Parnell - O Rei Sem Coroa

Parnell is not a well known old movie, but even at the time, it didn't go over well with audiences. It was such a box office bomb, Clark Gable vowed he'd never make another period piece again. We can all have a chuckle at his promise, since he was shortly afterwards cast as Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind, but it certainly explains why he didn't want to take that part.

Clark starred as Charles Parnell, an Irish politician at the end of the 1800s. As usual, he didn't put on any accent for the role. Neither did Myrna Loy, his leading lady. But why wasn't it Robert Montgomery or Franchot Tone, actors who did put on Irish accents for their movies? Clark and Myrna played love interests in seven movies, so they certainly had their chemistry practiced. In this one, she's an unhappily married woman, and despite the huge political risks to getting involved with her, Clark can't resist her. This was a true story, so if you're cringing and wondering why Clark couldn't put the good of the country ahead of a pretty face, just remember that the real Parnell couldn't either. Personally, I found the romance a little irritating, since so much was at stake. But that's what true love means!

In the supporting cast, you'll see lots of familiar faces, like Edna May Oliver, Edmund Gwenn, Donald Crisp, Alan Marshal, Billie Burke, and Donald Meek. But the biggest treat of all is to sit through a Clark Gable movie and not hear him shout. Perhaps Gable really did his research and wanted to give a good impression of Parnell, if he was soft spoken, or perhaps he just wanted to try a departure from his usual loud, shouting delivery. Whatever the case, he seemed like a totally different actor, and it was very nice to see him try a different acting style.

John Stahl is famous for his tear-jerkers -often excellent- which make ladies (and gentlemen)cry rivers of tears.Remember "only yesterday" "back street" or his precedent movie "the magnificent obsession"."Parnell " is another matter because it deals with the life and times of an Irish hero who fights for his people right ,a real human being ,not,say, a Fanny Hurst's character.The problem is that Gable's and Loy's characters resemble Fanny Hurst's characters.The movie runs almost two hours and the screenplay is often muddled and confuse.Arguably,Stahl hesitates between a straight political biography -and he's not really good at that- and a full bore melodrama -Gable's and Loy's impossible love)and it satisfies neither the fans of the first genre nor the soap operas' buffs.The ending ,which is guaranteed to send the sensitive people tearing through a ton a kleenex,is pure Stahl Stuff. Best part comes from Edna May Oliver ,playing Loy's auntie.Otherwise,a disappointment and .. a bore.

If one were to see the movie Captain Boycott and see Robert Donat in a brief cameo as Charles Stewart Parnell making a speech you would be seeing a far closer portrayal to the real Parnell then Clark Gable gave in this film. Myrna Loy wasn't too much better as Kitty O'Shea, both the leads looked like they had something else on their minds.

The real Charles Stewart Parnell was a great Irish patriot who by force of intellect and oratory rose to the head of the Irish party in the House of Commons. During the 1880s the members for Ireland in Parliament under Parnell's leadership held the balance of power between the Conservatives and Liberals. If the whole business with his affair with Mrs. O'Shea had not come to light, Ireland might very well have gotten it's own parliament and essentially home rule which was Parnell's goal. He accomplished this all the while clinging to his Protestant faith. The fact that Parnell was a Protestant was not mentioned at all in this film.

Also, the key to Parnell's downfall was his haughtiness. He was not an easy guy to like. He was a great Irish patriot, but he was also haughty and arrogant. When he was brought down by a back street affair come to light, even a lot of his allies weren't unhappy at his political demise.

Before the affair came to light, his enemies tried another gambit with some forged letters that purported to show Parnell's complicity in the assassinations of Lord Fredrick Cavendish and his secretary in Phoenix Park in Dublin in 1881. The trial scenes were the best in the film and it might have been a good film had they stuck to that of course with someone else playing Parnell. The best performance in the film is that of George Zucco who was Parnell's attorney, Sir Charles Russell. Running a close second in acting is Alan Marshal who plays Myrna Loy's husband, Captain O'Shea who thinks by pimping his wife to Parnell he can advance his own career.

Gable took ribbing for this film the rest of his life and even he admitted it laid an ostrich egg.

This is a movie with a considerable reputation--mostly bad. Some of that lack of regard is appropriately earned. However, there are good aspects to Parnell, too. It is definitely worth reconsideration after over 80 years since its initial release.

Was Clark Gable miscast? It is indisputable that there were better choices to play the inspiring, charismatic Irish champion whose great dream was for home rule for his country. But Gable was certainly capable of playing such a decent, noble character with honest conviction. He did so with considerable sincerity in The Misfits. And even though Gable made him seem more American than Irish, we should remember that Parnell's mother was a Yankee, and he always had a close connection with the United States.

Was the film misdirected? John M. Stahl was not in his usual element in tackling such a dense biographical/historical drama. But on the whole, Stahl obtained compelling performances from his actors, and the narrative moved at a pace that held the viewer's attention. MGM showered him with a stellar cast of players and its usual glossy production values. The end result is both entertaining and interesting.

Did the film's historical inaccuracies contribute to its lack of success? Other commentators have pointed out these flaws, and they need no repeating here. However, the biographical film genre by its very nature is often full of contrived fiction usually inserted to make such movies more likely to be commercially acceptable. Is Parnell any worse than MGM's Boys Town, Young Tom Edison/Edison The Man or Madame Curie In this regard? I think not.

In the end, Parnell (the movie) was probably doomed because Gable's fans could not accept him playing an obviously non-Gable part---much like what happened to Tyrone Power when he did Nightmare Alley, Cary Grant when he starred in None But The Lonely Heart, Spencer Tracy when he took on Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde and Robert Young when he appeared in They Won't Believe Me. Gable had a specific carefully created star image and was usually cast in roles that burnished and enhanced that image. Playing Charles Stewart Parnell--an almost God-like idealist, leader and patriot--definitely went beyond being cast against type. His fans were obviously disappointed, and the movie accordingly failed at the box office. Perhaps much of this result was caused by the unpleasant surprise of his fans seeing Gable trying to do such a role, rather than due to intrinsic faults in the film itself.

Take another look at Parnell and judge for yourself.

The character of Parnell has interested me ever since I read James Joyce's Ulysses. I caught this movie by accident when channel surfing and landed on TCM, the source of many old movie nuggets. "Parnell" brings us some first rate actors, from Clark Gable to Myrna Loy, Edmund Gwyn and Donald Crisp. The viewer sees the main outline of the controversy involving Charles Parnell and Kitty O'Shea and its impact on the Irish Free State bill. The movie is dressed up in melodrama with violin music to the strains of Irish ballads. This cloying treatment, not unusual in Hollywood, does not detract from the story of a great man and the overlooked merits of this film. Parnell brought the Irish factions together to achieve a significant breakthrough in his time and might have saved many troubles. Parnell was the stuff of greatness and his story has been enshrined in history and literature. We know that the struggle for Ireland continued beyond his life; still, his story reverberates. This movie gives a sense of the tragedy but the poor sound and grainy film are a bit of an irritation. Also, the choice of Clark Gable, Hollywood's rugged icon of the 1930's, for the role of Parnell, falls flat. This is unfortunate because the movie is far from a disaster. Nevertheless, I would like to see a film with a more complete story, with more character development and background. It would tell the epic tale of Parnell's achievements and the forces that shaped Ireland in the late nineteenth century. The British movie industry does those period movies very well. This movie gives us a taste of that history.