The Barretts of Wimpole Street (1934)

Too much of everything

Absolutely the worst movie.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The Barretts of Wimpole Street (1934). Fine performances in this film adaptation of the play. Poet Elizabeth Browning (Norma Shearer), sick and shut in, corresponds with, and later meets the younger poet Robert Browning (Fredric March), who helps give her strength to live life, and gives physical form to a love between them already established through reading each other's poems. Wonderful performance by Charles Laughton as Elizabeth's strict, menacing, religious father, who delivers as much incestulous-glint into his eyes and creepy closeness as 1930's sensibilities would allow. Also, a very nice job by a young Maureen O'Sullivan, although her very voice draws me out of the film and leaves me expecting Tarzan to burst in at any moment. Finally, Uma O'Connor is my most favorite supporting character actress of all time.

THE BARRETTS OF WIMPOLE STREET was remade in the '60s with Jennifer Jones as Elizabeth Barrett Browning, but most movie fans prefer this earlier version of the tale starring NORMA SHEARER as the ailing poetess, FREDRIC MARCH as her lover and CHARLES LAUGHTON as the control freak of a father. MGM gave it lavish production values and Sidney Franklin's direction is first rate. He would later direct the remake.MAUREEN O'SULLIVAN is charming as Elizabeth's spirited sister in love with a soldier, RALPH FORBES. Performance-wise, it's probably Shearer's best screen performance, ranking with her MARIE ANTOINETTE as the best work of her career. Her quiet resignation to living under the firm domination of her father is well realized, even in the earliest scenes.Trivia note: I don't understand why the decision was made to have UNA O'CONNOR floating into the room as though she was on a track and appears not to be walking at all. It does nothing more than create an artificial effect, especially since O'Connor's performance is more understated than usual.The character-driven story is heavy with stage dialog, moves leisurely and is not likely to find much appeal with today's film-goers. FREDRIC MARCH, who makes his entrance into the story after the first half-hour, is a lively presence but almost overdoes the youthful eagerness in his first scene with Shearer. His boundless energy seems a bit forced.CHARLES LAUGHTON is convincingly devious as the stern parent but looks a bit too young beneath the whiskers and age make-up. Shearer seldom looks as sick as she's supposed to be and is given some radiant close-ups, as if to prove that MGM's make-up department was as efficient as ever.Summing up: Never one of my favorite stories--or films--but worth watching for the performances of an excellent cast.

I thought this would be a talky bore with bland characters and unimaginative cinematic techniques, but I was delightfully surprised! It's very nicely photographed and lavishly mounted, with vivid characters, dramatic coloring and dollops of humor. And the script even takes time to discuss actual poetry. Two representative elements that leap out at you: the sensitive performance of Una O'Connor as Elizabeth Barrett's devoted maid who appears to float across a room in her full-length dress and totally avoids hamming it up as she did (to hilarious effect) in THE INVISIBLE MAN the previous year. And the second is a superbly trained dog who takes his own walks around the neighborhood and scratches at the door when he comes home, to be let in by the servants. On the downside, although the viewer is led to view Norma Shearer's character as a homely recluse who hasn't left her chamber for years and can barely walk, Norma looks from moment one as if she just emerged from the Metro beauty salon (which of course is the case!). You'd think they might have tried a bit to make her look the part, even if only lightening the lipstick a shade or two, or perhaps a touch of shadow under the cheekbones, but no - she is as radiant, glamorous and robust as she ever was in anything. But histrionically this is one of her best efforts. She manages to convey exhaustion and weakness, and only very occasionally lapses into her wheezing, semi-coherent upper register when emotionally overwrought. (Helen Hayes would have been ideal casting for this part.) Charles Laughton as the old grouch of a father is in real life about Shearer's age but his jowly countenance - with the help of a powdered wig and sideburns - help him to look older. He is always riveting, as other viewers have commented, but he (or the script?) fail to convincingly knit the two sides of his personality together. Fredric March as Robert Browning is adequate, not particularly poetic, but dashingly attractive. Interestingly, he resembles Shearer so strongly (especially in profile) that HE could have played her father if his hair had been powdered. And in real life he is two years older than Laughton! But why quibble - this is one of the more entertaining and literate of MGM's Depression-era extravaganzas. At the very least it's delicious eye candy.

The beautiful Canadian actress Norma Shearer starred in this tense and unusual love story based on the true-life romance of Elizabeth Barrett and the poet Robert Browning. Charles Laughton's performance as her possessive and pathologically jealous father was one of the finest in his outstanding career. Although incest was the film's unspoken subtext, contemporary sensitivities prevented it from being spelt-out. That was not to deter Laughton who famously remarked that though they could prevent him from speaking of it, they could not censor the glint in his eye! An outstanding film.