictures shelved this movie for three years before finally releasing it. I'd love to know why.

Graham Greene here made an inauspicious entry into film writing converting a John Galsworthy story he himself considered "peculiarly unsuited to film adaptation" into "the worst and least successful of Korda's productions".

Olivier and Leigh, the gilded young lovers of the Old Vic, had yet to learn how to act before the cameras in this overwrought melodrama with a noisy score by John Greenwood which spent two years on the shelf before eventually slipping quietly into cinemas only after both leads had hit it big in Hollywood.

There are compensations, however, in the graceful work of it's Czech cameraman, some vivid shots of London as it looked in 1937, and above all a moving performance - twelfth in the cast list - by Hay Petrie, who Greene himself declared "enriches every picture in which he appears.

Although released in 1940 this picture was made in 1937, well before Leigh and Olivier were married. Producer Alexander Korda intended it as a career-boosting role for Leigh but, for whatever reasons, it was put-aside. Columbia bought the property in 1939 and released it after Leigh's success in "Gone with the wind".

The 1937 date explains what must seem to be an anomaly for modern audiences - the sympathetic treatment of the "Axis" characters, ie the German landlord and the Italian grocer.

Well-worth watching - the depth of talent in the supporting roles (Francis L Sullivan, Hay Petrie, Robert Newton etc) is notable.

But not much plot. This was obviously a vehicle for its stars who were married at the time. Lawrence Olivier is quite wooden and stagey, Vivien glows, the camera just loves her. The story is a neat twist on ethics and morality with the wayward no-good brother standing firm for honesty and the uptight, successful barrister brother - on his way to becoming a judge - ready to hang an innocent man for a crime he did not commit. The twenty one days refer to the length of time the trial of this innocent man is going to take. The technical quality of the film was poor, the background of London was nearly washed out and the streets were obviously studio sets, not surprising, as it was filmed at the start of WW2. 5 out of 10, the ending was a bit of a let down and Larry really hams it up.

Apparently this is one of those Galsworthy dilemma stories. In it Olivier, early in his career inadvertently kills a man, the estranged husband of his new love. He is faced with the considerable struggle with conscience because a man has been blamed for the act and will face the music. What to do. What to do. We are put in the position of hoping all will somehow work out. I won't spoil the ending, but I will say that Olivier's character could have been sent to the gallows for terminal boredom. At no point did I really care one way or the other. He is selfish in many ways and rather cowardly. While the victim is made to have no redeeming qualities, his death really serves nothing other than that of a plot element. I suppose there is some of that stiff upper lip stuff going on, but at no time did I sit on the edge of my seat. Contrast this to the pain of Jean Valjean who faces a similar question. In that we all need to look inward. This just didn't ask much of me, and I was also greatly disappointed with the conclusion.