The sharp, focused performance by Kay Francis carries this film into an impressive arena for its viewer. I've seen in several times and although Francis doesn't go into histrionics in her portrayal like some of the "greats" would -- Francis exemplifies the determination, courage, and humaness of one who "feels a calling". She never wavers in what she is about, frustrated but not discouraged, and Francis' subtlety emphasises these qualities. The beginning of the film offers Francis a chance to don the elegant gowns of the mid 1800's, but most of the film she's wearing a plain nurse's uniform and often looking quite drawn from the conflicts with male prejudice on the Crimean front and the squalid conditions that she faced in all directions. I don't know how historically accurate the film is, but it gets to the heart of the Nightingale story and what she was up against. Strong support from players like Donald Crisp and Ian Hunter add to the overall success.
Add a Review
-
Kay Francis stars in this biopic of Florence Nightingale. I love old Hollywood biopics. They get a lot of flack today by certain types for embellishing some facts of these people's lives. Seems to me biopics today have even worse flaws. Instead of embellishing positively they embellish negatively. In other words, instead of focusing on inspiring uplifting strengths and virtues they focus on the faults and vices of historical figures. To each their own but personally I will take the rousing biographical films from back then over the salacious and often slanderous ones of the modern era.
Rant aside, this is not the strongest biopic but it is a decent one. Kay Francis works against type quite well. She's helped by an amazing supporting cast. To name a few: Donald Crisp, Nigel Bruce, Donald Woods, Henry O'Neill, Ian Hunter, Halliwell Hobbes -- they all give first rate support.
Overall it's an entertaining film. I recommend it to people who are interested In the story of Florence Nightingale and anybody who enjoys Golden Age of Hollywood biographical dramas. -
blanche-219 June 2021I come from a family of nurses, so I watched this film with interest.
Kay Francis plays Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing. Mostly the film covers her work in the Crimea.
This is a typical '30s movie - Nightingale meets with a great deal of resistance, which she probably did in real life. The villains here are somewhat cliched in their nastiness and refusal to help her make any progress. A typical good vs. Evil fight.
I read a lot of criticism about Kay Francis - this was an unusual role for her, where she's not playing a woman of the world. I thought she portrayed a quiet strength and dignity.
Someone said Bette Davis would have been better. Bette Davis was wonderful, but I didn't feel Nightingale needed a fiery portrayal. As far as criticism of Francis, Francis' interpretation was correct in that she was well-educated and came from a wealthy family.
Granted she's portrayed as a saint, but that's the fault of the script. I do believe that Nightingale, given her upbringing, was a strong and determined woman who used a velvet glove rather than an iron hand.
I found the film very absorbing and poignant. -
Warner Brothers in the 1930's was known a lot more than their Busby Berkley musicals and gangster dramas. They filmed a successful series of biographies, from George Arliss' "Disraeli", "Voltaire", and "Alexander Hamilton", to Dolores Del Rio's "Madame DuBarry". When Paul Muni had a hit with his performance as Louis Pasteur, Warner Brothers decided to give their biggest leading lady, Kay Francis, the chance for hers as "the lady with the lamp", Florence Nightingale.
This was a departure for Kay, who had appeared in a series of romantic dramas which for the most part had not done all that well at the box-office. The rising success of another Warner Brothers contract actress Bette Davis had Francis desperate to do something other than suffer in mink. Unfortunately for Kay, the film was released in July when the majority of the audience-teenagers-wanted action and adventure, not a history lesson. Then, there were the reviews, which were respectable-for the film's overall production, but not for Kay. They all mostly agreed that Kay was badly miscast as the noble Florence.
The film begins with wealthy young Florence fixing the broken leg of a dog, then deciding, much against the wishes of her family, to enter nursing. She is appalled by nursing conditions, and does all she can to change them. Cleaning out the drunk and cruel harpies which seem to represent 75% of the nursing profession, Florence finds an ally in a kind-hearted nun (Eily Malyon) who becomes her assistant. War erupts, and Florence works at the front harder than any of the women she hires. Of course, this takes a toll on her health, as does the presence of doctor Donald Crisp who objects to her methods.
I agree with the critic's conception of Kay's miscasting as Florence. While I don't know what she looked like in real life, something tells me that the nursing uniforms worn by Kay were not nearly as glamorous looking. Only in a Kay Francis movie can the heroine walk through a dirty hall of sick soldiers looking as if she's heading out to a nightclub. Kay's makeup never falters, even in her sickly state. It's not that Kay's performance is bad; something tells me that she was never able to sink her teeth into this role as Bette Davis or Barbara Stanwyck would have done. Sadly, the failure of this film seemed to doom Kay's remaining days at Warner Brothers to long-suffering mothers or romantic heroines.
Seen today on Turner Classic Movies, "The White Angel" can easily impress its audience with its overly noble portrayal of a saintly woman who changed the nursing profession single handidly. When compared to the Paul Muni and George Arliss bios, where it lacks is in the lack of a presence of a strong leading lady. Kay Francis still remains one of my favorites, and as a movie, this is enjoyable, but she's still Kay Francis, regardless of the lack of sables and minks. The story of Florence Nightingale had several other attempts on screen: in a 1950's English film with Anna Neagle; and on TV in the 80's with Jacqueline Smith. Just the mentioning of the last one makes me ask the question: didn't the people who made that version read the reviews of this one? -
brogmiller14 July 2021William Dieterle, like so many of his contemporaries, left Germany in the 1930's and headed for Tinseltown. He proved himself very adaptable and whilst under contract to Warner Brothers, raised that studio's prestige by directing a series of well-mounted biopics. Invariably set in foreign climes these studio-bound films were all totally convincing in terms of period and place.
This biopic of Florence Nightingale is no exception and although considered the weakest of them all, not least by Dieterle himself, it remains a convincing portrait of Victorian England with its squalor and class-ridden complacency regarding the plight of the lower orders and the general view that nursing was little better than prostitution. It is no less effective when switching to the Crimea and the horrendous conditions that prevailed in the soldiers' hospital at Scutari.
Historically of course it is Hollywood Hokum and full of inaccuracies but it succeeds in its purpose of depicting a truly extraordinary woman and her battle with institutionalised ignorance and prejudice.
Dieterle's customary visual sense is complemented by two stalwarts of Warner Bros, cinematographer Tony Gaudio and the brilliant head of Art Direction, Polish émigré, Anton Grot.
It is generally agreed that the weak link lies in the casting of Kay Francis as Florence. She was at the time Queen of the Lot at Warner Bros and its highest paid star. This, coupled with her innate classiness would make her the obvious choice. She is certainly not lacking in sincerity and it is not her fault that her part has been written more as a symbol than as flesh and blood which alas makes the character rather one-dimensional. Ian Hunter does his best with another one-dimensional role as a reporter for 'The Times' and Donald Crisp excels as the odious Dr. Hunt.
Whatever its shortcomings this version is infinitely more powerful and engaging than that of Herbert Wilcox in 1950 which is little more than a series of tableaux-vivants.
Suffice to say that since her death Miss Nightingale's achievements and far-reaching influence have been overshadowed by suggestions of misogyny, lesbianism and racism! She remains however a Feminist icon despite her observation that although they might crave sympathy "women have no sympathy and my experience of women is almost as large as Europe." -
AlsExGal10 August 2021... in that the only reason I can figure this film is legendary as a bomb is that Kay Francis was not accepted in her role just as Clark Gable was not accepted at the time in Parnell.
Francis was normally the leading lady in sparkling romantic comedies, her most prolific years being the precode ones. She also played the tragic figure in romantic dramas where she might sacrifice to protect a child, or she was misunderstood and believed to be unfaithful and ostracized, or was partnered up with an abusive man. But playing 19th century pioneering nurse Florence Nightingale? This was a complete departure and would be as odd as seeing Errol Flynn play Abraham Lincoln.
Plus Kay doesn't project much genuine emotion during the film. Somebody Florence might have married had she taken the conventional path dies right before her eyes and ... nothing? No tears? Since director Dieterle also directed Paul Muni in The Story of Louis Pasteur the year before, there is no explanation for what happened here.
This film actually didn't bomb, but it was the beginning of the end of Kay at Warner Brothers as her relationship with Jack Warner quickly deteriorated and he realized that Bette Davis was the studio's female star of the present and future.
One thing the film did particularly poorly - All of those intertitles! Some of them are so busy it is like reading a book. Eight years past the transition to sound and this device had been largely abandoned as directors learned to change scenes without it.
This one is worth your time if you forget your preconceived notions about its classification as a bomb and just give it a fair chance. -
bkoganbing25 June 2018The White Angel which was a film about the crucial years in the life of Florence Nightingale when she during the Crimean War popularized the career of nursing for women and sanitary hospitals. Her work in Great Britain and Clara Barton in the USA during the Civil War set the standards for the nursing profession as we know it now.
Nightingale came from an upper class background and that probably stood her in good stead because someone who had to worry about how the next month's rent was to be paid or the next meal coming from could not have taken on what she did or faced down the sexist attitudes of her age.
The British cinema did the best version of her life in 1951 with Anna Neagle playing Nightingale. Besides Florence herself the real name of only one other character is used, that of Lord Raglan the Commander of the British forces in the Crimea played here by Halliwell Hobbes. The real players are used in the Neagle film.
This was a change of pace for Kay Francis who usually was more glamorous in her roles than here. Francis reminds me a lot of Rosaland Russell when she did Sister Kenny.
This was part of Warner Brothers biographical films of the late 30s and The White Angel was the only one to have a female subject. The White Angel bogs down a bit in spots and for a more accurate film the Neagle picture is better. Still this is reasonably entertaining and Kay Francis fans will like it. -
planktonrules28 September 2008Kay Francis was cast as Florence Nightingale and the film shows Florence from the time just before she dedicated her life to nursing to just after her return from the Crimean War. Francis' acting and that of most of the supporting actors was good--the dialog and details left a bit to be desired.
Hollywood sure loved bio-pics in the 30s and 40s and churned out gobs of them. The problem, though, is that while many were very entertaining, they also played rather fast and loose with the facts as well as had very, very high "schmaltz" levels on many occasions. In other words, the celebrities being portrayed were very often over-idealized and seemed more like living saints than 3-dimensional heroes. While Florence Nightingale was an absolutely amazing woman and deserved to have a film made about her, all too often the film degenerated into idol worship. My favorite over-the-top moment was when Flo entered the dilapidated hospital and the man ran screaming "water!!!"--what an amazingly unsubtle moment! While the general facts in the film are correct, the way they were realized on screen, at times, made me laugh. This is really a shame, as the real story of this woman should be good enough! As for me, I'd like to see a more realistic and less predictable treatment of her long life. -
rmax3048237 November 2013It's a sort of cartoon version of a famous figure. Florence Nightingale -- a real and self-sacrificing individual who brought fresh ideas and fresh sheets to the suffering wounded of the Crimean War around 1855 -- is turned into one of those saints who rejects marriage and family in order to follow her calling as a nurse. Along the way she battles the medical community, mostly in the person of Donald Crisp, who feels that a wounded soldier SHOULD suffer -- makes a man of him, you know.
This was all before Lister, Pasteur, the germ theory of disease and all that nonsense. What she accomplished, aside from the warmth shown towards the wounded and ill, was done by simple methods of public health. She swept the floors, got rid of the rats, provided clear drinking water, washed the sheets, used new bandages and so forth. It's a point in the movie's favor that the sick aren't neglected. As in the American Civil War, more soldiers died from infectious diseases like cholera than from battle wounds. Not much earlier the docs were still prescribing arsenic and using leeches to bleed the sick. When a wound or amputated limb became infected, the "laudable pus" was seen as a sign of normal healing.
Where was I? Yes, the movie. Alas, considering how important and celebrated a figure she was, this story of "the lady with the lamp" is written as if it were a Classics Comic Book. The dialog is stilted. "Thank you so much. I'm sure I shan't regret it." Donald Crisp as the main antagonist, the moron who feels that adversity brings out the best in people, is properly ligneous. But Kay Francis, quite attractive in her own conventional way, torpedoes the movie with her inexpressive performance. She smiles once in a while but when she does she exudes the warmth of an ice cooler.
At that, she's nicer than some nurses I've had to deal with. The last one, a real battle axe, about to perform a colonoscopy on me, shouted "RELAX!" as she violated my body sheath. As long as I'm editorializing, the Crimean War was really stupid -- even more stupid than most. The Ottoman Empire, centered on Turkey, was weakened and on the verge of collapse. Translation: neither Russia nor the European powers were about to let all that territory go unoccupied. Oh, a beautiful job of mismanagement. Ever read Tennyson's "Charge of the Light Brigade"? Anyone interested in the conditions under which Florence Nightingale worked can find a gripping documentary of the Crimean War on YouTube. -
vincentlynch-moonoi7 November 2015The good news -- it's a relatively interesting film where you can learn a little superficial history about Florence Nightingale and the time period in which she lived.
The bad news -- this is an unimpressive performance by Kay FCrancis.
In regard to Kay Francis, she is one of those actresses who were very famous in the early days of the American sound cinema. She turned in fine performances in many films. However, bu 1936 she was on the verge of being identified as "box office poison". During the time frame that this film was being made, she was complaining to Warner Brothers about the scripts being given to her. In this case, however, I feel that Francis' performance here is shallow and stereotypical...at some points almost verging on being corny.
In other regards, however, it's quite a good film. It has rather high production values. And, while they take liberties with history, the film still gives one a fair understanding of the general situation of women in medicine of that era.
The supporting cast fares better than Ms. Francis. Ian Hunter plays a journalist, and while not a big part, he does nicely. Nigel Bruce doesn't play the fool here...just an incompetent. Donald Crisp plays a military official who bitterly opposes Nightingale's efforts. Henry O'Neill also does well playing a doctor who enthusiastically supports Nightingale.
This is an okay film if you like old-fashioned biopics. -
In the grand tradition of biography pictures that sanctify their subjects comes "The White Angel," the "true" story of the lady with the lamp, the nurse who revolutionized nursing, Miss Florence Nightingale. Why does Hollywood insist on sanitizing and sweetening the lives of real people? The most blatant example of this is probably "Private Parts"- the life story of Howard Stern- which turns America's favorite sexually-stunted shock-jock bully into a misunderstood merry prankster, a teddy bear of a man fighting the good fight against prudes and censors. Right.
I caught "The White Angel" on TCM late one evening. It begins with Florence Nightingale- "Flo" to her contemporaries- rejecting tradition and refusing to marry and settle down. She senses a greater purpose and a place for women in military medicine. [In actuality Florence and her sister were encouraged to pursue education by their forward-thinking father.] As played by Kay Francis, Ms. Nightingale is a humorless, passionless saint with absolute confidence in her methods and philosophy. Kay plays the role as if she's riding a heroin high- deeply centered and somewhat removed. With the success of the film riding on this lead performance, we're left with a fascinatingly anti-climactic picture.
There is little if any dramatic conflict in the film- it has all the suspense of a book report. The encounters between Florence and other characters are all laughably wooden. Her antagonists openly profess their resentment of her to her face and she sits stoic, with eyes-wide, accepting the abuse and calmly declaring her intentions to proceed. In one particularly action-less sequence, Florence and her nurses storm the supply tent after the clerk tells them it's closed. "Does the war close at seven?" Florence asks, "Do they stop bringing in the wounded at seven?"
Before the bureaucrat gets the chance to answer, Florence has delicately and glamorously stepped past him, forcing her way inside with the help of the other nurses.
That's the most exciting moment in the movie.
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow stops by to gawk at her heroism and write the poem that would immortalize her. Crusty wounded soldiers smile at her tenderness as she walks the hospital halls at night checking on her patients. I had trouble keeping mine.
The story seems SO glossed-over and tidy (even for a biopic of the 30's) that one can't help but feel cheated by fabricated elements as well as the absence of significant actual events. When Florence arrives at the military hospital a soldier informs her that 57% of all wounded men die even under medical care... the trouble is we're never given an updated number as to a soldier's chance of survival. This is especially ironic due to the fact that a)Florence's Nightingale's arrival and improvement of the military medical system surely improved the survival rate and b) Nightingale herself was famous for her statistical analysis and record-keeping of mortality rates and other social phenomenas. Disappointing.
The film is ultimately a waste; it is predictable and pre-digested, not even diverting enough to hold my attention. Who knew changing the world could be so boring?
Grade: C -
HotToastyRag21 June 2021It's very melodramatic, reminding me of Young Tom Edison. Every "tidbit" the average person knows about the famous person is included in the script, in the most saccharine-style possible. Months after she sits up all night with Billy Mauch when he's ill, he finds her sitting in the snow. "I'm taking care of you now," he says as he gives her his coat. There are countless scenes like that one, as costars who play coworkers of Florence Nightingale praise her selflessness and dedication to her patients. In another scene, she comes down with cholera, and rather than letting the medical staff carry her away on a stretcher, the soldiers in the trench insist on doing it. That's fine, but one soldier actually says, "We'll do it! Who cares about cholera?" Way too corny for my taste.
But, if that's why you're watching the movie, you might not mind the style. I minded, because I was hoping for a more historical approach as to why she became a nurse, rather than just scene after scene of her forgoing sleep in order to sit up with a sick patient. There's a little portion of the beginning that shows her decline a marriage proposal in favor of medical school, but it's not very explanatory. There is a large supporting cast, though, including Henry O'Neill, Ian Hunter, Halliwell Hobbes, Nigel Bruce, Donald Crisp, Donald Woods, Fay Holden, and E. E. Clive. Watch at your own risk, and only if you like dated biopics.