58 recensioni
Androgeny is a quality that some of the biggest of our great stars possessed: Garbo, Dietrich, Grant, Vanessa Redgrave, to name a few, and of course, Katharine Hepburn. In "Sylvia Scarlett," she plays a young woman masquerading as a young man for part of this rather strange film that can't make up its mind what it is. The movie also stars Cary Grant, Edmund Gwenn and Brian Aherne. Gwenn is Henry Scarlett, an embezzler who has to high-tail it out of England fast. When his daughter Sylvia insists on going along, he tells her everyone will be looking for him with his daughter, so Sylvia becomes Sylvester by cutting his hair and donning mens' clothes.
On the boat, the two meet Jimmy Monckley, a con man, and eventually team up with him for a series of cons. Then a flirtatious maid friend of Jimmy's joins them and they become vaudevillians in one of the film's more bizarre twists. Henry, a widower, marries said maid and winds up obsessive and jealous (with, one suspects, good reason since she makes a pass at Sylvia as Sylvester). One night at a performance, the cast meets an artist, Michael Fane, whom Sylvia falls for, and she ultimately reveals himself to him as a woman.
The plot of this film changes more than the sexes, with Hepburn inexplicably staying a boy once she and her father have made their escape to France. There are some great scenes - the con in the French park, with Sylvia pretending to be a destitute boy who can't speak English, and the scene where the dress she stole on the beach so she could make her big reveal to Michael is recognized by the owner. Also, the act they perform is amusing. It probably would have been better to stick with the con angle and have the script go from there, but it goes from that to the performance angle to a love triangle etc.
Katharine Hepburn makes both an excellent boy and young woman in the throes of first love, and Cary Grant has an early, uncharacteristic role as an absolute thief and heel who is also somewhat abusive. His persona would change, and he would find it difficult to convince anyone later on to let him go back to this type of character who is not redeemed at the end. But his good looks and charm make him a natural rogue. The underrated Brian Aherne, who it appears wound up taking a back seat to Errol Flynn, is marvelous as Michael. He's romantic, sexy, and gives the role a light touch.
Directed by George Cukor, "Sulvia Scarlett" is a dizzy film that's not a wild comedy (which it probably should have been) or a drama or a love story. It's remembered today for Hepburn's cross-dressing. A shame, because it could have been remembered for more than that.
On the boat, the two meet Jimmy Monckley, a con man, and eventually team up with him for a series of cons. Then a flirtatious maid friend of Jimmy's joins them and they become vaudevillians in one of the film's more bizarre twists. Henry, a widower, marries said maid and winds up obsessive and jealous (with, one suspects, good reason since she makes a pass at Sylvia as Sylvester). One night at a performance, the cast meets an artist, Michael Fane, whom Sylvia falls for, and she ultimately reveals himself to him as a woman.
The plot of this film changes more than the sexes, with Hepburn inexplicably staying a boy once she and her father have made their escape to France. There are some great scenes - the con in the French park, with Sylvia pretending to be a destitute boy who can't speak English, and the scene where the dress she stole on the beach so she could make her big reveal to Michael is recognized by the owner. Also, the act they perform is amusing. It probably would have been better to stick with the con angle and have the script go from there, but it goes from that to the performance angle to a love triangle etc.
Katharine Hepburn makes both an excellent boy and young woman in the throes of first love, and Cary Grant has an early, uncharacteristic role as an absolute thief and heel who is also somewhat abusive. His persona would change, and he would find it difficult to convince anyone later on to let him go back to this type of character who is not redeemed at the end. But his good looks and charm make him a natural rogue. The underrated Brian Aherne, who it appears wound up taking a back seat to Errol Flynn, is marvelous as Michael. He's romantic, sexy, and gives the role a light touch.
Directed by George Cukor, "Sulvia Scarlett" is a dizzy film that's not a wild comedy (which it probably should have been) or a drama or a love story. It's remembered today for Hepburn's cross-dressing. A shame, because it could have been remembered for more than that.
Not a great movie, or even a very successful one in conventional terms, but quite fascinating to watch. A lot of people are put off by the semi-deliberate artificiality of the acting and the fanciful nature of the story, at least up to the moment where Hepburn reveals herself as a woman to Aherne.
But I think this is the point. Cukor (and Hepburn) were striving for something a bit like A Midsummer Night's Dream (which Hollywood was filming around the same time). A bunch of con-artist misfits meet up and then find a spot for themselves as a sort of traveling commedia dell-arte stage act. They fetch up in an artists' colony in Cornwall, where they are presumably more accepted than elsewhere. A kind of 1930s Forest of Arden.
There, Sylvia's masquerade is not scandalous but amusing. And just as there's actual enchantment in Shakespeare's play, the manner in which Hepburn is revealed as a woman to Aherne (an artist, of course) suggests that on some level she wasn't just masquerading. She literally is transformed back from a boy to a girl, who has to be taught once again what a girl (they never say woman in the movie) behaves like. Instead of appearing threatening to conventional notions of gender, the film underlines Sylvia/Sylvester's vulnerability and innocence.
The gay angle is clear: The theater, and the world of artists, is where Hepburn and her companions (impecunious, emotionally unstable father; odd, flighty servant girl; amoral con artist) are accepted and not judged, where her masquerade isn't a crime but an artistic achievement. Sylvia Scarlett is an effort to make American audiences embrace and find the charm in ways of life it officially rejected.
The whole concept is pretty stagy, but of course Cukor and Hepburn both came from the theater.
But while it all must have looked doable good on paper, it doesn't really work on screen. The script undermines it, for one thing: the plot is full of holes and soon after the big scene with Aherne, the enchantment and strangeness start to drain out of the story, which turns into conventional girl-meets-boy. The only remaining question is whether Kate will find up with Cary or Brian, and that just doesn't hold much interest.
One reason for this is Cukor. He was a fine director of actors, and with a good script he could make a marvelous picture. But he wasn't a great visual artist, like Ford or Welles or Hawks, who could often take mediocre writing and make it sing on screen. This is the highest-concept film he ever made, except possibly Justine late in his career, and he doesn't really have the knack for it. The broad playing and semi-Shakespearean humor never really work the way they should, and Cukor can't seem to make Sylvia's father, the darker character in the whole thing, mesh with the rest.
I wonder if the story wouldn't have been more at home in the silent cinema, where there was more latitude for enchantment and masquerade and make-believe? How would FW Murnau (Sunrise) have handled this material, for example? Hepburn herself is at her best and most entertaining in her scenes as Sylvester. She's acrobatic and rambunctious and fun to watch. The other characters treat her as a sort of adorable boy, kind of like Cherubino in The Marriage of Figaro. Very much in keeping with the deliberately theatrical atmosphere the movie tries for. Once Hepburn puts on a dress again, however, she tends to subside into that familiar Hepburn wonderfulness that can be annoying in some of her other films. The rest of the cast is just fine.
Could this have been a better movie? David Thomson suggests that another director and star (Hawks and Stanwyck, perhaps) could have made it work. Perhaps - but it would have been more conventional. I doubt that anyone else would have opted for the enchanted-forest, Midsummer Night's Dream approach that makes it so interesting. Again, I think it would have had a better chance in the silent era.
Too bad, however, that someone didn't try again!
But I think this is the point. Cukor (and Hepburn) were striving for something a bit like A Midsummer Night's Dream (which Hollywood was filming around the same time). A bunch of con-artist misfits meet up and then find a spot for themselves as a sort of traveling commedia dell-arte stage act. They fetch up in an artists' colony in Cornwall, where they are presumably more accepted than elsewhere. A kind of 1930s Forest of Arden.
There, Sylvia's masquerade is not scandalous but amusing. And just as there's actual enchantment in Shakespeare's play, the manner in which Hepburn is revealed as a woman to Aherne (an artist, of course) suggests that on some level she wasn't just masquerading. She literally is transformed back from a boy to a girl, who has to be taught once again what a girl (they never say woman in the movie) behaves like. Instead of appearing threatening to conventional notions of gender, the film underlines Sylvia/Sylvester's vulnerability and innocence.
The gay angle is clear: The theater, and the world of artists, is where Hepburn and her companions (impecunious, emotionally unstable father; odd, flighty servant girl; amoral con artist) are accepted and not judged, where her masquerade isn't a crime but an artistic achievement. Sylvia Scarlett is an effort to make American audiences embrace and find the charm in ways of life it officially rejected.
The whole concept is pretty stagy, but of course Cukor and Hepburn both came from the theater.
But while it all must have looked doable good on paper, it doesn't really work on screen. The script undermines it, for one thing: the plot is full of holes and soon after the big scene with Aherne, the enchantment and strangeness start to drain out of the story, which turns into conventional girl-meets-boy. The only remaining question is whether Kate will find up with Cary or Brian, and that just doesn't hold much interest.
One reason for this is Cukor. He was a fine director of actors, and with a good script he could make a marvelous picture. But he wasn't a great visual artist, like Ford or Welles or Hawks, who could often take mediocre writing and make it sing on screen. This is the highest-concept film he ever made, except possibly Justine late in his career, and he doesn't really have the knack for it. The broad playing and semi-Shakespearean humor never really work the way they should, and Cukor can't seem to make Sylvia's father, the darker character in the whole thing, mesh with the rest.
I wonder if the story wouldn't have been more at home in the silent cinema, where there was more latitude for enchantment and masquerade and make-believe? How would FW Murnau (Sunrise) have handled this material, for example? Hepburn herself is at her best and most entertaining in her scenes as Sylvester. She's acrobatic and rambunctious and fun to watch. The other characters treat her as a sort of adorable boy, kind of like Cherubino in The Marriage of Figaro. Very much in keeping with the deliberately theatrical atmosphere the movie tries for. Once Hepburn puts on a dress again, however, she tends to subside into that familiar Hepburn wonderfulness that can be annoying in some of her other films. The rest of the cast is just fine.
Could this have been a better movie? David Thomson suggests that another director and star (Hawks and Stanwyck, perhaps) could have made it work. Perhaps - but it would have been more conventional. I doubt that anyone else would have opted for the enchanted-forest, Midsummer Night's Dream approach that makes it so interesting. Again, I think it would have had a better chance in the silent era.
Too bad, however, that someone didn't try again!
SYLVIA SCARLETT (RKO Radio, 1935/released early January 1936), directed by George Cukor, and starring Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Brian Aherne, is a movie that was somewhat ahead of its time. In the early 1970s during the so-called "nostalgia boom" era, I kept hearing about this being the worst Katharine Hepburn movie ever made. Because of that reputation, I became curious. Could it really be that bad? In a TV documentary about classic movies I saw many years ago, Hepburn was interviewed and said the majority of the theater patrons walked out long before the movie was over. Today it has gained a reputation as a "camp classic." Well, I finally got to watch this curious item for the first time on public television's WNET, Channel 13, in New York City in 1977 as part of the Katharine Hepburn Film Festival, which aired every Saturday night. After watching it, I kept wondering if this was supposed to be a comedy or drama. I guess a combination of both.
As for the plot, which opens in Paris, Henry Scarlett (Edmund Gwenn) commits larceny and takes off aboard ship with his daughter, Sylvia (Hepburn). To put the authorities off the track, she decides to cut her long hair and accompany him disguised as Scarlett's son, "Sylvester." They later meet up with a fast-talking swindler named Jimmy Monkley (Cary Grant) and travel with him around England like gypsies, making some easy money by cheating the public. Later, Sylvia, still disguised as Sylvester, encounters Michael Fane (Brian Aherne), an artist, and becomes interested in him, to later abandon her disguise to win him over.
Of the entire cast, Cary Grant comes off best in a very offbeat role, cockney accent and all, thus stealing every scene he's in. He even gets the closing shot sitting in a train compartment laughing himself silly after looking out the window and seeing Sylvia running off with Michael. Also in the cast are Natalie Paley as Lily, a Russian adventuress who tries to nab Henry Scarlett for herself, causing tragedy for him; and Dennie Moore as a daffy servant girl.
In spite of its reputation, SYLVIA SCARLETT is more interesting to see today because of the premise of a woman masquerading as a man/boy which pre-dates the more recent, VICTOR/VICTORIA (1982) with Julie Andrews. But let's not forget the 1933 MGM drama, QUEEN Christina in which Greta Garbo's character is mistaken for a young lad by an ambassador from Spain (John Gilbert), but at least that masquerade didn't go on for the entire movie. Unfortunately, Hepburn's version is an idea that might have looked good on paper, but not on screen. She does make a convincing boy, so to speak, in spite of her height, but I wonder how she felt about it years after it was made. A box office bomb at the time of its release, Hepburn and Grant did get to work together in screen again in three more comedies, BRINGING UP BABY (RKO, 1938), HOLIDAY (Columbia, 1938) and THE PHILADELPHIA STORY (MGM, 1940). SYLVIA SCARLETT, which formerly played on American Movie Classics prior to 2000, can be seen on Turner Classic Movies, or as a video/DVD rental. (**1/2)
As for the plot, which opens in Paris, Henry Scarlett (Edmund Gwenn) commits larceny and takes off aboard ship with his daughter, Sylvia (Hepburn). To put the authorities off the track, she decides to cut her long hair and accompany him disguised as Scarlett's son, "Sylvester." They later meet up with a fast-talking swindler named Jimmy Monkley (Cary Grant) and travel with him around England like gypsies, making some easy money by cheating the public. Later, Sylvia, still disguised as Sylvester, encounters Michael Fane (Brian Aherne), an artist, and becomes interested in him, to later abandon her disguise to win him over.
Of the entire cast, Cary Grant comes off best in a very offbeat role, cockney accent and all, thus stealing every scene he's in. He even gets the closing shot sitting in a train compartment laughing himself silly after looking out the window and seeing Sylvia running off with Michael. Also in the cast are Natalie Paley as Lily, a Russian adventuress who tries to nab Henry Scarlett for herself, causing tragedy for him; and Dennie Moore as a daffy servant girl.
In spite of its reputation, SYLVIA SCARLETT is more interesting to see today because of the premise of a woman masquerading as a man/boy which pre-dates the more recent, VICTOR/VICTORIA (1982) with Julie Andrews. But let's not forget the 1933 MGM drama, QUEEN Christina in which Greta Garbo's character is mistaken for a young lad by an ambassador from Spain (John Gilbert), but at least that masquerade didn't go on for the entire movie. Unfortunately, Hepburn's version is an idea that might have looked good on paper, but not on screen. She does make a convincing boy, so to speak, in spite of her height, but I wonder how she felt about it years after it was made. A box office bomb at the time of its release, Hepburn and Grant did get to work together in screen again in three more comedies, BRINGING UP BABY (RKO, 1938), HOLIDAY (Columbia, 1938) and THE PHILADELPHIA STORY (MGM, 1940). SYLVIA SCARLETT, which formerly played on American Movie Classics prior to 2000, can be seen on Turner Classic Movies, or as a video/DVD rental. (**1/2)
There seem to be some very common unfortunate negative feelings about this film ("SS"), which I think are mostly a clash of expectations with execution. The film presents two great stars in unexpected roles with unexpectedly complicated characters and quirky humor.
This is an interesting platform for Hepburn's developing style, moving her from relatively straightforward "strong female" roles (Christopher Strong, The Little Minister 1932-1934) to more multifaceted personas where Hepburn has to interact more with her femininity (Alice Adams, Quality Street 1935-1937). Sylvia's concern with her sexuality is very disconcertingly captured by the alternatingly coquettish and belligerent Hepburn.
Cary Grant's role in SS is a dark type he didn't get to do often enough, but excelled at. Grant has in this movie a truly unredeemable side that can't be whitewashed by just putting on nice clothes or changing his accent--a side he perfected in None But The Lonely Heart.
The movie also has great virtue as a cultural island in rather intolerant times. The faint undertones of male (Sylvester and Michael Fane) and female (Sylvia and Maudie and Lily) homosexuality are subtle and effectively done, and of course the transvestitism is diverting: the scene where Hepburn meets the owner of her dress is a classic.
Overall, the humor and characterizations in SS are pointed in so many directions that it's hard to figure out whether the movie is deep or ditzy. I have my doubts--the change from con-men to vaudevillians would be hilarious if it weren't so bizarre--but I vote for the former. This movie deserves its place beside Bringing Up Baby, Holiday and The Philadelphia Story as an enduring work of the Hepburn/Grant collaboration.
This is an interesting platform for Hepburn's developing style, moving her from relatively straightforward "strong female" roles (Christopher Strong, The Little Minister 1932-1934) to more multifaceted personas where Hepburn has to interact more with her femininity (Alice Adams, Quality Street 1935-1937). Sylvia's concern with her sexuality is very disconcertingly captured by the alternatingly coquettish and belligerent Hepburn.
Cary Grant's role in SS is a dark type he didn't get to do often enough, but excelled at. Grant has in this movie a truly unredeemable side that can't be whitewashed by just putting on nice clothes or changing his accent--a side he perfected in None But The Lonely Heart.
The movie also has great virtue as a cultural island in rather intolerant times. The faint undertones of male (Sylvester and Michael Fane) and female (Sylvia and Maudie and Lily) homosexuality are subtle and effectively done, and of course the transvestitism is diverting: the scene where Hepburn meets the owner of her dress is a classic.
Overall, the humor and characterizations in SS are pointed in so many directions that it's hard to figure out whether the movie is deep or ditzy. I have my doubts--the change from con-men to vaudevillians would be hilarious if it weren't so bizarre--but I vote for the former. This movie deserves its place beside Bringing Up Baby, Holiday and The Philadelphia Story as an enduring work of the Hepburn/Grant collaboration.
"Sylvia Scarlett" is like a screwball comedy that can't commit to being a screwball comedy.
Hepburn spends much of the first part of the film disguised as a boy so that she and her father (Edmund Gwenn), who are on the lam because of Gwenn's gambling debts, will be less conspicuous. They meet up with a Cockney shyster played by Cary Grant, who falls for Hepburn once he realizes she's actually a girl. Brian Aherne, playing a handsome gentleman the three come across during their travels, falls for her too. The finale involves a zany chase in which Hepburn and Aherne take off after Grant and Aherne's girlfriend in an attempt to get them back, only to discover once they've set off that they really like each other and don't much care about finding the disloyal lovers.
The fact that the film takes on gender issues at ALL makes it a curio worthy of interest, but just WHAT the film wants to do with those gender issues is never clear. Hepburn plays the character like a tomboy who's uncomfortable in her feminine skin, which is completely at odds with the girly girl she portrays in the film's very first scene. The film is never especially funny, but its overall tone is too lighthearted for the dramatic moments to make much of an impact. The editing is ragged and jumpy, which makes me wonder if the studio did some injudicious hacking, leaving elements that that would have made the film make more sense on the cutting room floor.
Critics and audiences have largely dismissed this film with an indifferent shrug, and I can't say that I blame them.
Grade: C
Hepburn spends much of the first part of the film disguised as a boy so that she and her father (Edmund Gwenn), who are on the lam because of Gwenn's gambling debts, will be less conspicuous. They meet up with a Cockney shyster played by Cary Grant, who falls for Hepburn once he realizes she's actually a girl. Brian Aherne, playing a handsome gentleman the three come across during their travels, falls for her too. The finale involves a zany chase in which Hepburn and Aherne take off after Grant and Aherne's girlfriend in an attempt to get them back, only to discover once they've set off that they really like each other and don't much care about finding the disloyal lovers.
The fact that the film takes on gender issues at ALL makes it a curio worthy of interest, but just WHAT the film wants to do with those gender issues is never clear. Hepburn plays the character like a tomboy who's uncomfortable in her feminine skin, which is completely at odds with the girly girl she portrays in the film's very first scene. The film is never especially funny, but its overall tone is too lighthearted for the dramatic moments to make much of an impact. The editing is ragged and jumpy, which makes me wonder if the studio did some injudicious hacking, leaving elements that that would have made the film make more sense on the cutting room floor.
Critics and audiences have largely dismissed this film with an indifferent shrug, and I can't say that I blame them.
Grade: C
- evanston_dad
- 12 ott 2008
- Permalink
I'll start with the bottom line: Sylvia Scarlett is the film that dubbed Katharine Hepburn "box office poison". However, when you watch the movie, you wonder how that was possible. She's adorable!
After her mother's untimely death, Katharine Hepburn and her father Edmund Gwenn leave France and head to England. Teddy has racked up some pretty heavy gambling debts and needs to leave the country, but when he tells his daughter he has to leave her behind lest he be recognized and arrested, she comes up with an idea. Kate cuts her hair and changes her name from Sylvia to Sylvester; surely her father won't be recognized with a young man as his traveling companion! Along the way, they cross paths with a charming Cockney conman, played by Cary Grant, a flirtatious maid, Dennie Moore, and a respectful artist, Brian Aherne. While they band together and enter the con-game, Kate falls in love and longs to be worthy of Brian—even though he believes she's a boy! It's a pretty cute story, and a lot of fun to see Kate, Teddy, and Cary work off one another. It's no great surprise that Kate makes an excellent boy, since her thin frame, beautifully angular face, and slightly masculine voice help mask her true identity. She looks absolutely adorable—or handsome, if you prefer—in her short haircut, and even though the film didn't do well at the box office, it's a definite must-see for Katharine Hepburn fans!
After her mother's untimely death, Katharine Hepburn and her father Edmund Gwenn leave France and head to England. Teddy has racked up some pretty heavy gambling debts and needs to leave the country, but when he tells his daughter he has to leave her behind lest he be recognized and arrested, she comes up with an idea. Kate cuts her hair and changes her name from Sylvia to Sylvester; surely her father won't be recognized with a young man as his traveling companion! Along the way, they cross paths with a charming Cockney conman, played by Cary Grant, a flirtatious maid, Dennie Moore, and a respectful artist, Brian Aherne. While they band together and enter the con-game, Kate falls in love and longs to be worthy of Brian—even though he believes she's a boy! It's a pretty cute story, and a lot of fun to see Kate, Teddy, and Cary work off one another. It's no great surprise that Kate makes an excellent boy, since her thin frame, beautifully angular face, and slightly masculine voice help mask her true identity. She looks absolutely adorable—or handsome, if you prefer—in her short haircut, and even though the film didn't do well at the box office, it's a definite must-see for Katharine Hepburn fans!
- HotToastyRag
- 10 nov 2017
- Permalink
- JimmyCagney
- 23 ago 2008
- Permalink
- morrison-dylan-fan
- 13 ago 2017
- Permalink
You can't really love this picture, to be honest, though I really do want to love anything with Hepburn. In fact, this was the first time I ever caught myself thinking she'd put in a second-rate performance, but that's arguable - some will say that her boyishness actually was well done, and I can't entirely disagree with that.
The truth is that this movie is bursting with melodramatic affectation, and that is rather off-putting to us who are so used to the post-Brando state of character representation. We have to believe that the actor IS the character for the whole thing (writing, characterization, acting, everything) to be a success. If we are embarrassed by what we perceive as a bad performance, the whole thing's in danger of being embarrassing. Now I am no expert on 30s cinema, but I have seen a lot of this kind of thing originating from that decade and I kind of reckon it was the expected style of performance, still left-over from the silent days when body language was all a performer had. Knowing what Hepburn would be capable of bringing later, I think it can't be that she relied on the melodrama like a crutch - instead it's my feeling that she was too easily by Cukor's direction, since many of the other cast members act similarly.
The script is also weak, as it relies on the audience using their imagination far too much in order to fill in the gaps we assume exist in the novel. A good writer/director team will indicate passage of time more fluidly than this; we are left with a lurching sensation, like weeks or months have passed for the characters but not for us, and some might even be confused by the sudden shift of action. If it hadn't been for this clumsiness, I would have given the picture another star for scope.
The film gets the five stars I gave it for Cary Grant's performance, which is one of the best of his career, a superb, well rounded job, and of course it is good enough to deserve a recommendation for the film, even if everything else about it was not-so-good.
The truth is that this movie is bursting with melodramatic affectation, and that is rather off-putting to us who are so used to the post-Brando state of character representation. We have to believe that the actor IS the character for the whole thing (writing, characterization, acting, everything) to be a success. If we are embarrassed by what we perceive as a bad performance, the whole thing's in danger of being embarrassing. Now I am no expert on 30s cinema, but I have seen a lot of this kind of thing originating from that decade and I kind of reckon it was the expected style of performance, still left-over from the silent days when body language was all a performer had. Knowing what Hepburn would be capable of bringing later, I think it can't be that she relied on the melodrama like a crutch - instead it's my feeling that she was too easily by Cukor's direction, since many of the other cast members act similarly.
The script is also weak, as it relies on the audience using their imagination far too much in order to fill in the gaps we assume exist in the novel. A good writer/director team will indicate passage of time more fluidly than this; we are left with a lurching sensation, like weeks or months have passed for the characters but not for us, and some might even be confused by the sudden shift of action. If it hadn't been for this clumsiness, I would have given the picture another star for scope.
The film gets the five stars I gave it for Cary Grant's performance, which is one of the best of his career, a superb, well rounded job, and of course it is good enough to deserve a recommendation for the film, even if everything else about it was not-so-good.
- zygimantas
- 4 ott 2005
- Permalink
This is an odd film - definitely an odd one. Even in a period when the Hayes Office, the Breen Office, the movie code, and the Catholic Legion of Decency were still finding their feet, this film just stretched gender roles as far as possible. And the audiences of 1935, who tolerated MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, THE INFORMER, and many other films, would not tolerate this one.
The issue is whether or not the audiences of 2006 would tolerate it. I gather that we are better used to bi-sexual, homosexual, or transsexual genres in movies in the last half century, but having said that I keep realizing that many people aren't. I also note that of the four Grant - Hepburn films this one is the least revived (which is odd, because it was the first one made). I have a feeling that the fans of this film fall into three categories: those who enjoy the sexual suggestiveness of it's storyline, those who enjoy the two stars and their acting abilities, and those who like the director, George Cukor. Outside those three groups, there are many people who are probably (at best) indifferent to this movie, and (at worst) positively hostile to it.
I could understand part of the hostility. It is the crazy screenplay in the film. This movie never comes to grips with exactly what it wants to do. It starts off with a kind of "Dr. Crippen" situation (though actually not as serious), wherein Edmund Gwenn has committed embezzlement and must flee France with his daughter Hepburn - whom he disguises as a son to help his own escape disguise (this resembles Crippen's disguising his girlfriend Ethel Le Neve as a son when fleeing to Canada on the "Montrose"). Hepburn just barely passes as a boy (her bony face just makes it). Then they meet grifter Cary Grant, and join him in a series of con games.
First problem in script here - if Gwenn and Hepburn are fleeing the French authorities to get to England, doesn't it undercut their efforts to continue a criminal path with Grant? If they are caught (as they nearly are) the British police will return Gwenn to France, rather than probably ignore him if he just behaves himself in England. Of course, for them to get into a story involving Grant the script requires them to behave in line with him.
This was the first film that Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant appeared in together, and in the wake of the later Tracy series it has somehow gotten pushed slightly (not totally) into the shadows. It is similar to the series of musicals by Jeanette MacDonald and Maurice Chevalier for Paramount in the early 1930s, that are slightly (not quite totally) in the shadows of the later musical series with Nelson Eddy. The later films (particularly BRINGING UP BABY and THE PHILADELPHIA STORY) are far more popular - despite the screwiness of the former those films (and HOLIDAY) have coherent plots. We aren't trying to figure out if the film is funny or sad, or if it's about con artists or small time performers. We don't have to worry in the later three films about allegory (the scene in SCARLET when they are performing in Comedia del Arte costumes, with Gwenn - growing jealous about his girlfriend's activities - dressed as "Pierrot" is definitely allegorical). One can say SYLVIA SCARLET is a film with something for everyone - question is does that make it a good film?
Because I like George Cukor (who later would work with both Grant and Hepburn to better effect), and see that Hepburn and Grant and Brian Ahearn and Gwenn are giving their all to their parts, I am willing to say I'm favorably impressed enough to give this an "8" out of "10". But I will maintain that this odd little movie is not one meant for large audiences or for huge popular approval.
The issue is whether or not the audiences of 2006 would tolerate it. I gather that we are better used to bi-sexual, homosexual, or transsexual genres in movies in the last half century, but having said that I keep realizing that many people aren't. I also note that of the four Grant - Hepburn films this one is the least revived (which is odd, because it was the first one made). I have a feeling that the fans of this film fall into three categories: those who enjoy the sexual suggestiveness of it's storyline, those who enjoy the two stars and their acting abilities, and those who like the director, George Cukor. Outside those three groups, there are many people who are probably (at best) indifferent to this movie, and (at worst) positively hostile to it.
I could understand part of the hostility. It is the crazy screenplay in the film. This movie never comes to grips with exactly what it wants to do. It starts off with a kind of "Dr. Crippen" situation (though actually not as serious), wherein Edmund Gwenn has committed embezzlement and must flee France with his daughter Hepburn - whom he disguises as a son to help his own escape disguise (this resembles Crippen's disguising his girlfriend Ethel Le Neve as a son when fleeing to Canada on the "Montrose"). Hepburn just barely passes as a boy (her bony face just makes it). Then they meet grifter Cary Grant, and join him in a series of con games.
First problem in script here - if Gwenn and Hepburn are fleeing the French authorities to get to England, doesn't it undercut their efforts to continue a criminal path with Grant? If they are caught (as they nearly are) the British police will return Gwenn to France, rather than probably ignore him if he just behaves himself in England. Of course, for them to get into a story involving Grant the script requires them to behave in line with him.
This was the first film that Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant appeared in together, and in the wake of the later Tracy series it has somehow gotten pushed slightly (not totally) into the shadows. It is similar to the series of musicals by Jeanette MacDonald and Maurice Chevalier for Paramount in the early 1930s, that are slightly (not quite totally) in the shadows of the later musical series with Nelson Eddy. The later films (particularly BRINGING UP BABY and THE PHILADELPHIA STORY) are far more popular - despite the screwiness of the former those films (and HOLIDAY) have coherent plots. We aren't trying to figure out if the film is funny or sad, or if it's about con artists or small time performers. We don't have to worry in the later three films about allegory (the scene in SCARLET when they are performing in Comedia del Arte costumes, with Gwenn - growing jealous about his girlfriend's activities - dressed as "Pierrot" is definitely allegorical). One can say SYLVIA SCARLET is a film with something for everyone - question is does that make it a good film?
Because I like George Cukor (who later would work with both Grant and Hepburn to better effect), and see that Hepburn and Grant and Brian Ahearn and Gwenn are giving their all to their parts, I am willing to say I'm favorably impressed enough to give this an "8" out of "10". But I will maintain that this odd little movie is not one meant for large audiences or for huge popular approval.
- theowinthrop
- 17 giu 2006
- Permalink
Katherine Hepburn stars in this zany comedy from 1935 directed by George Cukor. Hepburn & her father, played by Edmund Gwenn, decide to return to Blighty (from France) after Gwenn's debts have finally caught up w/him. Upon arriving they meet a Cockney con man, played Cary Grant (in his first pairing w/Hepburn) & they decide to make a go out of fleecing people (using an innocent con, we see Hepburn pretend to be a homeless French boy begging the gathered denizens for spare change which works until things get loused up). They then get a pair of caravans & hit the show circuit plying musicals upon the masses where they meet an artist, played by Brian Aherne, & his annoying Russian girlfriend & quickly become chummy. Hepburn fancies Ahern enough to ditch her boy persona (she's unusually athletic & sports a short coif) which stuns Aherne but he still has to contend w/his nagging Russkie mate & after she nearly drowns at a beach (Hepburn save her by the by), she soon has eyes for Grant when he nurses her back to health. When they turn up missing, Aherne & Hepburn join forces to find them strengthening their attraction for each other but will they act on it? Silly in the extreme but hugely likeable, this effervescent froth goes down easily w/Hepburn particularly beguiling as the winsome tomboy out to have her way in a society which would normally shun & ignore her. Grant is also a star in the ascendant (who would go on to make 3 more films w/Hepburn) as his comic likeability shines through even when he's not being especially nice.
This film should have been a lot better, but so often the writing was filled with holes, the acting (especially with Ms. Hepburn and Mr. Gwen) overdone and excellent actors wasted (in the case of Cary Grant). While it is still watchable, this isn't exactly a glowing endorsement.
The film begins in France where Edmund Gwen informs his daughter (Hepburn) he's being sought by the police for embezzlement. So, they sneak away to Britain--with Hepburn dressed as a young man to divert suspicion. While not the most convincing boy, this was believable enough. However, there was really no discernible reason for her to continue being a boy during the rest of the film. Inexplicably, she stayed in costume until she later fell in love with a Bohemian artist.
On the trip to Britain, Hepburn and Gwen fall in with con-man Grant. And, despite it appearing that the film would be about their criminal gang, all the sudden they abandoned their evil ways and started traveling about the countryside performing little song and dance shows. Why? I have no idea--especially since they don't appear to have much talent.
Also during this time, Gwen gets married to a lady and spends much of the rest of his screen time overacting and pretty much making a fool of himself. Some of this was deliberate, but most of it was just lousy acting. And, when he wasn't blubbering and acting foolish, Hepburn was doing much the same! Grant, while not overacting, was pretty much a cipher--giving an amazingly muted and uninspiring performance. He was there, but that's really about it! The only decent scenes in the film occurred when Sylvia fell in love with the artist. Their scenes together might have been the basis for a good movie--too bad everything leading up to it was so sub-par. Overall, this is a slightly worse than average film but I expected so much more with the talent involved. Ms. Hepburn was a good actress, but better parts were still a few years ahead.
The film begins in France where Edmund Gwen informs his daughter (Hepburn) he's being sought by the police for embezzlement. So, they sneak away to Britain--with Hepburn dressed as a young man to divert suspicion. While not the most convincing boy, this was believable enough. However, there was really no discernible reason for her to continue being a boy during the rest of the film. Inexplicably, she stayed in costume until she later fell in love with a Bohemian artist.
On the trip to Britain, Hepburn and Gwen fall in with con-man Grant. And, despite it appearing that the film would be about their criminal gang, all the sudden they abandoned their evil ways and started traveling about the countryside performing little song and dance shows. Why? I have no idea--especially since they don't appear to have much talent.
Also during this time, Gwen gets married to a lady and spends much of the rest of his screen time overacting and pretty much making a fool of himself. Some of this was deliberate, but most of it was just lousy acting. And, when he wasn't blubbering and acting foolish, Hepburn was doing much the same! Grant, while not overacting, was pretty much a cipher--giving an amazingly muted and uninspiring performance. He was there, but that's really about it! The only decent scenes in the film occurred when Sylvia fell in love with the artist. Their scenes together might have been the basis for a good movie--too bad everything leading up to it was so sub-par. Overall, this is a slightly worse than average film but I expected so much more with the talent involved. Ms. Hepburn was a good actress, but better parts were still a few years ahead.
- planktonrules
- 25 gen 2007
- Permalink
Sylvia Scarlett (1935)
** (out of 4)
After her father (Edmund Gwenn) gets into some trouble, Sylvia Scarlett (Katharine Hepburn) decides to sneak him out of France. She decides to dress up as a boy named Sylvester and before long they meet Jimmy (Cary Grant) and the three "men" are out getting whatever money they can. When Sylvester meets Michael (Brian Aherne) "he" finally has the desire to come out as the woman she really is.
SYLVIA SCARLETT is a really, really strange movie and it's even stranger when you consider the era that it came out. Apparently reviews were mostly negative when the film was released but it seems over the years more people have discovered the film and it has become somewhat of a cult movie. With that said, I personally found it to be rather boring, unfunny and I honestly didn't find too much here to enjoy.
The biggest problem I had with the film is that it didn't make me laugh and I thought the story was rather stupid to say the least. I mean, once the daughter and father are out of France there's really no need for her to pretend to be a man. I'm not sure what the point of her remaining a man was but it just doesn't add anything to the picture. I'd argue that the lack of laughs are a major problem but another is the fact that Sylvia and Michael characters have no chemistry at all.
Speaking of Hepburn, she's game in the film but I honestly wouldn't say this was a "good" performance. Both Gwenn and Aherne are decent in their supporting parts but it's Grant who easily steals the picture with his charming and good-natured performance. The film's most memorable scene is when a woman, thinking Hepburn is a man, comes onto him and the two kiss, which has to be one of the earliest examples of this in a Hollywood picture.
** (out of 4)
After her father (Edmund Gwenn) gets into some trouble, Sylvia Scarlett (Katharine Hepburn) decides to sneak him out of France. She decides to dress up as a boy named Sylvester and before long they meet Jimmy (Cary Grant) and the three "men" are out getting whatever money they can. When Sylvester meets Michael (Brian Aherne) "he" finally has the desire to come out as the woman she really is.
SYLVIA SCARLETT is a really, really strange movie and it's even stranger when you consider the era that it came out. Apparently reviews were mostly negative when the film was released but it seems over the years more people have discovered the film and it has become somewhat of a cult movie. With that said, I personally found it to be rather boring, unfunny and I honestly didn't find too much here to enjoy.
The biggest problem I had with the film is that it didn't make me laugh and I thought the story was rather stupid to say the least. I mean, once the daughter and father are out of France there's really no need for her to pretend to be a man. I'm not sure what the point of her remaining a man was but it just doesn't add anything to the picture. I'd argue that the lack of laughs are a major problem but another is the fact that Sylvia and Michael characters have no chemistry at all.
Speaking of Hepburn, she's game in the film but I honestly wouldn't say this was a "good" performance. Both Gwenn and Aherne are decent in their supporting parts but it's Grant who easily steals the picture with his charming and good-natured performance. The film's most memorable scene is when a woman, thinking Hepburn is a man, comes onto him and the two kiss, which has to be one of the earliest examples of this in a Hollywood picture.
- Michael_Elliott
- 1 apr 2017
- Permalink
Their first movie together was a flop. Despite the scathing reviews greeting December 1935's "Sylvia Scarlett," actor Cary Grant greatly benefitted from it-while his counterpart, Katherine Hepburn, took a ding from her cross-dressing role.
During his early days in Hollywood with Paramount Pictures, Grant was mostly handed one-dimensional parts playing charmers to the ladies. The studio capitalized on his handsome looks, but stifled his characters by their absolute blandness. In his first of four films with Hepburn, Grant revisited his English roots by playing a conniving upbeat scoundrel, Jimmy Monkley, who latches on to the Scarlett's father/son (daughter) duo. Sylvia (Hepburn) and her father Henry (Edmund Gween) are on the run from the French police for embezzlement.
Grant called his performance in "Sylvia Scarlett" his personal break-out role in cracking the pretty-face mold he had been stuck with since the early 1930s. With the guidance of director George Cukor, who told the actor to loosen up and relax, Grant drew upon the memories of his circus days and his poverty upbringing to deliver his first energetic performance. Film reviewer Kathy Fox wrote, "Grant's humble beginnings enables him to play Monkley as if he were born for the part, which in a way, he was. The film did not do that well, but paved the way for the Grant to become the great actor that he was destined to become." The actor, on a loan-out to RKO, was able to secure more robust on-screen roles because of "Sylvia Scarlett." Film reviewer Andy Webb noticed, "Cary Grant as Jimmy delivers scene after scene of comedy especially of the romantic variety and in many ways it was 'Sylvia Scarlett' which would lead to Grant becoming one of the biggest romantic comedy stars in cinema's history."
As the lead in the film, Hepburn's acting was one unappreciated by a number of critics. Her part was a tough one for any actress to pull off since she had to display two complete opposite identities, one male and the other female. In the movie, Sylvia's father realized it would be difficult escaping from the law to be accompanied by a female and decided to leave his daughter behind . She convinces him she'll dress as a boy. Once they crosed the English Channel, she continued her disguise, setting up a rare gender cross-over role that only a few actresses such as Greta Garbo and Marlene Dietrich had previously pulled off.
Director George Cukor was intrigued by Compton MacKenzie's 1918 novel, 'The Early Life and Adventures of Sylvia Scarlett,' whose heroine was a woman con artist dressed as a man to elude customs. Cukor's friend Hepburn was equally enthusiastic about the premise after her highly-popular 1935 "Alice Adams" garnered an Academy Awards Best Actress nomination. MGM turned down the project, but RKO's producer Pandro Berman was swayed by Cukor and Hepburn's feverish pitch on the book's premise. Unfortunately the preview audience found the plot confusing while the cross-dressing scenes were greeted by jeering. When the maid Maudie (Dennie Moore), hired by the three, plants a kiss on the mouth of the disguised Sylvia, nearly three-quarters of the viewers walked out. It became apparent to all this film was a stinker. Cukor and Hepburn marched into Berman's office and said they wanted all the prints destroyed and were willing to make the producer's next film without any salary. Berman's reaction was "Don't bother, please. I never want to see either of you again."
"Sylvia Scarlett" began a string of disappointing movies for Hepburn, later earning her the sobriquet "box office poison." Even though Hepburn did produce a couple of stand-out performances between "Sylvia Scarlett" and the 1938 'poison' published letter by the independent theater owners, her brusque temperament with fans and the reporters would catch up to her. Despite the 'bad press,' Hepburn was giddy in her relationship with one of the world's richest men in Howard Hughes. As a friend of Grant's, Hughes flew to the nearby the beach where "Sylvia Scarlett" was being filmed. The 2004 Martin Scorsese "The Aviator" reenacts the first meeting between Hughes and the movie star on the location set.
During the mid-1960s "Sylvia Scarlett" was shown on college campuses and repertory theaters to appreciative viewers, who found the unusual gender-fluid roles fascinating. The movie has gained cult status, especially with the LGBTQ audience members who see Sylvia's disguise as a boy liberating. In his 1981 book "Cult Movies," author Danny Peary included the RKO motion picture in his list, writing the movie is "one of the most interesting films of the thirties."
During his early days in Hollywood with Paramount Pictures, Grant was mostly handed one-dimensional parts playing charmers to the ladies. The studio capitalized on his handsome looks, but stifled his characters by their absolute blandness. In his first of four films with Hepburn, Grant revisited his English roots by playing a conniving upbeat scoundrel, Jimmy Monkley, who latches on to the Scarlett's father/son (daughter) duo. Sylvia (Hepburn) and her father Henry (Edmund Gween) are on the run from the French police for embezzlement.
Grant called his performance in "Sylvia Scarlett" his personal break-out role in cracking the pretty-face mold he had been stuck with since the early 1930s. With the guidance of director George Cukor, who told the actor to loosen up and relax, Grant drew upon the memories of his circus days and his poverty upbringing to deliver his first energetic performance. Film reviewer Kathy Fox wrote, "Grant's humble beginnings enables him to play Monkley as if he were born for the part, which in a way, he was. The film did not do that well, but paved the way for the Grant to become the great actor that he was destined to become." The actor, on a loan-out to RKO, was able to secure more robust on-screen roles because of "Sylvia Scarlett." Film reviewer Andy Webb noticed, "Cary Grant as Jimmy delivers scene after scene of comedy especially of the romantic variety and in many ways it was 'Sylvia Scarlett' which would lead to Grant becoming one of the biggest romantic comedy stars in cinema's history."
As the lead in the film, Hepburn's acting was one unappreciated by a number of critics. Her part was a tough one for any actress to pull off since she had to display two complete opposite identities, one male and the other female. In the movie, Sylvia's father realized it would be difficult escaping from the law to be accompanied by a female and decided to leave his daughter behind . She convinces him she'll dress as a boy. Once they crosed the English Channel, she continued her disguise, setting up a rare gender cross-over role that only a few actresses such as Greta Garbo and Marlene Dietrich had previously pulled off.
Director George Cukor was intrigued by Compton MacKenzie's 1918 novel, 'The Early Life and Adventures of Sylvia Scarlett,' whose heroine was a woman con artist dressed as a man to elude customs. Cukor's friend Hepburn was equally enthusiastic about the premise after her highly-popular 1935 "Alice Adams" garnered an Academy Awards Best Actress nomination. MGM turned down the project, but RKO's producer Pandro Berman was swayed by Cukor and Hepburn's feverish pitch on the book's premise. Unfortunately the preview audience found the plot confusing while the cross-dressing scenes were greeted by jeering. When the maid Maudie (Dennie Moore), hired by the three, plants a kiss on the mouth of the disguised Sylvia, nearly three-quarters of the viewers walked out. It became apparent to all this film was a stinker. Cukor and Hepburn marched into Berman's office and said they wanted all the prints destroyed and were willing to make the producer's next film without any salary. Berman's reaction was "Don't bother, please. I never want to see either of you again."
"Sylvia Scarlett" began a string of disappointing movies for Hepburn, later earning her the sobriquet "box office poison." Even though Hepburn did produce a couple of stand-out performances between "Sylvia Scarlett" and the 1938 'poison' published letter by the independent theater owners, her brusque temperament with fans and the reporters would catch up to her. Despite the 'bad press,' Hepburn was giddy in her relationship with one of the world's richest men in Howard Hughes. As a friend of Grant's, Hughes flew to the nearby the beach where "Sylvia Scarlett" was being filmed. The 2004 Martin Scorsese "The Aviator" reenacts the first meeting between Hughes and the movie star on the location set.
During the mid-1960s "Sylvia Scarlett" was shown on college campuses and repertory theaters to appreciative viewers, who found the unusual gender-fluid roles fascinating. The movie has gained cult status, especially with the LGBTQ audience members who see Sylvia's disguise as a boy liberating. In his 1981 book "Cult Movies," author Danny Peary included the RKO motion picture in his list, writing the movie is "one of the most interesting films of the thirties."
- springfieldrental
- 1 lug 2023
- Permalink
Ever wondered what one of those silly 30s comedies from Gainsborough or even Twickenham pictures would be like if made by RKO? No, of course you haven't, nobody has but here's the answer anyway.
Maybe it's because we've got Edmund Gwenn, who seemed to be in most English 30s pictures? Maybe it's because like in some of England's early talkies, they've far too many ideas to squeeze into ninety minutes but they're going to try anyway. Maybe it's because its writer was a famously clever and witty Englishman - sorry, Scotsman - but Scottish humour is pretty much the same as ours. The only missing element is the divine Jessie Matthews!
The title and the scenario didn't really say that this was a comedy, a very funny comedy at that which maybe explains why this bombed spectacularly at the box office. I was actually expecting a lightweight drama about a bunch of amateur con-artists so was massively surprised to discover one of the funniest, weirdest and enjoyable laugh out loud screwball comedies of the decade.
Pandro Berman's RKO at the time specialised in sophisticated comedies set amongst lavish art-deco sets. This is nothing like TOP HAT! Again, maybe this unexpected diversion wasn't to the taste of the RKO theatre goers? It's still however got that professionalism and class you'd expect from that studio so watched today it feels much more modern than a lot of 1930s pictures. I thought this was great fun.
Maybe it's because we've got Edmund Gwenn, who seemed to be in most English 30s pictures? Maybe it's because like in some of England's early talkies, they've far too many ideas to squeeze into ninety minutes but they're going to try anyway. Maybe it's because its writer was a famously clever and witty Englishman - sorry, Scotsman - but Scottish humour is pretty much the same as ours. The only missing element is the divine Jessie Matthews!
The title and the scenario didn't really say that this was a comedy, a very funny comedy at that which maybe explains why this bombed spectacularly at the box office. I was actually expecting a lightweight drama about a bunch of amateur con-artists so was massively surprised to discover one of the funniest, weirdest and enjoyable laugh out loud screwball comedies of the decade.
Pandro Berman's RKO at the time specialised in sophisticated comedies set amongst lavish art-deco sets. This is nothing like TOP HAT! Again, maybe this unexpected diversion wasn't to the taste of the RKO theatre goers? It's still however got that professionalism and class you'd expect from that studio so watched today it feels much more modern than a lot of 1930s pictures. I thought this was great fun.
- 1930s_Time_Machine
- 11 ago 2025
- Permalink
Sylvia Scarlett is directed by George Cukor and is adapted from the Compton Mackenzie novel called The Early Life And Adventures Of Sylvia Scarlett. It stars Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, Edmund Gwenn & Brian Aherne. Plot finds Hepburn as Sylvia, who after her father (Gwenn) is discovered as being an embezzler, is forced to flee France for England; with Sylvia disguised as a boy so as to avert suspicion. On the channel ferry they meet Jimmy Monkley (Grant) who isn't shy of the odd con game himself. It could be a match made in grifter heaven?
Baffling and divisive, Sylvia Scarlett is certainly a film that will never be forgotten. The two most notable things about it are that firstly it's considered one of the most unsuccessful movies of the 1930s, whilst secondly it was the first pairing of super stars Hepburn & Grant. Who from here would go on to make three further, and better, movies: Bringing Up Baby (1938), Holiday (1938) & The Philadelphia Story (1940).
Sylvia Scarlett puzzles in what it wants to be, it constantly shifts in tone to the point where one doesn't know what mood is needed to be in so as to enjoy it. Certainly if you needed a pick up it has moments of levity, but then it's also capable of dragging you down. It's also often absurd, and not in a screwball entertaining way either. While come the last half hour it's almost in the realms of fantasy and just a little hard to understand. The cast are fine, and by all accounts it was a real happy shoot (according to Cukor one of the best he worked on), but the bonkers narrative makes it something of an annoying watch.
It has fans, but in spite of Grant being my favourite actor, I'll never be one of them. 4/10
Baffling and divisive, Sylvia Scarlett is certainly a film that will never be forgotten. The two most notable things about it are that firstly it's considered one of the most unsuccessful movies of the 1930s, whilst secondly it was the first pairing of super stars Hepburn & Grant. Who from here would go on to make three further, and better, movies: Bringing Up Baby (1938), Holiday (1938) & The Philadelphia Story (1940).
Sylvia Scarlett puzzles in what it wants to be, it constantly shifts in tone to the point where one doesn't know what mood is needed to be in so as to enjoy it. Certainly if you needed a pick up it has moments of levity, but then it's also capable of dragging you down. It's also often absurd, and not in a screwball entertaining way either. While come the last half hour it's almost in the realms of fantasy and just a little hard to understand. The cast are fine, and by all accounts it was a real happy shoot (according to Cukor one of the best he worked on), but the bonkers narrative makes it something of an annoying watch.
It has fans, but in spite of Grant being my favourite actor, I'll never be one of them. 4/10
- hitchcockthelegend
- 9 ott 2010
- Permalink
- manuel-pestalozzi
- 24 giu 2007
- Permalink
Interesting. The premise of the movie fails because Katherine Hepburn looks much too feminine to pass as a boy. No one would be fooled by her, although perhaps I am applying modern standards to 1936. Having said that, Hepburn and Cary Grant turn in wonderful performances. I found it very interesting to see Grant, who later played mostly suave sophisticates or hapless, yet educated, comedic roles, going on in that Cockney accent. I thought he did it extremely well, but then I am American, so I probably don't have the ear for it that a Brit might have. This film is definitely worth seeing once.
An extremely unusual little film from director George Cukor makes the odd transition from caper comedy to coming of age romance - and occasionally teeters back and forth between the two. The film was a massive flop at the box office (in order to make amends for the film's failure, Cukor and star Katharine Hepburn reportedly offered to make their next film for free), and the audiences of thirties just didn't seem to understand film's bizarre juxtaposition between gritty depression-era realism and dreamy Hollywood surrealism. In all truth, however, the film is enormously entertaining when viewed today, and its unusual tone will be better appreciated by modern audiences.
Although this is the performance that led her to be labeled by critics and theater owners as "box office poison," Hepburn is delightful in role that was quite offbeat for the time (this was 48 years before Barbra Streisand donned male drag in YENTL). Brian Aherne also delivers an endearingly off-kilter performance as Sylvia's love interest, and Edmund Gwenn is terrific in the difficult role of Sylvia's father, who must balance humor and pathos at regular intervals. Best of all is Cary Grant who flat-out nails his role as a cockney con man, and simply radiates with wit, sex appeal, and macho charisma. He alone would make the film worth watching, but, on the whole, SYLVIA SCARLETT remains a lost gem that was very much ahead of its time.
Although this is the performance that led her to be labeled by critics and theater owners as "box office poison," Hepburn is delightful in role that was quite offbeat for the time (this was 48 years before Barbra Streisand donned male drag in YENTL). Brian Aherne also delivers an endearingly off-kilter performance as Sylvia's love interest, and Edmund Gwenn is terrific in the difficult role of Sylvia's father, who must balance humor and pathos at regular intervals. Best of all is Cary Grant who flat-out nails his role as a cockney con man, and simply radiates with wit, sex appeal, and macho charisma. He alone would make the film worth watching, but, on the whole, SYLVIA SCARLETT remains a lost gem that was very much ahead of its time.
With all the talented people involved in this production, I don't know how it could've gone so terribly wrong. But it did.
There are many ludicrous aspects to the plot, and other reviewers were right in saying that the pacing is very choppy, with no clear indication of how much time has elapsed between events. I was irritated by the story, which is incredibly contrived and melodramatic. First, there's no real reason for Sylvia to start dressing like a boy - oh sure, the authorities will be less likely to spot her father if he's travelling with a "son". Riiight. But doesn't the old man have to provide identification when he crosses the border? Wouldn't they detain him then anyway? And wouldn't it make more sense for *him* to change his appearance/identity?
Sylvia sacrifices much in order to protect & help her father, including giving him the money her dead mother left her - not that he really appreciates the gesture - just takes it and resumes ordering her around. This guy is so unlikable and WEAK. He lets his kid take care of him and doesn't do a damn thing for her. Throughout the film we see him making bad decisions, and never really taking responsibility - and then the final cop-out (which I won't reveal). Somehow we're meant to sympathize (since Sylvia does), but it's impossible to feel sorry for a silly fool's grand gesture over a cheap floozy who's not attractive or interesting enough to inspire such passion in the first place. It's incomprehensible. Sylvia's character development also suffers, as it's difficult to understand why she loves her father so much when he never cared about *her* welfare. I guess we're supposed to accept the simplistic declaration that her character is Good and Pure of Heart. The true motivations of other characters, like Monkley (Cary Grant), are also fuzzy and unexplained.
Can the acting rise above such bad writing? Not really. Edmund Gwenn is fine as the father, but no fun to watch. Cary Grant does a good job (with little screen time and a role that's shallow, as written) playing a shady Cockney thief - very different from his typical cultured sophisticate role! But I don't think Katharine Hepburn did very well with her dual role. Honestly, she didn't seem terribly convincing as a girl, *or* as a boy! As the latter, she whoops and hollers and runs around, but to me, this makes her seem like a hyperactive child (of either sex), rather than specifically *male*. Ditto at the start of the film when she's still a girl - she's more demure and softspoken, but the high pitch of her voice mostly succeeds in conveying YOUTH, moreso than GENDER. Hepburn's physical acting is also rather superficial - dainty steps as a female (almost a parody of a girl's movements), and galloping leaps as a male. There's no subtlety.
When I hear that a movie flopped at the box office, like "Sylvia Scarlett" did, I want to support it, because I naturally root for the underdog (and besides, so many crappy movies are box office hits). I also thought this film might be ahead of it's time and have something smart to say about gender roles. Well, I found myself disappointed. "Sylvia Scarlett" is NOT an underrated gem. Sometimes, a flop is just a flop. And some films are better off forgotten.
There are many ludicrous aspects to the plot, and other reviewers were right in saying that the pacing is very choppy, with no clear indication of how much time has elapsed between events. I was irritated by the story, which is incredibly contrived and melodramatic. First, there's no real reason for Sylvia to start dressing like a boy - oh sure, the authorities will be less likely to spot her father if he's travelling with a "son". Riiight. But doesn't the old man have to provide identification when he crosses the border? Wouldn't they detain him then anyway? And wouldn't it make more sense for *him* to change his appearance/identity?
Sylvia sacrifices much in order to protect & help her father, including giving him the money her dead mother left her - not that he really appreciates the gesture - just takes it and resumes ordering her around. This guy is so unlikable and WEAK. He lets his kid take care of him and doesn't do a damn thing for her. Throughout the film we see him making bad decisions, and never really taking responsibility - and then the final cop-out (which I won't reveal). Somehow we're meant to sympathize (since Sylvia does), but it's impossible to feel sorry for a silly fool's grand gesture over a cheap floozy who's not attractive or interesting enough to inspire such passion in the first place. It's incomprehensible. Sylvia's character development also suffers, as it's difficult to understand why she loves her father so much when he never cared about *her* welfare. I guess we're supposed to accept the simplistic declaration that her character is Good and Pure of Heart. The true motivations of other characters, like Monkley (Cary Grant), are also fuzzy and unexplained.
Can the acting rise above such bad writing? Not really. Edmund Gwenn is fine as the father, but no fun to watch. Cary Grant does a good job (with little screen time and a role that's shallow, as written) playing a shady Cockney thief - very different from his typical cultured sophisticate role! But I don't think Katharine Hepburn did very well with her dual role. Honestly, she didn't seem terribly convincing as a girl, *or* as a boy! As the latter, she whoops and hollers and runs around, but to me, this makes her seem like a hyperactive child (of either sex), rather than specifically *male*. Ditto at the start of the film when she's still a girl - she's more demure and softspoken, but the high pitch of her voice mostly succeeds in conveying YOUTH, moreso than GENDER. Hepburn's physical acting is also rather superficial - dainty steps as a female (almost a parody of a girl's movements), and galloping leaps as a male. There's no subtlety.
When I hear that a movie flopped at the box office, like "Sylvia Scarlett" did, I want to support it, because I naturally root for the underdog (and besides, so many crappy movies are box office hits). I also thought this film might be ahead of it's time and have something smart to say about gender roles. Well, I found myself disappointed. "Sylvia Scarlett" is NOT an underrated gem. Sometimes, a flop is just a flop. And some films are better off forgotten.
- crispy_comments
- 18 gen 2006
- Permalink