La vie privée du tribun

I'm inclined to agree with the other reviewers who have commented on the fact that Gable was the wrong man for this particular job.It might bear some discussion as to why this might have been so.

Gable's screen persona was that of a "man's man."Hearty,frank,forthright,generous,and good natured.You'd find yourself enjoying his company,if only for an evening.(Let's not get into the fact that his camping trips were manufactured for screen publicity,or the rumors of his having been a hustler at the bus depot.We've all done things that we've been ashamed of.)But Gable was a broad actor;truly subtle work was beyond him.And nobility and sensitivity weren't with his range,either.He did what he could do very well.But not with this.

I keep thinking that Ronald Colman,Walter Pigeon,and Errol Flynn all would have been better choices.

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.

Legend has it that Clark Gable was badly miscast in this movie, an example of an actor who wanted to show that he could do more than the roles in which he had been type-cast but in fact showed that he could not.

Well, legend is in part right. Gable could do many things, quite well. But he is very bad in this movie, for several reasons.

First is that he seems to have no command of the oratorical style that is supposedly the gift of every Irishman and certainly of every Irish politician. This is strange, because he certainly commanded an oratorical style in movies like *San Francisco*. But it's true. When he addresses Parliament, or his fellow Irish politicians, he sounds weak, and in no way raises his audience with the power of his oratory. That is all the more clear because several of the other actors in this movie demonstrate a fine oratorical style. The contrast is striking, and not in Gable's favor.

Second, the script often stinks. It is wooden, unrealistic, and sometimes almost laughable.

Third, there is no drama in these scenes. The movie drags badly.

I have the feeling that Gable, or the director, did much of this intentionally, making an effort to create a character that did not have Gable's usual flair, like Blacky in *San Francisco*, for example. Perhaps I'm wrong. But seeing Gable play someone so often so weak is not an appealing sight.

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.

I am an avid lover of the book THE FIFTY WORST FILMS by Harry Medved. It's brilliantly written and funny. However, a few times the book lists movies that are poor but really don't approach awfulness. This movie is one of them (along with THAT HAGEN GIRL and SWING YOUR LADY). While I will gladly admit that it is about Gable's worst film from the mid to late 1930s, it's certainly better than some movies he did in 1931 when he wasn't yet a star. Also, with so many bad films from Hollywood, this movie just seems poor--not bad. After all, even with a saccharine script, this movie STILL stars Myrna Loy and Clark Gable and how bad can a film be when it features these fine actors? Yes, it's true that Clark as Parnell is pretty wussy and unbelievable (and completely unlike Gable in other films, but I actually saw some merit, albeit little, in the film and just can't accept that it deserves a 1 or even a 2.