I'd like to spank the Academy

Posts tagged ‘Faith’

Miracle on 34th Street (1947)

miracle on 34th streetDirected by George Seaton

It’s December 1st! For me, today is the day that I can hear Christmas music on the radio without being annoyed by how early it has started. I can justifiably watch Christmas movies, and I can start eating my daily piece of advent calendar chocolate. I’ve decided I’m going to start this Christmas season with a review of a Christmas movie. Have a happy holiday season!
(Also, yes, I am completely aware that this is not the first movie alphabetically. I had some availability issues, so I’m going backwards this month.)

Miracle on 34th Street is a movie that I grew up with. We watched it at least once every Christmas season. I loved it so much as a child that I was angry when it was remade in 1994. I was twelve, and could see no reason why there needed to be another version. The excuse that kids wouldn’t want to watch a black-and-white movie or an old movie made me so mad; I was living proof that kids were, indeed, capable of enjoying things besides the latest movies. Now I’m an adult, and I still don’t see that there was any need for a remake. I absolutely love this movie.

So what’s the story? Macy’s Department Store hires a man to play Santa at the last minute, not realizing that they have hired the real Kris Kringle. Although he is sad by how commercialized Christmas has become, Kris decides he will not only do his best to help everyone have a happy Christmas, but will also help no-nonsense Doris Walker and her young daughter, Susan, believe in Santa again. But when a jealous coworker accuses Kris of insanity, will Kris’s new lawyer friend be able to prove to the court that Kris is actually Santa Claus?

The Good: I would honestly not be surprised if it came out that Edmund Gwenn were truly Santa Claus. His performance as Kris Kringle is fabulous. He’s a jolly, twinkly-eyed man whose only sorrow in life is the unhappiness of others. Each of his scenes is a delight to watch because he truly embodies the spirit of Santa.

The rest of the acting in the movie is good, too. Maureen O’Hara plays Doris Walker perfectly, showing her growth as she changes from a bitter, jaded divorcee to a woman who believes that good things might be possible after all. Precocious seven-year-old Susan Walker is played wonderfully well by Natalie Wood. Besides showcasing these marvelous actresses, Miracle on 34th Street is also the film debut of one of my favorite character actresses: Thelma Ritter, who plays the exhausted, exasperated mother whose little boy wants a special fire truck, the catalyst for Kris’s shocking idea of helping people find what they want for Christmas, no matter where it is for sale. I adore Thelma Ritter in all of her roles, and even though her role is tiny in this movie, I am still happy to see her.

Miracle on 34th Street is a bit of an oddity in that it was released as a book and a movie at the same time. I’m not sure if the screenplay is wholly based on the book, or if the writers worked on both at the same time. I have read the book, and bits of it are word for word the same as the screenplay, but I’m not sure exactly how the dynamics worked. However it worked, though, the screenplay is perfect. The story of how Santa would fare in the modern Christmas season is simple and sweet, but the screenplay elevates the basic story to really make the characters come alive. There’s heart and humor and love without being too sickly sweet; it’s really just delightful.

The Bad: John Payne doesn’t do a bad job of playing Fred Gailey, per se, but Fred is such a flat, bland character that anyone could have played him. There’s just not much for him to work with. It’s a little bit sad that a movie with such dynamic characters has such a boring man for the leading lady to fall in love with.

The Ugly: Like One Hundred Men and a Girl, Miracle on 34th Street is much too sweet of a movie to have anything really ugly in it.

The Major Disappointment: I had always thought that the real Mr. Macy and Mr. Gimbel played themselves. However, I learned this year that they were played by actors. It’s obviously not a huge deal, but it feels like I’ve been lied to my whole life.

A Satisfying Fact: Even though Macy and Gimbel weren’t really themselves, Edmund Gwenn really was Santa Claus for the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. The film of him being Santa in the parade is real, not staged.

Oscars Won: Best actor in a supporting role (Edmund Gwenn); best writing, original story; best writing, screenplay.

Other Oscar Nominations: Best picture.

Field of Dreams (1989)

field-of-dreamsDirected by Phil Alden Robinson

I know this review is late; I’ve been putting off writing it. I have such mixed feelings about Field of Dreams that’s it hard for me to know what to say. Field of Dreams is a movie I grew up with. My dad would stick it in the VCR when he was working at home. As soon as the movie finished, Dad would simply rewind it and start it up again. He loved it so much that when my mom started to slim their movie collection down, there were three VHS copies and two DVDs of Field of Dreams among the other movies. I liked it when I was a child, but now I have very little patience for it. I don’t know what changed, but it was a chore to watch this movie.

So what’s the story? Reluctant farmer Ray Kinsella hears a voice in the cornfield: “If you build it, he will come.” Ray becomes convinced that it means that if he builds a baseball diamond in his fields, long-deceased baseball player Shoeless Joe Jackson will be able to come play baseball. Ray takes a leap of faith and makes the baseball field, and miraculous things happen.

The Good: Field of Dreams is based on the novel Shoeless Joe by W.P. Kinsella. Because I had seen the movie so often, I was excited to read the book in high school when one of my teachers had it on the free choice book list. The book was not so great. I don’t say this often, but the movie is much, much better than the book. The screenplay takes all that is wondrous and beautiful from the novel and makes a much more concise, coherent experience. Making a screenplay that is better than the book is not easy; Phil Alden Robinson did a fabulous job with the adaptation.

James Horner’s score is hauntingly beautiful. It fits the movie so very well, ethereal and peaceful. It never takes over what is happening on the screen, but supports it as a good musical score should.

Most of the actors were perfect. Amy Madigan is amazing as Ray’s scattered, yet down-to-earth wife, Annie. She hits just the right combination of crazy, passionate, supportive, and stable. Annie is a complex character, and Amy Madigan nails it. Although author J.D. Salinger is a character in the novel, Salinger was adamant that he not be a character in the movie. James Earl Jones plays the replacement character, fictional author Terence Mann. At first truculent and reluctant to listen to Ray, Mann slowly turns into a believer and champion of Ray’s mission. Jones subtly portrays the changes of the character and brings Terence Mann to life. The minor characters are also well cast. Gaby Hoffman as Ray and Annie’s daughter Karin, Frank Whaley as Archie Graham, and the great Burt Lancaster as Doc Graham all do a wonderful job. I especially love the kindness that shines from Doc Graham’s face. The minor baseball players whose names I do not know have a good bromance chemistry. Shoeless Joe is played by Ray Liotta. He brings an intensity to the role that makes him believable; you can see the love of the game emanating from him. (Also, Ray Liotta is extremely attractive in this movie. I thought so even as a six-year-old girl.)

The Bad: My view of this may be tainted by personal feelings, but I’m not a big fan of Kevin Costner’s performance as Ray Kinsella. He has his moments (notably his fanboy excitement when he meets Shoeless Joe for the first time and then later during the kidnapping of Terence Mann), but he’s not consistently impressive. Again, this might be my feelings getting in the way. I am not a fan of Kevin Costner the man. I’m not entirely sure why, but he just strikes me as being full of himself.

It is never explained why Terence Mann needed to be brought to Iowa. Yes, he loves baseball, but there was nothing else. He’s fabulous character, and I love that he’s in the movie, but he doesn’t have a why, so it niggles at my brain.

The Ugly: In his introduction, Ray says that he was born in 1952. He and Annie both talk often about “experiencing the 60s,” especially during their college years at Berkley. But they would have turned 18 in 1970; they would only have had 70s experiences in college. They would have only experienced the 60s as teens in high school, and based on the strictness of their families, they wouldn’t have had much of a 60s experience then. That stupid wrong detail has bugged me for years. Come on, people. Details are important!

Oscars Won: None.

Oscar Nominations: Best picture; best writing, screenplay based on material from another medium; best music, original score.

Lost Horizon (1937)

LostHorizon1937_previewDirected by Frank Capra

I read the book Lost Horizon a few years after I read The Good Earth, but it was still a very long time ago. I don’t remember every bit of the plot, but I did like it quite a bit; the adventure appealed to me, as did the idea of a beautiful place of peace. Being a fan of the book and a fan of Frank Capra, I thought the movie would be wonderful. The adventure and the philosophy that I loved in the book were in the movie, but I had a hard time remembering to watch through 1937 glasses. Shangri-La is not a utopia if you watch through 2017 glasses.

So what’s the story? Robert Conway, a British diplomat, is on the last plane out of a war-torn Chinese town with four other people: his brother, George; Lovett, a paleontologist; Barnard, a crook; and Gloria, a prostitute. Instead of heading to Shanghai as expected, the pilot flies the plane deeper into Asia. The plane crash-lands high in the freezing Tibetan mountains, but the group is rescued by a group of people who lead them to the monastery Shangri-La, where everyone is happy and all is well. But all is not as it seems…

The Good: The acting is good for the most part. It’s really quite fun to watch the change in Barnard (Thomas Mitchell), Lovett (Edward Everett Horton, who usually scares me), and Gloria (Isabel Jewell) as they go from frightened, selfish people to people who care about making their world better. Ronald Coleman makes a fine Robert Conway, although I would have liked to see a little more contrast in his character as Shangri-La changes him. That’s the screenwriter’s fault, though. John Howard is miscast as George Conway. He doesn’t even try to do a British accent, even though he is supposed to be the brother of the very British Coleman. That said, Howard did bring a lot of energy to the screen, with his growing impatience a contrast to the others’ peacefulness as everyone else settles in. Sam Jaffe makes a wonderful wise High Lama, even though he was only 46, so the makeup artists did a fantastic job, too.

The production design is great. The designers had to bring the east and west together for Shangri-La, which is in “Tibet” but built by a man from Belgium, with treasures from all over the world inside. The valley needed its own look, too. The end result is beautiful and believably peaceful.

Dmitri Tiomkin wrote a beautiful orchestral score for the film that underscores not only the beauty and peace of the valley but also the mystery and uncertainty that everyone finds there.

The Bad: Jane Wyatt is wooden in her performance as Sondra. She is school-girl giggly when she’s around Conway and sad when she thinks Conway is going. That’s all she’s got. It was a little painful to watch.

Chang is played stiffly by H.B. Warner. It may have been the way he was directed, but almost every time he talks, there’s a pause, almost as if he’s trying to remember his lines. He was nominated for best supporting actor, so some people saw something there. I will freely admit that I am not a professional acting judge, so I could be wrong and the performance could be brilliant, but it annoyed me.

The Ugly: There was nothing really ugly about the movie, except that about seven minutes of the movie are still shots instead of motion picture. The movie was edited from when it was first shown, and the original footage was lost. Film restorers looked in vaults all over the world for the missing minutes. They did find a full sound track and some of the missing moving footage, so they used stills from the filming to fill in the film that was lost. Some of the footage they found, though, was not of the best quality, so the movie is uneven in quality, too. It makes me so sad when movies aren’t taken care of. I hate it when art is lost.

Oscars Won: Best art direction; best film editing

Other Oscar Nominations: Best picture; best actor in a supporting role (H.B. Warner); best sound, recording; best assistant director; best music, score.

Why I would not want to live in the Shangri-La of 1937:

     Women have no rights and get very little respect from men.

  1. Conway asks the High Lama what happens if two men both want the same woman. The Lama replies that their manners are so good, that the man who had the woman first would give her to the second man. No one bothers to ask the woman which man she would rather be with.
  2. Sondra is teaching a class of children English when a child asks to be taken to the bathroom. As soon as she leaves to help the child, Conway simply dismisses the class without asking Sondra if she is done for the day. He assumes that she would be happy to spend her time with him instead of teaching.
  3. When Sondra tries to start a philosophical conversation about why people outside of Shangri-La are the way they are, Conway tells Sondra to stop asking why, saying that it is the most annoying question in the English language. He had a chance to actually think about his culture and discuss it with someone who is generally curious, and instead he shuts it down because he is more interested in Sondra physically than he in in honestly answering her questions.
  4. Barnard takes a shine to Gloria when she stops wearing her makeup, telling her she looks wholesome without and ordering her to never wear it again. When George asks if they would like to leave, Barnard says he isn’t going, and then Gloria says “I’m going to stay, too. Is that right, Barney?” (That’s paraphrased a bit.)

   The people of the monastery have no respect for the native people. 

  1. None of the people living in the monastery of Shangri-La are acolytes of the High Lama. Apparently only Europeans and Chang (who is played by a white man) are allowed to study in the monastery and do whatever they so desire, whether it’s playing the piano or riding horses or reading. The only native people living there are the servants. No one thinks to ask if that’s what they want to be doing.
  2. The people in the valley are basically patted on the heads and told what good people they are. They are not taught what is in the books that are brought into the valley. They farm and mine for the monastery because that’s what they have been taught to do. They are more or less slaves, even though they don’t know it. The High Lama even admits that those who live in the monastery rule those who live in the valley.
  3. Shangri-La was founded by a Christian missionary whose goal is to have the “Christian ideal” win all over the world. No, he doesn’t teach Christianity, but he also doesn’t draw on any tenants of other religions, including whatever the natives believed before he got there. While not stated, I’m pretty sure that he doesn’t allow the native religion to be followed in the valley.

Okay, rant over. I know that Lost Horizon came out 80 years ago, and I freely acknowledge that values have changed a bit over the years. That’s why it’s so important to try to understand where and when the filmmakers were coming from. You can’t judge art from the past with the values of today.

Life of Pi (2012)

Life_of_Pi_2012_PosterDirected by Ang Lee

Just as there are movies that I’m watching for this blog that I have been wanting to see for a long time, there are movies for that I’m watching for this blog that I have never had any intention of seeing. These are not the movies that I haven’t heard of before or ones that I think are violent, but movies that for some reason or other I really, really don’t want to see. Life of Pi was one of those movies. I read the book about ten years ago, and I loved it – until the part where Pi comes to the mysterious island. After that happened, I lost my ability to suspend my disbelief. Because of this, I developed an antipathy towards the book, and I really didn’t care to see the movie. But since I make sacrifices to fulfill my goals, I watched Life of Pi.

So what’s the story? Teenager Pi’s family, along with their literal zoo full of animals, is moving from India to Canada. Before they make it to their new home, there is a shipwreck, and Pi ends up as the only human survivor on a lifeboat with four of the animals, including a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker.

The Good: Life of Pi is based on a rather complex book. It’s not just the story of a boy on a lifeboat with a tiger. His unusual name is explained, as is his conversion to three different religions. I was impressed at how well the book was adapted as a screenplay. The writer, David Magee, managed to fit in the frame story as well as the flashbacks to great effect.

I didn’t see the 3D version of Life of Pi, so I can’t judge that aspect of the cinematography, but what I would call the “regular” cinematography was fabulous. The shots were so beautiful and so carefully set up; it was almost like watching a living painting.

The acting was very good. Pi was played by several different people, young and old, and all were good. Pi’s mother Gita and father Santosh were played by Tabu and Adil Hussain respectively. They made a good couple did a wonderful job playing off each other, the mother trying to protect her son by keeping him safe from the world, the father trying to protect his son by showing him harsh realities of life.

The Bad: I don’t know if it was because I had already knew the book and therefore knew what was going to happen, but I found Life of Pi to be rather tedious. I loved the first hour or so; in fact, it made me wish that I had been born in a zoo in India. But not long after the shipwreck happened, I realized that I was no longer mentally involved in the movie. I’m not sure exactly why I stopped caring about Pi, but I just wanted it all to be over.

I also felt that Pi’s conversion to Islam was glossed over. His first introduction to Hinduism was fully covered, as were the beginnings of his interest in Christianity, but we don’t really know how he became interested in Islam. Since all his religions were important to him, I feel like they all should have been given equal weight.

I was a little annoyed at how small Gerard Depardieu’s role was. He’s an amazing actor, and his part was little more than a cameo. I seem to remember the cook having a larger role in the book, and I wish they had taken advantage of the great actor they had hired and let him do more.

The Ugly: Three years ago, this movie won the Academy Award for best visual effects. Today, it looks fake. This is why I am so against CGI; it just doesn’t hold up well. ET, made over thirty years ago with puppets and green screens, looks more real today than Life of Pi. During many of the ocean scenes, I couldn’t help but think of The Truman Show (1998), where Truman believes himself to be sailing on the ocean but is in reality in an artificial pool of water that is nowhere near as deep as the ocean. The animals were sometimes obviously, disappointingly fake, too. It niggled at my mind and kept me from enjoying the movie as fully as I wanted to.

Oscars Won: Best achievement in directing; best achievement in cinematography; best achievement in music written for motion pictures, original score; best achievement in visual effects.

Other Oscar Nominations: Best motion picture of the year; best writing, adapted screenplay; best achievement in film editing; best achievement in sound mixing; best achievement in sound editing; best achievement in music written for motion pictures, original song (“Pi’s Lullaby”); best achievement in production design.

Gandhi (1982)

gandhi-movie-poster-1982-1020195902Directed by Richard Attenborough

I always worry when I’m watching a movie about a culture that isn’t my own, especially when it’s made by someone also outside that culture. I worry that I will “learn” something inaccurate or get the wrong idea about that culture. I had seen Gandhi before, but I was probably fourteen or fifteen and impressionable, so I was worried about how Indians view the movie and whether I could watch it comfortably as an American. But the day I picked it up from the library, an Indian coworker of mine said, “Oh, you are going to watch that movie? It is such an excellent movie. So well done.” Later that night, a British friend of mine whose parents are from India and Pakistan asked me what I was doing. I told him I was watching Gandhi. His response? “I love that movie.” So while there might be historical inaccuracies or only part of the story told, I at least know that Indians do not find this movie offensive, which does make me glad.

So what’s the story? Mohandas Gandhi, a young Indian lawyer educated in London, experiences racial prejudice in South Africa and decides that it is unacceptable for anyone to be treated that way. He begins a protest of the way Indians in South Africa are treated. His activism doesn’t stop there, however. He goes back to India and becomes the leader of the long struggle against British rule.

The Good: Ben Kingsley makes an excellent Gandhi, both young and old. He takes us on the same journey that Gandhi made, from rash young man to wise old leader, full of patience and kindness. It is an excellent performance.

I’m not going to name all of the people who did a good job of acting, because in a three-hour movie with lots of small roles filled by famous or soon-to-be-famous people (including Daniel Day-Lewis!), there is lots of good acting. I will mention Rohini Hattangadi, though. She played Ba, Gandhi’s wife, going from a young woman unsure if her husband is doing the right thing or if he has gone crazy to a woman who believes fully in what he does and supports him completely. She was impressive.

I loved the cinematography. There are times when it shows the grandeur of India, the huge scale of that country, and other times when it is intimate, showing how one man was able to make such a difference in such a large, diverse country. If I hadn’t already wanted to visit India someday, the cinematography of this movie would have made me want to go.

The makeup people did an excellent job of making Gandhi and Ba look older as time passed. I might have thought that the old and young were played by different people, especially as Ben Kingsley looks less like himself and more like Gandhi as he “aged”.

The Bad: Those same makeup people who did such a good job on Gandhi did a less-than-stellar job on Gandhi’s associates Nehru, Jinnah, and Patel. They didn’t age at all until the very end, even though they had been working for independence for thirty years. If this was done on purpose to show how much more quickly people age when they are living a lifestyle of poverty, than I suppose it was okay. But even if you are wealthy, you age over time, not all at once.

What happened to Gandhi’s sons? They are shown at the beginning of the movie in South Africa, but then we never see them again. There was nothing about the sons to make them a huge plot point, but I really did have to wonder if they all died, since they don’t seem to be anywhere around Gandhi and his wife for the rest of his life. Leaving them out altogether would have been one thing, but to show them once and then never again is bad storytelling.

The Ugly: I’m not disputing that Gandhi was a great man. He truly was. It takes an amazing kind of person to struggle for independence without fighting and to inspire an entire nation to do the same. His story is an incredible one. But except for one scene where he is angry at his wife, he is shown as having no weaknesses. He is made out to be a saint. I’m not trying to insult anyone or tear Gandhi down, but no one is that perfect, which made me feel like the movie was only semi-factual. I may be wrong; I know very little about the Mahatma. He may have been perfect. But because I was feeling that throughout the movie, I couldn’t immerse myself completely in the experience, so I’m going to stand firm in my belief that it was a weakness for this movie.

Oscars Won: Best picture; best actor in a leading role (Ben Kingsley); best director; best writing, screenplay written directly for the screen; best cinematography; best art direction-set decoration; best costume design; best film editing.

Other Oscar Nominations: Best sound; best music, original score; best makeup.

The Ten Commandments (1956)

ten_commandments_ver2Directed by Cecil B. DeMille

I was brought up in a religious family, and when I was growing up, TV and movies were not allowed on Sunday. The only exception was religious movies. I am from a family that loves movies, so I have seen The Ten Commandments a ridiculous amount of times. (Well, I’ve seen the first couple hours many times; I was usually sent to bed before the very end, so I’ve only seen the end probably five times.) My sisters and I can do entire scenes from memory, and we each have our favorite lines (“To me you’re a lily, and I want water!”). So the only way I could watch The Ten Commandments this time was in my parents’ basement with my family. We had two big bowls of popcorn and a solemn oath that we wouldn’t quote the lines before they happened because my brother-in-law had never seen it before. That was a hard promise to keep. Man, I love this movie.

So what’s the story? This epic (and epically long) movie tells the story of Moses from his birth to his death. It tells of his young manhood in Pharaoh’s palace, his banishment to the desert, his marriage to a shepherd girl and subsequent return to Egypt to free the Hebrew slaves. And yes, in the end he receives the Ten Commandments.

The Good: I think I will always marvel that epic movies with casts of thousands were made at all. For a movie this scale to work, so many people have to be involved. And The Ten Commandments takes this a step further. I felt like Cecil B. DeMille wanted everything to be as authentic as possible, so many things were meticulously researched. As I watched the opening credits, I was impressed not just by the number of experts that were consulted, but also their caliber. DeMille didn’t just make stuff up or go for a vaguely Egyptian feel. He found people who knew what they were talking about so that things would be authentic. This leads to amazing production design and great costumes.

Elmer Berstein’s score is amazing. It is at times melodramatic (Nefretiri’s theme, anyone?), but that is the nature of the film. The score manages to be dramatic and sweeping, but also reverent when it deals with religious things. That’s an impressive thing to do. Also, I have apparently seen this movie so many times that I can listen to the soundtrack and know what lines are being said. But that means that although the music has themes, Bernstein doesn’t repeat himself too much.

The acting is good all around. Charlton Heston does a good job playing a man trying to figure out who he is and what his place is in the world. Yul Brynner plays another man in authority, but Rameses is a totally different king than the one in The King and I, even though both men think Moses is a fool. I think that displays how good an actor Brynner really was. Anne Baxter schemes most convincingly, playing woman who is not necessarily bad, but willing to do whatever it takes to get what she wants (did she get this role because she was typecast after All About Eve?). Yvonne de Carlo as Sephora, Moses’s wife, Nina Foch as Bithiah, Cedric Hardwicke as Sethi –everyone is so good in this movie. I would name everyone, but again, there is a huge cast.

The special effects were amazing for their time. Some haven’t held up, of course, because The Ten Commandments was made almost sixty years ago. But some have held up surprisingly well. The hail that turns to fire still looks believable. That’s incredible to me.

The Bad: As much as I love this movie, I will be the first to admit that the screenplay is not the best. There are many, many cheesy lines.  These lines make the movie really fun to watch, but they are not an example of fabulous writing.

The Ugly: I didn’t find anything ugly in this movie. I enjoyed watching it as much this last time as I did when I was a kid. That’s not always the case for me.

Oscar Won: Best effects, special effects.

Other Oscar Nominations: Best picture; best cinematography, color; best art direction-set direction, color; best costume design, color; best sound, recording; best film editing.

Friendly Persuasion (1956)

friendly-persuasion-movie-poster-1956-1020505962Directed by William Wyler

I had a bad day the day I watched this movie. I hadn’t felt well all day at work, but I didn’t feel bad enough to take time off. About five minutes after I got home from work, I was violently ill. It lasted about half an hour. I was feeling sick and weak when I put Friendly Persuasion in the DVD player.  But the moment the opening notes of the theme song started, I felt much better. Watching this movie is like being wrapped in a giant puffy quilt or getting a hug from someone you love. That may be because I was raised on this movie, but I like to think that the sweetness of this movie could make anyone’s day better.

So what’s the story? Jess and Eliza Birdwell are Quakers living in southern Indiana during the Civil War. Their older son, Joshua, is old enough to fight in the war, but the family’s pacifist beliefs keep him from joining up. Their daughter, Martha, is in love with their Methodist neighbor, who is a soldier. And their younger son, Little Jess, is in constant battle with Samantha the Goose. The family tries to simply go about their lives, but the war is about to come to them, forcing them all to make decisions of faith and love and conscience.

The Good: The cast is perfect. Jess is played by Gary Cooper, who makes Jess a slightly mischievous man who believes in his religion, but sometimes struggles to live up to the standards it sets for him. Dorothy McGuire plays Eliza, the Quaker minister who sometimes has to fight to keep her family on the straight and narrow. Anthony Perkins (yes, the same Anthony Perkins who is in Psycho) plays Josh, whose conscience tells him that fighting is a sin, but that his family is worth fighting for. Phyllis Love plays the lovesick Mattie almost uncomfortably perfectly. Robert Middleton plays family friend Sam Jordan with humor and love. Everyone is just good.

Okay, this is a weird thing, but I was struck as I watched  Friendly Persuasion this time by the goose. Or possibly geese? I’m not sure how one goes about training a goose. I can’t imagine that it’s easy. But that goose does all sorts of things. Even if it’s many geese all doing one trick, it would have taken lots of work. So hats off to the animal trainers for this movie!

I love the music for this movie. Pat Boone sings the theme song, and it’s beautiful. It reflects the mood of the movie: slow, yet loving. Dimitri Tiomkin’s score is also good, reinforcing the love and joy found in the Birdwells’ home life.

And speaking of the home life, I love that this family is a family. The children sometimes tease each other. They sometimes fight. The father defers to his wife, but he sometimes teases her and sometimes gangs up with his kids to get her to relax. The writers made the characters real people with faults and virtues. I love that.

The Bad: The plot isn’t perfectly linear. It meanders a bit. There are some scenes that add to the characterization of the people, but don’t necessarily add to the overarching Civil War plot. I’m okay with this in this movie because all these scenes are so delightful, but that also might be because I’ve loved Friendly Persuasion for a long time. Other people might not be so forgiving.

As Quakers, the Birdwells use speech that is a little bit different. They use “thee” and “thy” instead of “you” and “yours”. But to my German-speaking ear, they don’t use them quite correctly. This is apparently accurate for the Quakers, but it bothered me a little bit. It took me about a quarter of the movie to be okay with it.

The Ugly: I don’t think there is anything ugly about Friendly Persuasion, unless you object to a feel-good movie about a family trying to live according to their consciences.

Oscars Won: None

Oscar Nominations: Best picture; best actor in a supporting role (Anthony Perkins); best director; best writing, best screenplay – adapted; best sound, recording; best music, original song (“Friendly Persuasion (Thee I Love)”).