Ljelja

Yeah, After Hours...and then many similar successful flicks where many great, usually leading performers execute superbly. In that regard, I always have in mind a certain film: Murder by Death. Cast is superb and all of them did a splendid job. Timing was impeccable, dosage leveled, no one stood out or outshone others, such an intelligent team work...because all were very clever actors. If typical leading stars are cast all in one, it mostly turns out a festival of competing deliveries. Rarely have such experiments been successful when big names are all in, Glengarry Glen Ross being another exception to the rule.

Then, there are good (supporting) character actors today, which almost always do nice job if mixed together. Boogie Nights being an example. I'd put After Hours in this category as well.

George Fry

Sorry Guys, I'm not very good at this computer stuff. I'll learn, if I'm spared.

George Fry

Surely one of the great strengths of Brit films has always been its wonderful cadre of supporting actors. This is possibly in the tradition of Brit authors who wrote into the classic novels equally great supporting characters. Think of the Dicken's films. The definitive "Scrooge" the Alistair Sims one, has incredible performances by such stallwarts as Katheline Harrison, Miles Maleson, Peter Bull et alles. Even today the Harry Potter films keep up the tradition even if some of the players are computer generated.

robbie71

I just watched this film agian this weekend, it is a great movie, but i think if you take margaret out of it, it may not be as good, but its a great story..

saturdaypictures

Thanks, Ive just been to Portmeirion and there was confusion-some say Blithe Spirit was written in Watch House -others Fountain..thanks for clearing it up.

saturdaypictures aka jim

TimR

This movie is, I think, one of the most enjoyable comedies ever put on film - but Margararet Rutherford is the main reason. I have watched scenes with her again and again - I cannot see anyone else playing the part. She is like a baseball player whose number is retired when they stop playing: the role of the "medium" is retired!

But as for the rest of the movie: there are things about it that do not make sense. The primary problem is miscasting. Rex Harrison is too young - or at least looks and acts too young - for the part; perhaps, though, he is just the wrong type. He has such outstanding timing that he is enjoyable to watch, but I don't really see him as a man who is henpecked by TWO domineering wives. He seems more like the wily sort who would drive women crazy, but keep them coming back for more. I think the actor who plays the doctor would have been a better choice for the part.

As for the women, the second wife is much better looking than the first, which means the plot no longer makes very much sense. Why would he want to leave Ruth for Elvira? Why would anyone?

Constance Cummings was a very attractive woman; she is good looking and also has an appealing personality as well as charm. Kay Hammond might have been attractive, but it is hard to tell because she is green in the film. Somehow a green ghost with a shrill, nagging voice is not my idea of an irresistable woman. The scene where he stays downstairs with his obnoxious ghost-wife while his good looking real wife is left alone in bed upstairs doesn't make sense.

Also, it seems that the main character doesn't really like women at all. This is hard to explain - but he seems to be a misogynist, which is not appealing.

Of course, I am taking the movie too seriously. I know the play was written during the Blitz and provided respite for thousands during the war. And I watch the movie again and again to see Margaret Rutherford. What a brilliant comic actress!!

I like the scene where she throws herself into the seance: "Chin up! Never give in! That's my motto! Now let's make this one a real rouser!!"

bertie

I've never analysed this great film quite like that but, as you conclude, it is really 'of its time' and a good and enjoyable piece of cinema. And it's from the great David Lean!

TimR

Yes - when I saw the name "David Lean" I bought it. There is no one today making his sort of film anymore.

As for analysis - yes, I go a bit far. But I always enjoy trying to understand WHY I like a film, or WHY I am disappointed. With a comedy like "Blithe Spirit", the material is so light and relaxed that it doesn't bear the weight of analysis, but I still enjoy the process.

Steve Crook

There weren't very many making them back them either

Steve

TimR

Very true! It's interesting: the man who made "Blithe Spirit" and "Great Expectations" also made "Doctor Zhivago" and "Bridge on the River Kwai" and "Lawrence of Arabia". I cannot think of another director who succeeded with such diverse material; also, he moved between small scale intimate drama and panoramic spectacle, and succeded in both. I cannot imagine Ingmar Bergman filming a historicial epic or Orson Welles directing a drawing room comedy.

Steve Crook

Well of course I would nominate Michael Powell

Steve Crook

PaPAS

TimR

Hmmm....I must think about that one.....!

Steve Crook

There have long been two schools of thought about who was the greatest ever British film director. It usually comes down to a battle between Lean and Powell (Hitchcock being dismissed because he ran away to America)

Lean was the more successful commercially, making the big studio films. Powell always followed the more independent route, being fortunate enough to have the freedom to do so. But I think that did let him make the more unusual films that we love him for.

There is a lot of overlap between their careers. Lean was an editor on a couple of Powell's films and Powell was offered Lawrence of Arabia before Lean. I wonder what Powell would have done with it?

Steve

TimR

Powell as director of Lawrence of Arabia! I had no idea it was even an option. It would be fascinating to have both versions (not very likely, but definitely fascinating) That is a marvelous film; no one except D.W. Griffith has ever created films on the epic scale like Lean without losing the intimate details. I do not usually think of Powell as a director of epics - but of course it might not have been a proper "epic" - there are many ways of telling the story of Lawrence.

That is very interesting about Hitchcock; I didn't know he was dismissed. I have been surprised that he is not mentioned often here on the forum. Of course, it does make sense as the vast majority of his films were made in the US, but he is perceived here as a British director.

Where would Carol Reed fit in the pantheon? He seems to me the most under-rated great director of any nation: the maker of The Third Man, Oliver, The Stars Look Down, (beautiful film) and The Fallen Idol - which I would list as perhaps the most under-rated great film, British or otherwise. He is the gentleman-director that others tend to overlook because he does not call attention to himself - that is my theory, at least!

Steve Crook

"I do not usually think of Powell as a director of epics"
Have you seen The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp?

When I say Hitch is dismissed, I just meant as a British director. Most people I know here consider his early work British but his later films are very American.

Michael Powell certainly can't be accused of not calling attention to himself. But despite that, he went through a long period when he wasn't allowed to make any films and then he was as good as forgotten by the vast majority of critics, academics and the public. Luckily he was still alive to see the beginnings of a resurgence of interest in his work. A resurgence that has grown hugely over the last 10-15 years.

You're right to mention Carol Reed. He should be considered in the same class as Powell & Lean.

And don't get me wrong, just because I hugely admire & promote the work of Powell (& Pressburger of course) that doesn't mean that I don't like the work of Lean, Reed, Hitchcock and the others.

Steve