La mégère apprivoisée

Just as an additional; comment to one of the earlier reviews - Channel 4 in England did show the original 1929 version of this film in the late 1980's. The print was in excellent shape and the lack of music did not greatly harm the film. Unfortunately although I taped it at the time I've since erased it and the public domain copy I bought later is the 1966 re-dubbed and cut version - which is not as good.

Douglas Fairbanks is Petruchio and Mary Pickford is Catherine, with bad direction by Sam Taylor. Plus I'm sure that The Bard was not amused that Sam Taylor thought he could improve his original dialogue. But I digress.

The big problem is that Pickford is so small; when I got my first look at her, she looked like a little girl playing at fancy dress. Taylor stages things so she is equal in height or taller than Fairbanks when they are side by side, but when standing apart she is obviously much shorter. Maybe a match in bad manners, but she is obviously not his physical equal. For example, she is blown about by a high wind in one scene, while Fairbanks is unaffected.

Fairbanks as Petruchio is actually playing one of his swashbucklers, and Pickford as Kate is one of her many spunky waif characters. She does not inspire fear, just a "isn't that precious!" reaction given her size. Notice that when Pickford is supposedly beating up servants and smashing furniture, she does so out of view of the camera, because someone her size would not be capable of doing all of that damage.

The odd thing is that the film looks like great care went into the art direction and photography, and the supporting players are pretty good. Neither Fairbanks nor Pickford have that stiff early talkie way about them, but they are given to wild gestures as though they are still in a silent film. So it is the little things that are done well and with care, while it is the big things that sink the film. I'd give it 5/10 with four of those five going to the physical production design.

This early sound movie blows a hole in the theory that all sound films from this era were static, clumsy affairs due to the camera being imprisoned in a soundproof booth to avoid the sound of its machinery registering on the microphones. The camera is very fluid in this otherwise ordinary adaptation of Shakespeare's play.

Hollywood royalty Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford star as Kate and Petruchio, the warring couple who really love each other on the sly. Their marriage was a sham by the time this flick came out, and both their careers were on the wane, but they give reasonable enough performances, even though Fairbanks looks a few years too old for his part when the camera gets close. There's still a tendency to exaggerate their gestures and overact to responses to words being spoken, but they're no worse than any other stars making their first sound films.

It's clear that Hollywood back then had no more confidence in the intelligence of its audience than it does today: this is Shakespeare for the common man, with the pith of the Bard's prose removed in order to make the words readily understandable to all. Although the film is little more than an hour long, it does begin to drag during the last twenty minutes but, that aside, it's not a bad effort.

This film essentially begins with a young man named "Horentsio" (Geoffrey Wardwell) desiring to marry a woman by the name of "Bianca" (Dorothy Jordan) who is the daughter of a wealthy man named "Baptista" (Edwin Maxwell). The only problem is that Baptista refuses to give Bianca away in marriage until her older sister "Katherine" (Mary Pickford) is wed first. And therein lies the rub as nobody--and I mean absolutely nobody--wants to marry Katherine as she has an extreme temper and a generally bad disposition all around. However, as luck would have it, just when both Horentsio and Baptista think the situation is hopeless, along comes a superbly confident young man named "Petruchio" (Douglas Fairbanks) who is not only excited about the challenge but also thinks quite highly of the dowry which he will acquire should he marry Katherine. For her part, Katherine wants nothing to do with Petruchio and for that reason she intends to make things as difficult as possible for all concerned. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this film deviated quite substantially from the actual play by William Shakespeare. That being said, while I don't normally like Hollywood adaptations, I thought that this one turned out quite well--all things considered. I especially liked the over-the-top facial expressions by both Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks which were, no doubt, a product of the transition from silent films to those incorporating sound. Be that as it may, I enjoyed this movie and I have rated it accordingly. Above average.

This very maligned film may not be great Shakespeare, but it is good fun. Mary Pickford's biographer Scott Eyman points out that this film has a reasonable ancestry, being based on David Garrick's performing edition of the play. Be that as itr may, Doug and Mary give us less than half of the text, and throughout the film they play it safe by alternating between silent pantomime and heavy theatrical declamation. Playing it safe? In 1929 it was still not clear whether or not sound was a passing fad.

Of the two stars, Doug is clearly the better. Director Sam Taylor moulds the roles around the performer, and not the other way around, which was unwise but understandable. The Fairbanks image suits Petruchio better than Pickford's suits Kate. (At her best Pickford is magnificent, at her worst embarrassing. She herself called it one of her worst performances, and there is no reason to doubt her.)

For an early talkie it has remarkable fluidity, though it is only the 1966 re-edited version that is available today. (When I approached the Mary Pickford Company in 1992 to see if I could arrange a screening of the 1929 release print - which was longer and had a different score - I was politely but firmly told to go away!)

Two points of interest. This film was emphatically not the box office flop that many writers have claimed; it returned a healthy profit on its first release. And the credit line "by William Shakespeare, with additional dialogue by Sam Taylor" is pure myth. It appears not in the script, the 1966 nor in the 1929 (I have it on reliable authority) prints of the film. Where do these things get started?