La chanson du souvenir

"A Song to Remember" is supposed to be the life of Chopin but in fact, very little in it is historically accurate. It's still a beautiful, emotional, and sumptuous movie, filled with the heavenly music of Chopin played by Jose Iturbi.

"A Song to Remember" helped to popularize Chopin's romantic, passionate music and launched Cornel Wilde's star into the heavens. Though he's never done much for me personally, he cuts a dashing figure as Chopin. The Chopin of Columbia Pictures is a strong patriot of Poland who, under the influence of the controlling George Sand, becomes a self-involved artist. Sand believed (here anyway) that the artist needed to serve himself alone and not others. Thus, she cut him off from his teacher and friend, Professor Elsnore, who wants Chopin to finish his magnificent Polonaise, a freedom cry for his beloved Poland, which is being suppressed by the Russians. Under Sand's control, Chopin turns out little ditties instead.

There really was a Professor Elsnore, but he did not teach Chopin piano, rather, music theory and composition. The role is played effectively by Paul Muni, who works to protect the change in Chopin's personality and apathy toward politics to his family and friends. Merle Oberon is stunning as a cold George Sand. Nina Foch plays Chopin's Polish girlfriend Constantia (and in reality, Constantia did exist).

Well, what is true and what isn't? Chopin was a child prodigy, he did meet George Sand at a party which was also attended by Franz Liszt, the bad weather in Mallorca nearly killed him, and in fact, after that time, he was never fully healthy again. He broke with George Sand two years before he died. She is the one who tried to get back together. His burial isn't covered in the film, but Chopin is buried in Paris. At his request, his heart was removed and buried in Poland.

One of the scenes in "A Song to Remember" has a place in history, though not perhaps in Chopin's, but that of another famous pianist. During a party, it is announced that Franz Liszt will play. The room is plunged into darkness. As the audience listens, George Sand walks over to the piano and places a candleabra on top of it to reveal that it is not Liszt at all, but Chopin. It is said that because of that scene, Liberace never played piano without his own famous candelabra.

There is a trick about movies concerning great or even good composers. Few of them have lives that (outside of musicologists or curious people) are worth talking about. Also, as their music is the reason for their greatness, the music is going to dominate the film - any activity on screen is going to be less interesting (unless the composer's life is interesting) than what they created for their audiences and posterity.

Which composers have popped up on screen? Beethoven in several films (best, possibly, by Gary Oldman in 1994's IMMORTAL BELOVED). Chopin in the film about to be discussed here. His pal, Franz Liszt (Dirk Bogarde) in SONG WITHOUT END. Johann Brahms and Robert Schuman (Robert Walker Sr. and Paul Henried) in SONG OF LOVE. Wagner in the television series of that name (by Richard Burton), and Verdi in the television series of that name (by Ronald Pickup). Douglas Montgomery (MELODY LANE) and Don Ameche (SWANEE RIVER) both essayed Stephen Foster. Clifton Webb was John Philip Sousa in STARS AND STRIPES FOREVER. Walter Connelly was the title composer in THE GREAT VICTOR HERBERT. Jimmy Cagney (and Joel Grey) were George M. Cohan (in YANKEE DOODLE DANDY and GEORGE M.). Robert Alda was George Gershwin in RHAPSODY IN BLUE. Tom Drake and Mickey Rooney were Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart in WORDS AND MUSIC. Robert Morley and Maurice Evans were the title characters in THE STORY OF GILBERT AND SULLIVAN. Richard Chamberlain was Pyotr Ilytsch Tschaikowski in THE MUSIC LOVERS. Fernand Gravet was Johann Strauss Jr. in THE GREAT WALTZ.

But few of them were really exciting people. Webb's performance as Sousa was good, but the biographical material of the story was passably interesting (but no more - the music carried the film). Chamberlain's film was more interesting because of Tschaikowski's homosexuality. Cagney's breeziness and the theater background of the story of Cohan made that film a permanently popular one. Foster's tragic failure to succeed as our first professional composer (and his alcoholism) did give some grip to his biography, but sappy construction and writing hurt the Ameche film (especially that profoundly stupid conclusion).

Chopin was "blessed" in several ways biographically. He was a patriot, and part of the film is devoted to his support for the Poles fighting for their freedom from Russia. He did have a long time affair with George Sands, France's leading female novelist in the 19th Century. And he struggled with increasing ill health due to his tuberculosis. He only lived forty years, and oddly enough his birth and death dates almost correspond to his American contemporary Edgar Allan Poe, who was also plagued by ill health through much of his life.

Cornell Wilde had been playing supporting parts up to this film, such as the cowardly inside-man in the heist in HIGH SIERRA. It was here that he finally came into his own as an actor, even getting nominated for an Academy Award for his performance. Merle Oberon had an unusual role. Normally she was a supportive lover (her Cathy is ultimately deeply in love with Heathcliff, but proud and snobbish when she meets Edgar Linton in WUTHERING HEIGHTS - that was an exception for her). Here she is committed to her own literary success, and she does little to understand the musical success at the core of the man who adores her. There is a hint of nymphomania in her - a seeming hard incapacity to love that drives men wild (not only Chopin, but his predecessor in her bed Alfred de Musset the poet (George Macready)). In the end she is the villain in the film, breaking the spirit of her Polish lover, and dooming him to early death.

How true is this? Not totally. While two creative spirits like Chopin and Sand could clash they both were deeply attached to each other. In a television series on the career of Sand, starring Rosemary Harris, it turned out that a message from Chopin on his death bed was withheld from Sand by her jealous daughter - a fact she did not learn until many decades later.

Paul Muni gave a weak, over the top performance as Chopin's mentor Joseph Elsner in the film. He had done older men for years, and Elsner was a slightly comical one (look at his scene with Howard Freeman as a music publisher). But it is overdone, and one of the weaknesses of the movie. Still it is not too serious a weakness. On the whole it is a good film, for the two leads and some of the supporting cast. But it is not true history.

A Song to Remember looks bad now not because it is 54 years old but because it is bad and, notwithstanding its blockbuster reputation, it was bad in 1945. The story is a falsification of Fredric Chopin's life. The miscasting of muscular Cornel Wilde as the consumptive composer is a travesty. And the over-acting of Paul Muni, uncontrolled by the director, is an insult to the intelligence and good taste of the spectator; besides, too much footage is dedicated to him. The magic is, of course, the music, the way Jose Iturbi plays it, and the magnificent color and art direction. But the writing, the direction and the acting are all abominable.

Although a biography about any composer is a rare gift, even if it's largely fictionalized, this film suffers from some of the most exaggerated over-acting caught on film by an actor.. and that is Paul Muni as Prof. Joseph Elsner. His character is almost embarrassing. It seems as though he was directed to play it to be "comic relief" to Cornel Wilde's "Chopin", which is beautifully performed ... but he comes off more as a buffoon and a caricature than a believable person.

The film is saved by Wilde, Nina Foch, Merle Oberon, and a fantastic performance by Stephen Bekassy as Franz Lizst. The piano playing by Jose Iturbi is superb, as expected. The stunning costumes and magnificent set designs, not to mention the cinematography executed in glorious Technicolor make it fun to watch, but what had the potential to be a masterpiece is cut short by the direction and Muni's performance, which seems to be more suited to the Vaudeville stage than to the big screen.

I love the music of Chopin. That is why I was eager to see this 1945 classic about his life. After seeing it, I enjoyed the film so much that it spurred me to seek out some biographical information on his life. After having done so, I realized that the story in the film bore very little resemblance to the truth and I was greatly disappointed. It was just another example of extremely entertaining Hollywood drivel.

As a work of fiction, the film was nicely done. The story was enchanting and it painted Chopin as a very noble patriot, playing himself to death in concerts to earn money to support the Polish revolution, though I found no support for that in anything I read. Cornel Wilde was nominated for an Oscar for his performance, which was excellent indeed, but he was incongruously cast. Wilde is handsome and athletic looking and Chopin was plain and frail. Paul Muni, though charming in the role of Professor Elsner, was much too eccentric and ebulliently peculiar to be very believable. The best performance by far was given by Merle Oberon as the cold and iron willed George Sand, whose love affair with Chopin turned into a tyrannical attempt to shelter him from the world.

The best part of this film was the music of Chopin himself, played brilliantly by Jose Iturbi. The music alone was worth enduring the Hollywood prevarication. I also enjoyed the 19th Century costumes.

I rated this film a 7/10. If it were a fictional account of some person who never existed, I probably would have rated it a 9/10, because it was very enjoyable. However, such liberties were taken with the truth that I had to deduct a couple of points in protest. If you are a classic film buff or a classical music lover, it is definitely worth seeing.