Reflections on the Christmas/angel film, "The Bishop's Wife" (1947) starring Cary Grant, Loretta Young and David Niven

 

Reflections on “The Bishop’s Wife” (1947)

Directed by Henry Koster

Written by Leonardo Bercovici and Robert E Sherwood

Starring Cary Grant, Loretta Young and David Niven

 

“The Bishop’s Wife” is unquestionably one of my favourite angel and Christmas films. Cary Grant is simply perfect as Dudley, the angel sent to help Bishop Henry Brougham in response to a prayer, though not, perhaps, in exactly the way Henry anticipates.

Bishop Henry Brougham is hardworking, principled, kind and resolutely determined to build a cathedral to honour God, though funds are hardly flowing into the coffers and Henry is starting to panic and obsess over his failure to raise both money and the building. In his obsessive desire to do right by God, his mind has been diverted by reverence and image and he appears to have lost sight of his broader purpose and direction. He is so focused on a monument that his attention is drawn from other more pressing and humanitarian good works, and he has become neglectful of his wife and daughter. He prays for help and guidance which, in his mind, is intended for the construction of the cathedral, and Dudley appears. However, Dudley’s mission is to offer guidance of a more general and humanitarian nature to Henry, so that Henry can refocus on helping people and appreciating his family rather than constructing a building to honour the spiritual father of such grand notions.

By the end, Dudley has helped a number of people see the bigger picture, to put their problems into proportion and consider their priorities, to appreciate the many gifts we enjoy through being alive – something we tend to lose sight of when overwhelmed by problems and anxiety – and to inspire them to achieve their potential. He seems to advocate value and fulfilment associated with understanding, tolerance and love as opposed to material gain, immediate gratification and physical comfort.

This is particularly true of Agnes Hamilton, a wealthy widow whose support for Henry’s project is dependent on incorporating her late husband’s name into virtually every aspect of the building’s design, amounting to the creation of a monument to her husband’s memory, something Henry cannot accept and which is causing conflict and delays.

Mrs Hamilton appears to be a hard-hearted woman overwhelmed by position and pride. However, Dudley sees the truth in her heart. In fact, she is driven by her lack of love for her late husband whom she married for social advantage and wealth.  In truth, when she was young, she loved a penniless artist but she abandoned him due to a fear of poverty. She sacrificed her heart for material things and she knows it. Her marriage was something of a sham and now she is trying to compensate by material and costly memorials to her late husband and a crass demonstration of non-existent affection in an attempt to make it real. However, Dudley puts her in touch with her deepest and hidden feelings and this brings about a remarkable change of heart – she abandons her façade and determines to do as much good as she can with her money by helping the poor and the needy with Henry as the chief administrator, rather than constructing an edifice in honour of her late husband.

Indeed, this is the same message Henry must receive – that offering practical help to the needy is more important than merely honouring the very one who advocates such actions….

Julia, Henry’s wife, is something of a catalyst in all this. She doesn’t contribute a great deal to the storyline yet she is central to it as she represents those qualities that are fundamental to so much we do – love and humanity, and as such she provides purpose and inspiration. Of course, Henry, like many others, is losing sight of the importance of love and consideration compared to the importance he has attached to material things…

Julia is loving, caring and sincere and she inspires affection through her tenderness and kindness, but she is largely unappreciated and neglected and the love in her heart is being slowly stifled by Henry’s inattention and devotion to his project. Of course, she remains a dutiful and good wife, but will duty replace love so she may end up in a position similar to that of Agnes Hamilton? Disappointment and hurt are toxic to relationships long-term. She needs to see she deserves more and Dudley is happy to provide her with moments of innocent happiness and joy, with the added bonus of causing Henry to be jealous and reflect on what is important to him…

Dudley is supremely calm, commanding and confident of his place in the grand scheme of things and his contribution to life. He has complete belief in himself and is ever positive and optimistic. He achieves his mission not by way of miracles (though he does indulge in some audience-pleasing miraculous antics on the way), but by showing compassion and understanding, and by offering appreciation, inspiration and help, thus leading the way for others to do likewise.

And he watches over all, whether faithful or non-believers, as he helps to inspire the sceptical Professor who provides the voice of reason and common sense to Henry and Julia. The Professor is principled, consoling and sincere but lacks the self-belief and inspiration he needs to fulfil his dream of writing the definitive history of Rome, and Dudley is able to stimulate and inspire him to do so. Indeed, Dudley also stimulates a degree of spirituality in the Professor as, at the end of the film, he attends the Christmas service in church.

Problems are put into proportion and what really matters is brought into focus, but another dramatic element is introduced, and one which is revisited in many other angel films – jealousy of emotion, love and attachment on the part of the angel. Emotions can lead to problems, but bring great joy as well. Here Dudley becomes envious of the love between Henry and his wife Julia, and this adds a whole dimension not just in terms of dramatic interest, but one which urges us to appreciate what we have in life. Dudley appears to have everything, yet he himself feels he has nothing without the kind of bond of love he has witnessed between Henry and his wife.

This is, I believe, an essential element in the success of this film – not only does it emphasise how lucky we are to experience these feelings, but it lends drama, import and even a sense of tragic sympathy to the figure of the angel whose very presence will be forgotten on completion of his mission. Without some kind of inner conflict, the angel would simply be doing a job and there would be little real interest in him.

This may be a somewhat dated and unashamedly sentimental concoction but if you’re willing to surrender to its seasonal spirit, it engages, entertains and invites gentle reflection on what is important in life as Dudley puts people who have been diverted or corrupted by experience and pain in touch with their fundamental humanity and allows them to fulfil their potential.

My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.

Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)

BLOG 

YouTube

Discussion of some themes and issues in "Moliere" (2007) and in Moliere's work in general

 

Reflections on “Molière” (2007)

Written and directed by Laurent Tirard

Starring Romain Duris, Fabrice Luchini and Laura Morante

This is not intended as a full review or analysis, but rather a brief discussion of some of the themes touched upon in the film and in Molière’s work in general.

 

“Shakespeare in love” was much admired for its clever combination of historical fact, transposition of character and imagined biographical detail, and “Molière” uses a similar conceit; taking characters, events and issues from Molière’s canon of work and reimagining them as elements of Molière’s own life which will go on to inspire him in his writing.

Initially well received by critics and public alike, the film went on to be criticised, at least in the UK and the USA, for being a little shallow – criticism I find somewhat ironic and largely unjustified as Molière accuses himself of just such a fault quite early in the film, and the film goes on to take shallowness as one of its themes and ultimately addresses this issue more than adequately, in my opinion.

Personally, I found “Molière” amusing, involving, of considerable historical interest and very entertaining. It brings the celebrated author and the content and context of his plays to life. It would be short-sighted to consider that the seventeenth century setting of Molière’s work means that it is not relevant to today. Molière’s reading of human nature and society is so acute that he sees beyond the immediate context of his play and touches on universal themes and problems, though his work and style are undoubtedly less familiar to British and American audiences than those of Shakespeare.

Human and fun to watch, the film explores themes such as an examination of social strata and class superiority, the value of sincerity and genuine emotion as opposed to adopting manners or airs and graces in order to please others or to try to advance socially, religious zealotry and how principle can be manipulated to achieve one’s own ends, and the vagaries of parental interference in children’s lives, to name but a few of the themes touched upon.

The bourgeois or middle classes aspiring to the heady heights of the aristocracy who in turn are doing their best to avoid the depths of having to work in order to maintain their lifestyle can surely be simply replaced with different players aspiring to different positions in today’s society. The fundamental truth remains that there are some who fawn to those they consider superior and will do whatever they feel is necessary to charm their way into their good graces, even to the point of sacrificing their dignity and self-respect, and there are those who treat their social “inferiors” with contempt but are perfectly willing to profit by these people’s efforts and good will. Religious zealots can be seen as any group claiming moral, spiritual or intellectual superiority, yet who manage to improve their own physical lot along the way without contributing anything of particular value to the society they criticise.

Molière clearly invites us to consider a person’s true worth, value and place in society, to value what is genuine and not to take people or position at face value.

According to the film, Molière aspired to be regarded as a great writer – someone with things to say about life – but he himself does not recognise the value of comedy in the drive toward fulfilling his aim as he regards it as light and frivolous. He appears to believe serious points can only truly be made through serious drama and tragedy, dramatic forms for which he has little or no talent.

Molière is presented as a man dogged by a sense of his own lack of worth or value. Success is not enough – he wishes to leave behind something meaningful and of merit. Yet he is given hope and inspiration by one he loves and respects as she is about to die. He is given a new perspective and insight into the possibility that through his comedy he can indeed deliver a meaningful and worthwhile “message”, and a commentary on society and life.

Pointing out various individuals’ foibles, and therefore those of society in general, in a witty and entertaining manner can perhaps be more engaging and thus can be more effective than a “serious” play on the same theme. Man’s nature is examined indirectly through a comedy of manners and social etiquette.

The plays admired by Molière undoubtedly contain many truths and insights into human nature, often exaggerated or taken to the extreme for dramatic effect, but Molière’s plays remain accessible to viewers and readers. There is a familiarity and comfort in his settings, situations and issues, and viewers and readers are more likely to identify with these events and characters, ultimately perhaps lending them greater personal appeal and value than other more “serious” works.

This film really brought Molière’s world alive for me. The historical context and pervading humanity allow the viewer to enjoy and appreciate Molière’s work with a fresh eye. Emotionally engaging as well as entertaining, I thoroughly enjoyed all the performances, though especially Fabrice Luchini and Romain Duris who managed to be amusing and touching, much like the film as a whole, as befits a work inspired by the works of Molière, and the whole is gift-wrapped in sumptuous and rousing music by Frédéric Talgorn.

My thanks for taking the time to read this article – I hope you found it of some value.

 

Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)