ironhorse_iv
There is many of real-life exciting historic stories about the Salvation Army that screenwriters Marjorie Deans and Anatole de Grunwald could had adapted to the big screen, such as the war between them, and the Skeleton Army during the late 19th century, but instead, they chose to brought in, a very preachy and wordy fictional story of battle of wits between Major Barbara (Wendy Hiller) of the Salvation Army versus her father, Andrew Undershaft (Robert Morley), a wealth weapon manufacturer to life. Don't get me wrong, the film does a good job, showing the complexity and struggles of what does it means to save a man's soul. However, this adaptation of author George Bernard Shaw's stage play of the same name is not that entertaining in the sense of providing humor. It doesn't easily provoke laughter like 1913's 'Pygmalion', does, through quick spitting mixer of posh & cockney accents and quirky character development, instead the film's large number of dialogue, slow the film, down to the point that it can make the audience, uneasy & bored, as they wait for the punchline that rarely comes, from the very long rich and detail rants & speeches that are sometimes 1% unrelated to the 99% flight of the masses. It doesn't help that some of the scenes of dialogue were certainly wasn't needed. Did we really need the subplot sequences of Andrew helping out, his other children!? In my opinion, I thought the film should had focus more on Undershaft, putting doubt in Major Barbara's beliefs. Why, because I love the devil's apprentice subplot with Undershaft looking at Greek scholar/Barbara's fiancée Adolphus Cusins (Rex Harrison) as an heir to his business, even if parts of it, doesn't make sense, like the new heir, must be an orphan, because they would be better fit to run a business empire like his. Huh!? Anyways, the reasons, I love his conflict, is because it serves as a great conflict of temptation, for Harrison's character to choose between, a life of righteous or a life of comfortable with Barbara. It adds tension, in a film lacking some. However, the movie spent more time wasting, listening to speeches from Snobby Williams (Emlyn Williams) a minor character, on the virtues of work. Don't get me wrong, Williams does great acting, but couldn't his character be cut or combine with Bill Walker (Robert Newton)? At least, the scenes with Bill Walker seem to play a big part of the main plot with Barbara trying to save his soul. With Snobby Williams. It felt yet, another filler. Another problem with the dialogue sequences is the fact that the English language is little too hard to understand at times, due to the complexity of the meaning of the words, that is being used. Some of the references/slangs/sayings from both the aristocracy and working class, are even dated by 1940s standards. As a modern viewer, it makes the film, a little more challenging, than it has to be. By contrast, more sophisticated forms of humor such as satire require an understanding of its social meaning and context, and thus tend to appeal to a more mature audience. Not for the general audience. There is a number of other factors that prevents, this movie from being a perfect masterpiece. One is the fact that this movie was made during World War 2, in London during The Blitz bombing of 1940. Because of that, the film does feel a bit over-propaganda, in trying it's hardest to make the stubbornness of all pacifists into believing that; the war production is just. Honestly, if this movie was made, during peacetime, where people would be more, likely to think, I would probably, would be less criticize of it, however, since it wasn't. I don't like, Shaw's ideas of pushing accepting dictatorship style capitalism into the public eye, during a time of unrested. Even the way, the movie is shot, director Gabriel Pascal makes the Salvation Army marching in the streets and making speeches in grand halls in quasi-military fashion, look more the dramatics of fascism more than normal corporate social responsibility. Its borderline, disturbing. It's doesn't help, that all the actors, act like they were in a cult, being brainwash into a bigger cult of personality. It's weird, that producer, Gabriel Pascal would chose this play to adapted, in the first place, seeing how Shaw's admirations of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini & Joseph Stalin at the time, were against everything that the United Kingdom, stood for. Thank God, Shaw's optimism on that Machiavelli method of running the country, was quickly shattered by the heinous action of his once highly supported political admirers. By war's end, he was demanding a peace conference, between the nations. Nevertheless, the film still stands on the conflicting message that Mephistophelean capitalism is alright, as long as we approach it with cautious and stick to our beliefs, even if, it's underline our principles, for the greater good. In my opinion, while I have mixed feelings about that, I do felt that it was a strong ending. However, the way, they approach it, was cheap, fake and perplexing. The 'everything will be alright' end to the film was not the right tone. I would rather take the depressing bittersweet approach, to the climax, than what we got here. This was not a happy ending, so it shouldn't be portray like that. Regardless, the acting throughout the movie was amazing, with everybody playing a great part. Mad props goes to Wendy Hiller, Robert Newton and Robert Morley for standing out the most. Also, mad thanks to cinematographer Ronald Neame and his crew on making the movie, look so beautiful. There were so many powerful shots, throughout the film. My favorite has to be, Barbara with the children, looking at the war factory in the distance. Very moving. It's surprising, that they got this film complete on time, with all the air raids. Overall: While, 'Major Barbara' has flaws, its one film worth saving.
theowinthrop
I happen to like this film. It is almost as good as "Pygmalion", the previous Shaw - Pascal collaboration, but that film had Leslie Howard in it as Higgins, and as co-director. Here, although Wendy Hiller is back, Howard is not involved and Rex Harrison is the romantic lead (and the philosophic lead is Robert Morley, as the man of wealth Andrew (or, as Shaw says, "St. Andrew") Undershaft). It has a grand cast supporting these three, including Mary Lohr, Deborah Kerr, Emlyn Wiliams, and Robert Newton (for once showing what a terrific actor he was when not drunk). The best parts are when Newton tries to be stoical and get knocked down to show he can take what he gives out to weaker types. He does get under the skin of Torin Thatcher (as a reformed boxing champ, named Todger Fairchild), only to have Thatcher humiliate him by forcing him to pray.Shaw the comic dramatist is always a treat. Shaw the self-created man with all the answers is another problem. "Major Barbara" is a look at how money is made by ways that are spiritually appalling (armaments and booze for example), but which guarantee jobs and hope to people who can't get them from the world of religion. One probably can agree with this point of view, but the constant pushing of Undershaft's point of view - nobody ever trounces him in an argument - is annoying. He seems omnipotent in this play (as Shaw, no doubt, wanted him to be). I once suggested that it would have been delightful if after one of his speeches he had actually had coughed blood (to show he was mortal). But Shaw never would have done that to St. Andrew.Yet he did do something within a decade after writing "Major Barbara" that was inconsistent. Shaw probably never willingly discussed it with anyone. Undershaft rules his armaments firm with a total control. He dictates to the government on policies he needs. The stockholders don't seem to exist. But in 1916 Shaw's optimism about dictatorial capitalists had faded. World War I shattered him a bit, and he wrote "Heartbreak House". In it is the character of "Boss Mangam", a powerful business tycoon like Undershaft, who proves to have feet of clay. It seems the great tycoon has to satisfy those stockholders or his empire is taken from him. The same, of course, has to be true of "St. Andrew" Undershaft as well. He probably is his largest shareholder, but he never says he is sole shareholder. Undershaft was quite content and pontifical in 1907 when he describes his religion of cannons and prosperity for all who listen to him. But that was peacetime. Somehow, in 1916, "St. Andrew" would probably have found it harder to be as glib about his doctrines as he had been.
alicecbr
This movie is so rich, that I must see it again and again to 'get' the dialogue. Quotable after quotable, especially today. Example: Ubershaft (don't you love the names?), arms manufacturer, says to his son who is expressing a desire to go into politics: "Do you understand that all the game-playing and posturing done in Parliament (synonym used here) is financed by me and people like me? Those people are allowed their fun because we fund it." And of course, George Bernard Shaw verbalizes this modern truth -- i.e., corporations own the Congress----in a much more eloquent answer. Was it ever so?The acting by all concerned, including a handsome, twinkling Rex Harrison, is STUPENDOUS!!! Another reason I have to see it again is to see Deborah Kerr as the young Salvation lass who gets clipped in the jaw...her first screen appearance. Robert Morley delivers his lines with just the proper balance of cynicism and charm!!! Orson Welles would have been too ponderous. As the Salvation Army band steps out playing "Onward Christian Soldiers", even we agnostics join in, the mood is so infectious. The point is beautifully made about the power of faith to change a person's life, even as GBS makes his points about the 'greater virtue' of providing a dignified way to make a living. I HATE black and white, except for film noir, but I was so busy mentally interacting that I never missed color. Buy it if you can, because one rental will NOT give you the full appreciation. Compared with all the wealth of information in these old movies, modern TV is sadly, just puff.
