Le due città

I haven't read Charles Dickens' famous novel since high school, so I can't remember how faithful this film adaptation is. I'm sure much is excised from the book, as it would have to be in any adaptation that isn't 15 hours long. But as a stand-alone film, this version of "A Tale of Two Cities" is an awfully good one, and contains a lot of entertainment value.

Ronald Colman does most of the heavy lifting and is superb in the lead role. But two stand outs from the supporting cast are Blanche Yurka as the infamous Madame De Farge, the personification of an activist spirit taken to monstrous extremes, and Edna May Oliver, a proper English lady who won't let a few thousand French revolutionaries intimidate her. The best scene of the film is the smack down between the two characters, one of the best cat fights committed to celluloid.

"A Tale of Two Cities" received two Oscar nominations in 1936, one for Best Picture in a year with ten nominees, and the other for its film editing, courtesy of Conrad Nervig, the man who won the very first film editing award when the category was introduced in 1934.

Grade: A

A TALE OF TWO CITIES contains enough material for a four hour movie but amazingly David O. Selznick's production has managed to tell the epic tale in just a little over two hours. While there are many memorable characters, the ones that stay in the memory longest are Ronald Colman as Sydney Carton and the little seamstress (Isabel Jewell) who gets her courage from him before they go off to the guillotine and he utters those immortal words, "It's a far, far better thing I do..."

Edna May Oliver is just one of the pleasures among the supporting players. Donald Woods makes a handsome, if somewhat subdued, Charles Darnay and Blanche Yurka does an outstanding job as the bitter Madame Defarge. Basil Rathbone is excellent as the aristocratic Marquis St. Evremonde who is annoyed when his horse-driven carriage runs amok and kills a child, setting in motion the bitter Evremonde legacy of hate and mistrust among the French peasants.

The storming of the Bastille is awesome in its detail, as is all of the set decoration for interiors and exteriors which really captures the atmosphere of this turbulent time in history.

Probably Ronald Colman's finest hour--his world weary Sydney Carton becomes a highly sympathetic character by the time he is ready to assume another man's place. A memorable film.

Most of the fiction of Charles Dickens is set firmly in the 19th Century, from roughly 1820 to 1865 or so. Twice, however, he essayed the historical novel. It was really not his specialty. His rival, William Thackeray, was into the past and constructed several notable tales of 18th Century life ("Henry Esmond", "The Virginians", "Denis Duval", "Barry Lyndon", "Catherine"). Compared to this Dickens only squeezed out "Barnaby Rudge" and "A Tale of Two Cities". The first one (published in 1842) was interesting, as it dealt with a serious riot that almost overthrew the monarchy in 1780. But few people read it. Ironically enough, the following year Dickens wrote a novella of 100 pages which became one of his perennial favorite works - "A Christmas Carol". But the second novel (published in 1859 - as Dickens reached the heights of his literary powers) became one of the greatest historical novels ever written. It also has the best introductory paragraph of any of his novels (see the "summary" line to see the opening of it).

He had prepared on the background to "A Tale of Two Cities" by reading Thomas Carlyle's classic "History of the French Revolution". It might have been better if he had read some of the French historians, for Carlyle was a great colorist (he created the "green-eyed" monster image of Maximillian Robespierre that most British and Americans still adhere to), but he saw the Revolution from an ultra-conservative view. It colors Dickens' version, where nothing good seems to come from the French revolutionaries. In his essay on Dickens, George Orwell says that his constant image of carts filled of guillotine victims made the very word "tumbril" sinister. It did. By all means read this novel, and see this film, but don't base your view of that historical event on the novel or film.

The story follows the events of the Manette and St. Evremonde families and their friends (particularly Sidney Carton, a barrister) in England and France, as well as the growing revolutionary spirit in France that is symbolized by the Defarges from 1780 to 1793. Dickens is basically claiming that the cruelties of the ancien regime (represented by the old Marquis St. Evremond) will end by creating new cruelties and new masters now from the lower classes itself. Monsieur Defarges is somewhat more sympathetic to some people (after Charles is condemned to death by a revolutionary tribunal he sees no reason to continue going after the others), but Madame Defarges, remembering the sufferings of her own family, is willing to kill anybody connected to the aristocrats (including the Englishwoman Miss Pross). When one reads the full final speech of Sidney in the novel he foresees that the new leaders are doomed to be eaten up by the guillotine as well (including Defarges).

Much of the five hundred page novel (one of Dickens shortest novels - which helps it's narrative flow) is cut in the film, but the main points are kept. Possibly the most important cut deals with a minor character, Serjeant Stryver - he is Sidney's boss, and uses Sidney's brilliance to win his cases. He actually is a rival for Lucy Manette's hand in the novel, but this is not in the film. Reginald Owen did well in the part, but it would have been hard to see him as a potential lover (especially as Sidney is played by Ronald Colman, or Darnay by Douglas Woods).

The cast was an excellent one, giving Colman, Woods, Rathbone, Oliver, Yurka, Warner, Walthall, and Catlett exceptionally good moments to shine. Witness Rathbone dismissing the murmurs of the intelligentsia (although he finds Voltaire amusing). Witness Yurka's testimony at Darnay's trial. See Catlett's final moments, watching the last tumbrel of guillotine victims going to their doom, and calming down two men who are shouting with glee (very subtly done, and unusual for Catlett - usually a comic actor). Whether Sidney Carton is Colman's greatest performance is questionable (his mad actor in "A Double Life" is better, as is his George Apley and Dick Heldar), but it is a signature part. To this day he's imitated saying, "It is a far, far better thing I do...." No quote for the other roles is submitted by budding Rich Littles among us.

Such an excellent film owes it's production to one man: David O. Selznick, it's producer. A man who loved literature, Selznick made "A Tale of Two Cities" as one of a series of literary based films (with "David Copperfield", and "Little Lord Fauntleroy") that were uniformly excellent, and culminated in "Gone With The Wind". "A Tale of Two Cities" is not as long as "Gone With The Wind", but shows the same taste and craftsmanship that made the latter film a great one too.

I read the book "A Tale of Two Cities", by Charles Dickens, in ninth grade, and to my extreme surprise, it became my second favorite novel of all time. That's why I was thrilled to get my hands on this acclaimed film version, starring Ronald Colman as about my favorite literary character I've met, among a terrific cast.

I am slightly biased, since I was comparing the film very strongly to the novel. Fortunately, the movie did not disappoint - it was excellent! They had to cut much material that was in the novel or else the movie would go on foooooooreeeeeeeeeveeeeeeeerrrrrrr....but they kept the important scenes and kept the essence of Dickens's classic. They also found the right balance between the scenes with our heroes, Lucie Manette, Charles Darnay, Dr. Manette, and Sydney Carton (among others) in London, and the material featuring the Defarges and other peasants in Paris. And they made it compelling, not boring and droning.

The cast, like I said, is very ideal, but I will mention those that stand out the most. Elizabeth Allan surprised me by giving Lucie - who is the world's most annoying and flimsy character in the novel - genuine character and substance, even though Lucie doesn't get to actually do much. Blanche Yurka was absolutely perfect as Mme. Defarge; she was cold and frightening, yet you could sympathize with her without thinking she was too mushy. Edna May Oliver was a treat as Miss Pross, capturing the image of the seemingly strict yet warm maid in the Manette household.

But what I was really judging the movie upon was my imaginary boyfriend, Sydney Carton. Ronald Colman was impeccable as the unlikely hero. He got the different "sides" of Carton right - drunk, insolent, and smart-alecky in one scene and tenderly romantic in the next. The film version also added more humor to Carton, which fits his character well. (The scene in which he pretends to flirt with Miss Pross was not in the novel, but it is one of my favorites.) Sydney Carton's selfless act of sacrifice (and his comforting of the frightened seamstress) are extremely moving. Wonderfully done.

My only real qualifier is that, to my surprise, Charles Darnay (Donald Woods) and Sydney Carton didn't look that much alike. Darnay had sharper features, whereas Carton...ah, Ronald Colman has these lovely brown eyes, giving him a slightly puppy-dog look sometimes. Oh well - the movie made it fairly clear that they were supposed to look alike. Besides, how easy is it casting dopplegangers?

Overall, if you have read "A Tale of Two Cities," there's a darn good chance you're going to like this film. And if you haven't read the book, you may like it anyway. Either way, I highly recommend it.

Rarely have I upgraded a film between viewings as much as I did this one. I saw it quite a while ago and thought it was so-so, but watched it again last week after re-acquiring the VHS....and wow, what an incredible movie! This has to be one of the finest movies of the 1930s.

Production-wise, with the big cast of extras, the photography, the superb acting and powerful story, I can't see how another film, with the exception of "Gone With The Wind," that featured all that this film boasts. Why it is not out on DVD as of this writing - June of 2006 - is a disgrace.

Starting with visuals, this movie reminded me in parts of a good film-noir with the shadows-and-light and great facial closeups. It's just beautifully filmed, and the big reason I'd want to view this on disc.

As for the acting, if ever a man looked and sounded like he was perfectly suited for a certain role, it has to be Ronald Colman playing "Sidney Carton." The anguished, reflective sorrowful looks alone made Colman memorable in this role. It's hard to picture anyone else doing a better job as the man who has no esteem, finds love, is greatly disappointed but then does the most noble thing any human being can do for another, giving up his own for a friend. It's fitting you get Scripture at the end of this film, and in earlier parts of the story as Colman plays a role in which Jesus himself describes how best to show one's love for someone. This is a very spiritual film, by the way, which may turn off some people but was an inspiration to this reviewer.

Almost as riveting as Colman was Blance Yurka. Hers is a not a familiar screen name but apparently she was a big success on the stage during her era. As "Madame DeFarge," Yurka plays on the most vengeful and frightening female figures I've ever seen on film. Too bad she wasn't seen in more movies; she had the charisma for the silver screen.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Allan as the female lead ("Lucy Manette") and Donald Woods as the other male interest ("Charles Darnay") do well in their leading roles. Three other supporting players also are notable for their standout performances: Edna Mae Oliver as Lucy's protective maid/companion "Miss Pross;" Basil Rathbone as the evil French Aristocrat "Marquis St. Evremonde" and Henry B. Walthall as "Dr. Manette."

This Charles Dickens story couldn't have been translated any better to the big screen that what you see here.