Un marito ideale

An ideal rendering of Oscar Wilde at his best, this is a feast for the eyes all the way through, with excellent acting by Michael Wilding, Diana Wynyard, Hugh Williams, Paulette Goddard, Glynis Johns and C. Aubrey Smith among many others, a little drowned perhaps in too much music, but never mind - the music is good as well, especially in the beginning at the grand opening scene of the soirée with all the top society of belle époque London all at their gaudiest dresses. It's difficult to say what's best in this film, who is the best actor (while I am leaning towards Diana Wynyard), if the prize goes to the colourful scenery and sets, but I think the main triumph of the film is Oscar Wilde's own dialogue, which must make every screening of this play into a success - it has been done so often. It's a joy to behold all the way, you can't tire of it, and you just want it to go on forever, even with Paulette Goddard busy at new ugly schemes of blackmail and destructive cultivation of greed - yes, this is actually Oscar Wilde's most and maybe only moral play.

Hugh Williams is a member of the Party in charge of reporting on "the Argentine Canal scheme." He is about to reject it on behalf of the government, but adventuress Paulette Goddard has an old letter of his that reveals he passed on Cabinet secrets to a stock broker years ago. Not only would this ruin him in politics, but would cause his wife, Diana Wynard, to lose her illusion of his Olympian probity - yes, I know how absurd that is - and cease to love him. Somehow, it is up to Michael Wilding, the wastrel son of Cabinet minister C. Aubrey Smith, to save the day.

There is too much serious plotting and too little lunacy to make this play top notch Oscar Wilde. Everyone tries, and it's very good, but the best scene occurs early on, when Smith confronts Wilding, and brushes aside his nonsense, leaving the younger man flustered. Miss Goddard's musings, mostly to herself, sound like stage soliloquies, and sound quite flat. Nonetheless, there are enough witticisms and the pleasure of Glynis Johns as Williams' sister who inexplicably loves the usually self-absorbed Wilding, to make this fun.

Avoided this for years because of its underwhelming reputation, and was delighted by a recent TCM showing. It's a fine filming of a muckraking Wilde comedy, in which, typically of the author, observations about class and sex and money are often dropped in, not to further the plot, just to allow Wilde to epigrammatically vent as only he could. It's a ravishing production in eye-popping Technicolor, swamped by Cecil Beaton gowns and played by a most competent cast. If Diana Wynyard's moral righteousness becomes a little wearying, I suspect it's the character rather than her playing of it, and she's matched splendidly by Hugh Williams' tortured, blackmailed statesman. Michael Wilding was never better, Glynis Johns is young and comely, and Paulette Goddard not only maintains a convincing accent but absolutely catches the charm, opportunism, and wise verbal sparring the character needs. It's a fine companion piece to the matchless "Importance of Being Earnest" of five years later, and much more eye-catchingly cinematic.

This film doesn't have a very good reputation, e.g., "slow moving" (Maltin) and "a slight, stiff play is swamped by the cast" (Halliwell). IMDb comments are mixed. Well, it does have the limitations one would expect from Korda filming a period play in lavish Technicolor. It is pictorially static, with overly bright colors. For the most part, the actors' voices are animated but their bodies are strangely inert. But in general I thought this wasn't that bad an adaptation, somewhat better than the trendy 1999 version, if only because Korda understood the period he was filming. It seems to me that Wilde's plot complications have been smoothed out a bit here (his name is not even on the credits!) so that the solution follows the problem too quickly and the whole thing can be over in 96 minutes and still have a spectacular recreation of crowds in period costume at the Ascot races. (Perhaps this is an unfair comment since IMDb notes that an original version was a half-hour longer.) With the casting and the spirited performance of Goddard, Mrs. Cheveley becomes the most animated and virile character in the film. Lady Chiltern's conception of morality should stem from a vigorous, naive idealistic vision. She should be a dynamic, slightly-otherworldly treasure with a fairytale view of the world and be the core of the film, for the plot hinges on her vision of purity. The casting and somewhat stodgy performance of Wynyard in the role weakens the story. The character becomes merely an upright, slightly stuffy moralist. Hmmm. Perhaps the criticisms directed at the film are justified. In spite of this, I quite enjoyed this, my third go-around with the play. The Importance of Being Earnest is perhaps more witty and amusing, but this story has a much more provocative drama at its core, with interesting things to say about ethics, morality and idealism. I find it odd that it is universally described as a comedy. Certainly there's a lot of pithy, epigrammatic dialogue, and some light moments, but the basic story is a clear-cut moral drama. The anguish of Sir Chiltern and his wife is real, the stakes are high and virtually life-threatening, and the moral decisions are agonizing.

This adaptation of the Oscar Wilde story "An Ideal Husband" works pretty well as light entertainment despite some shortcomings. It focuses on the dilemma of a prominent British politician, who wants to expose a financial fraud but who has been threatened with personal ruin if he does. The plot that follows does not really fulfill all of the potential of the situation, but that is probably a deliberate decision, as the story focuses more on the sights, atmosphere, and ways of upper-class society.

It often moves slowly in order to call attention to the sometimes extravagant habits of the characters; sometimes this is effective, sometimes less so. Once it gets going, the pace picks up a little. There are some moments of good subtle humor and commentary, with some of the funniest scenes perhaps being those with Michael Wilding as a wastrel son being confronted by father C. Aubrey Smith. Paulette Goddard is pretty good in an underplayed role as the villainness.

Overall, it scores higher on style than on substance, but perhaps that is exactly as intended, and it is entertaining enough to be worth seeing.