Agent britannique

The cast is tremendous in this 1934 Warner Brothers film, "British Agent." Based on a 1932 book, the movie takes place mostly in Russia in the early days of World War I and of the Bolshevik Revolution. My high rating of the film is partly because of its historical value. It depicts very well those events and that time in history. Few movies have been made of these two events in relation to each other. Even with Hollywood changes and the natural nuances of the source writer, R.H. Bruce Lockhart in his memoirs, the movie has value for the historical events it covers. It also is credible in its portrayal of the culture and people, as well as costume and dress of the time.

It would be interesting to know how much the characters in the film are based on real people. Some are obvious – Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky. But many others have fictitious names. Still, some are obvious from people in Lockhart's book. It's not hard to get his connection with the male lead, Leslie Howard. In name – Lockhart and Locke, as well as in character. Howard plays Steve Locke who is vice-consul to the British embassy in St. Petersburg and Moscow. When the revolution breaks out and the embassy officials are called back to England, he is left behind as the sole British representative. He's then the acting Consul for Great Britain to Russia. In real life, Bruce Lockhart was Acting British Consul- General in Moscow when the first Russian revolution broke out in early 1917. But he returned to England before the Bolshevik Revolution of October. In January of 1918, he returned as the UK's first envoy to the Bolsheviks. His main purpose was to persuade Russia not to sign a peace pact with Germany, and to come into WW I on the side of the Allies. That's very close to the portrayal of Locke's character and his movements in this film, if not the exact titles he carried.

Kay Francis plays Elena Moura. She is the secretary to Commissioner of War Trotsky. She and Locke are the romantic element of this film, and it comes across as a believably deep-felt love between the two. Howard and Francis carry off this relationship very well, with a respect for each other's ideology. In real life, Lockhart did not have this romance, but he helped the couple that did. British writer Arthur Ransome had been living and writing in Russia when he met Trotsky's secretary, Evgenia Petrovna Shelepina. After the end of the Bolshevik Revolution, Lockhart helped her get to England. She later married Ransome who became famous for his children's books.

Lockhart's life itself is very interesting for his wide travels and experiences. It's every bit as intriguing as this film that is based on a short span of that life. Sir Robert Hamilton (R.H.) Bruce Lockhart, was a journalist, author, secret agent, British diplomat to Moscow and Prague, with other travel and business experiences as well. He also played football at Cambridge. He was a secret agent also in his consulate positions in Russia. He was a friend of Sidney Reilly. Lockhart's son, Robin, wrote the book about Reilly, "Ace of Spies." It was the basis for the 1983 TV miniseries, "Reilly, Ace of Spies."

The rest of the cast in this film are excellent. William Gargan, Cesar Romero, J.Carrol Naish, and several others play their parts superbly. The only drawback to this film is the sets and quality of the film. In places it seems very stagy.

As I said the historical aspects and book connection raise this film a couple notches. The only criticism I have is with the conduct of Howard's character, Locke. I don't know if Lockhart or anyone else in British intelligence of the time advised on this film. But if British intelligence operated as loosely in that day as it appears in this film, it would be no wonder to any viewers how the enemy could find out so much about Britain's operations. An example is the repeated scenes when Elena is visiting Steve and someone brings him information. Old Steve leaves doors open and talks freely about the matters so she can overhear him with no difficulty. And then, when he sees she's gone a couple of times after that, he doesn't seem to think any more about it, or he disregards it. I would suppose that by WW II, British intelligence would have improved to a point that such loose and stupid behavior would get one shot or locked up as a collaborator or very bad source of leaks at the least. I wonder that no one thought about that when making the movie. Or was it shown that way on purpose? Perhaps it really was that way?

The movie opens in 1917 Petrograd outside the British embassy. The city's name had been changed from St. Petersburg at the outbreak of WW I. St. Petersburg/Petrograd was then the capitol of Russia. In 1924 its name was changed to Leningrad, and after the fall of the Iron Curtain and collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the city's name was changed back to St. Petersburg. There are many more interesting details about that time and those events. History buffs will have no difficulty finding articles on line. In the meantime, and for all others, this film serves as a good peek at the events and time. And, it's a film that most people should enjoy.

Apparently based on the memoirs of Sir Robert Hamilton Bruce Lockhart, this film pits Leslie Howard versus the tumultuous events in Russia during 1917, and 1918. Though this film leaves out any mention of someone named Sidney Reilly (the infamous "Ace of Spies", whose exploits were also recounted by Lockhart), and Kay Francis steps in as a Russian firebrand. Meeting by accident the night of the first revolution, "Locke" and Elena are instantly smitten.

When Locke is sent back to Petrograd to stall the Soviet's armistice with Germany (which would endanger the Allies on the western front), Elena is now secretary to a certain V. Lenin, and from there the melodrama ignites. Short on romance, but long on suspenseful political drama and schemes. Leslie Howard is terrific as usual, and Michael Curtiz' direction is crackling. You have to hand it to a top-drawer director for illustrating political upheaval with such entertaining panache. Also hard to overlook is a young actor named Cesar Romero, displaying a light comedic touch.

Purportedly based on the memoirs of R.H. Bruce Lockhart, the UK's man on the ground during the days of the Russian Revolution, Leslie Howard plays the consul general at the British Embassy whose other tasks include fomenting a little counterrevolution on the side. That's constantly getting in the way of his romance with Bolshevik Kay Francis.

What was fascinating here was that the spy Howard was so terribly indiscreet as to allow Francis to gain valuable information for her side. As a British Agent it seemed like everything that Howard was trying came up real short except in the romance department.

But Howard and Francis are a good match in screen chemistry in the romance department. As history British Agent leaves a lot to be desired. I think had the film been done by a British studio it probably would have turned out better.

"British Agent" succeeds in being both thought-provoking, and emotionally engaging. It would've been easy to lose the characters in the history lesson, but, fortunately, even the supporting cast make an impression and make you care about what happens to them. There is genuine tension, and grief at the deaths which occur. I thought there was a good balance between expository dialogue and action scenes, as well.

True, at 80 minutes the story is rushed - it could've been a bit longer, especially to give more depth to the relationship that develops between Steve (Leslie Howard) and Elena (Kay Francis). They seem to declare love rather quickly. However, thanks to the good actors involved, it's not too implausible. One feels sympathy for all the characters, and understanding of both sides - no small feat, considering the opposing political views.

This film provides an effective introductory history lesson, a relatively unbiased portrayal of two different countries/ideologies, and a gripping love story. It's not easy to juggle all these elements into a cohesive whole, but I believe "British Agent" does a fine job of educating *and* entertaining. Sometimes you *can* mix business with pleasure.

And yet I liked it! Leslie Howard can give any part in any film dignity - this one proves it! And Kay Francis can make any man seem appealing - again, Leslie Howard proves it! Take that Scarlet O'Hara!

Howard plays, Stephen Locke, a British diplomat, in the last days of Czarist Russia and the first days of Communist Russia. He meets Elena Moura (Kay Francis) when she runs into the British embassy with the Cossacks in hot pursuit since she is a Bolshevik. And also because she was shooting at them. Locke shields her from harm as the consulate is British soil.

They meet again after the revolution when Stephen tries to convince the new Soviet government not to make a separate peace with Germany. But Elena tells her comrades that Stephen is just an unofficial representative, and therefore Stephen is ignored and Russia does make peace apart from the Allies Meanwhile, Stephen and Eleana fall in love. Why I don't know because Eleana keeps telling her bosses all that she knows about Stephen. Egads this could get embarrassing if this is a compulsion of hers!

So then some diplomat friends of Stephen come to him about a plan to arm the White Army against the newly found Soviet government, the hope being that any new Russian government will rejoin the war. Meanwhile Elena still loves her country AND Communism AND Stephen AND still has these troublesome tattle tale qualities.

This has got to be the most pro-Soviet film Hollywood produced prior to WWII when they went wholesale propaganda on the subject during the war years. Lenin is clearly portrayed as a hero. Kay Francis tells us that the emotion she feels for Lenin is "reverence." Lenin's recovery from an assassination attempt is a cause for rejoicing. The Soviet official in charge of tracing down opponents of the regime says that some call it terror, but it's what has to be done. I interpreted that line as a defense of Stalin's policies in the 1930s.

The historical background is more accurate and detailed than most Hollywood films, with Howard articulating the reasons the Allies were concerned about Russia's withdrawal from the war. Also, both leads managed to be annoying characters without annoying me, the viewer. William Gargan's character, on the other hand, annoyed me tremendously. Why must every American abroad in a 1930s film sound like he should be running a lunch counter in the Bronx?