Enchanted April

Many other reviewers inexplicably focus on how the 1935 adaptation of Enchanted April isn't faithful to the 1922 source novel by Elizabeth von Arnim or is somehow inferior to the longer 1991 version. Sadly for them, they're missing the point. Firstly, this is a work complete in and of itself, and neither enhanced nor diminished by specious comparison to a related work. Secondly, it isn't actually based directly on the novel, but the successful 1925 Broadway play that the novel inspired, hence this being a US as opposed to European-made film. A single viewing makes this fact abundantly clear. What's more, at a mere but adequate 95 minutes, the excellent 1991 version is not - and could not - be faithful to the novel either.

What we do have here is an utterly charming and concise little film that, despite its US studio-bound production, effectively establishes both mood and mise-en-scène, especially by clever use of rear projection, matte paintings and spacious, well-appointed sets. Even within the necessarily limited characterisations and plot development dictated to by its abbreviated running time of 66 minutes, it manages to squeeze in much humour, both subtle and slapstick, wry, witty dialogue and an unexpectedly powerful and poignant ending. Lastly, and perhaps most of all, it leaves you wanting more; what more could one ask of any film? Enchanted April is a masterclass in brevity and economy in its storytelling and filmmaking, and is highly recommended to all fans of early talkies.

As for actually seeing it, aside from infrequent TV airings, as of 2017 the best way is via two authorised home video releases from France (Avril enchanté, Editions Montparnasse, 2005) and Spain (Un Abril Encantado, Vértice Cine, 2013). Both region 2 DVDs feature a very clean print from an unconverted NTSC- PAL master, hence its unaltered running time, and optional subtitles. Additionally, the former has an informative 2½ minute intro in French, sans sous-titres; while the latter has a 24-page booklet in Spanish.

You're in for a rare treat - enjoy!

I had been delighted to find that TCM was showing this, as I love the 1992 version with Josie Lawrence, Jim Broadbent, Joan Plowright...This film had a luminous Ann Harding, a wonderful performance by Frank Morgan, but others' acting made the film more of a farce then the wonderful unfolding that the later film. Reginald Owen's Arbuthnot is painful to watch and you can't understand why his wife adores him. I found out after watching the film that it was based on the stage play where the 1992 film is based on the book. The original film also felt like it was a snippet of a larger piece and felt incomplete. Too bad it was such a let-down.

I found this to be a tremendously disappointing version of a charming story. I thought the acting was on the whole quite good. Reginald Owen did chew the scenery, as mentioned by others, but I found him moderately amusing in his brief scenes. TCM has made an Ann Harding fan of me, and I thought she was fine as usual here. Jessie Ralph had a field day as the old battleaxe, ordering everybody around, and Frank Morgan, as always, played Frank Morgan with a twinkle.

For me, the problem was the script and/or the editing--transitions were awkward, motivations were murky. The movie was just too darned short to convey the story properly! I felt completely let down, particularly since I had such fond memories of the later version.

While Ann Harding and Katharine Alexander are charming as Lotty and Rose, too much time is spent on their husbands, played by Frank Morgan and Reginald Owen. This may be closer to the structure of the play and novel, but it deflates the women's roles when the whole point is their blossoming at the Italian villa.

Also shortchanged in this 66-minute version are Mrs. Fisher and Lady Caroline (Jessie Ralph and Jane Baxter) who hardly get to establish their characters. While the basic plot exists, the lush detail that makes the 1991 version so delightful is completely missing. We only get a hint as to how the women change during their enchanted April.

While Morgan does an OK job as Wilkins, Owen is overbearing and oafish as Arbuthnot and he dominates far too many scenes with his over-acting. Ralph Forbes, as Briggs the landlord, also gets little to do, and his ultimate attraction to Caroline is pretty much bypassed in favor of reconciliation between Harding and Morgan.

The power of the 1991 version lies in its focus on the four women, their growing friendship, and how their enchanted April breaks down the differences in their ages and social strata (very important in 1920s English society). This version smartly downplays the men's roles as secondary to the women's. The 1991 version is a story about how women can grow when freed from their marital and social roles. The 1935 version never gets to this as the women are subservient to the men.

Worth seeing for Ann Harding, but don't expect the magic of the 1991 version.

The basic story idea of ENCHANTED APRIL is excellent--two very unhappy wives meet and decide to pool their funds to rent an Italian villa for a month. To further defray costs, they get two other strangers to come along. What makes it interesting are the relationships both before and during this vacation--in particular, showing how this beautiful setting actually changes their outlooks on life. Unfortunately, this good idea is totally spoiled by two key performances in the ensemble cast that are so bad that they ruin the film. Ann Harding plays the most important role in the film in a manner that makes her seem ridiculous. Her "doe-eyed" expression and vacant stares really make you wonder if this isn't a zombie movie or she's just meant to be an idiot! And to make it worse, Reginald Owen plays a character so obnoxious and bombastic that I was very close to turning off the film--he was that awful and unbelievable. I noticed that at least one reviewer gave this movie a 10--which is very, very difficult to understand. Sure, the film has great ambiance and a good plot, but these two glaringly silly performances cannot be overlooked as they undermine the rest of the picture. Sorry, but this film was aching for a re-make!