GBS's great play of war, commerce and religion filmed, as if on the stage, by Gabriel Pascal; (it's at its least effective in the scenes where he 'opens it up'). So what we have, fundamentally, is filmed theater, a rendition on celluloid of a 'performance', much in the same way that Anthony Asquith's version of "The Importance of Being Earnest" was filmed theater, although this is in no way as definitive as that was. Still, what's to complain about when the cast includes Wendy Hiller's high-minded, free-spirited Major Barbara; Rex Harrison's cavalier 'Dolly', oscillating between cynicism and idealism; Robert Morley's unctuous Undershaft, too young for the part but carrying it off splendidly and in support the likes of Robert Newton,Marie Lohr, Sybil Thorndike, Emlyn Williams and Kathleen Harrison. There is even a young Deborah Kerr for star spotters. Of course, as it stands, it may appear something of a dinosaur, both as play and film and some of the speeches have the tone of pamphleteering but it's also very funny and often highly entertaining and one is glad Pascal had the temerity to make it in the first place.
Add a Review
-
MOscarbradley2 October 2007
-
brogmiller13 November 2020George Bernard Shaw, genius and Nobel Prize winner, is sadly out of fashion these days. How does one explain this? Perhaps because the theatre now lacks those with the talent and technique required to speak his dialogue and bring his characters to life or perhaps because the attention span of the average theatre goer is getting shorter. The fact that students at RADA recently wished to take down his bust because of his interest in Eugenics, is yet another nail in his coffin.
Film adaptations of his plays are a mixed bag, to put it mildly and some are too risible to mention. The greatest is indisputably the 'Pygmalion' of Anthony Asquith. The superlative editing on that film is courtesy of David Lean who fulfils that role once more in 'Major Barbara' and also acts as assistant director to Gabriel Pascal. How much influence Lean and fellow assistant Harold French had on the film is unknown but one thing is certain: Pascal is no Asquith!
The title character is another of Shaw's strong females and she is played by Wendy Hiller who had already excelled as Eliza Doolittle. To portray a character who is intensely 'moral' without being self-righteous is no easy task and Miss Hiller manages to pull it off. Rex Harrison is Cusins, her devoted admirer, who is based on classical scholar/humanist Gilbert Murray. This part marks the start of Harrison's long association with the works of Shaw culminating in his Tony Award in 1984 as Captain Shotover in 'Heartbreak House'.
David Tree had beautifully played Freddie in 1938 as a harmless twit and does so again here as Cholly Lomax. Marie Lohr is suitably imperious as Lady Britomart. This is not exactly Emlyn Williams' finest hour and his Cockney accent is atrocious. His portrayal epitomises the film's rather patronising attitude towards the 'lower orders' whilst Robert Newton is simply stupendous as malcontent Bill Walker and little wonder that Lean would later cast him as Bill Sykes.
In Shaw's plays there is invariably a Shavian 'realist', some might say 'cynic', whose voice is that of Shaw himself and whose function it is to utter incisive and unpalatable truths about the human condition. In this we have the fascinating Andrew Undershaft, known affectionately as the 'Prince of Darkness'. He is a self-made man who has made his millions as a munitions manufacturer and who regards 'poverty' as the greatest of all crimes. Although a little too young for the part he is played superbly by Robert Morley. One of his best scenes is with his son Stephen, played by Walter Hudd, who was in fact eleven years older than Morley. He advises him that as a man who knows nothing but who thinks he knows everything, a career in Politics beckons!
The play also takes a swipe at religion, which didn't exactly increase its popularity in the United States.
Undershaft declares that 'being a millionaire is my religion' and Barbara herself realises that she must pursue her religious aims through the capitalists 'whose hands stretch everywhere'.
Shaw was born in 1856 and it is marvellous to think that he was still around in 1941 to 'collaborate' on the script.
Lean's editing is again exemplary and the production design of Vincent Korda, especially that of Undershaft's 'Death Factory', is magnificent.
Fine score by one of our greatest composers, William Walton.
Although this film misses the Asquith touch it is, all-in-all, a very satisfactory version of Shaw's morality tale in which it is not the love of money but the lack of it that is the root of all evil. The happy Hollywood-style ending is not exactly what the playwright had in mind but is obviously there so as to send wartime audiences out of the cinema wearing a smile. -
ironhorse_iv1 June 2017There 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.
-
theowinthrop22 February 2005I 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. -
arthur_tafero20 February 2021I never knew George Bernard Shaw had such a devilish sense of humor; what a grand discovery. The name of this film is a misnomer; the film is not really about Major Barbara; it is more about that great philosophical and/or religious struggle of good against evil. Few writers would dare to tackle such a lofty goal, but Shaw takes on this task with gusto. The actors go all out in the spirit of true socialism; Rex Harrison is smitten by Barbara, but then becomes beguiled by Darth Vader, played by Robert Morley with great enthusiasm. Although Morley's character is far more evil than Vader, Undercraft does pose a crucial queston? "Dare we make war on war?" If pacifists had their way, we would, but then a country or a whole group of countries would be defenseless against the aggression of any militaristic states. So, being a pacifist doesnt seem to be the most practical choice at this point in the development of the human race. This is one of the problems of being too adamant about one pole or the other in the choices of human philosophy. I am a great believer in being the middle of the wheel, as in philosophical Taoism. I prefer the path of moderation in all things; quite similar to Confucian philosophy. When I hear a person go off to far in one direction or another politically or religiously; I tend to write that person off as being unworthy of my company. The film contains some silly notions; like trying to reform unreformable Robert Newton. You might as well try to reform Nigerian pirates or Arab sultans. However, the majority of the film focuses on profound questions: socialism or capitalism? Pacifism or being prepared with national defense? And ultimately; is there value in turning the other cheek? The answer to all these questions is neither yes or no, but somewhere in the middle; which is why I employ Taoism to begin with.
-
aramis-112-80488020 August 2015Once I asked my Sunday School class (Disciples of Christ) about an article I read about mob money given to some churches. Some of my class said however the money was earned (if "earned" is the term for mob money) it could be used for good. Then I asked what would they think if the KKK gave the same amount, and wanted it known. More demurred, though some made the argument that money itself is neither good nor evil, and it was still a good irony to take money earned from evil and turn it to good works and helping people. By rejecting it one might be taking food from the mouths of those who are in need (ours is a sharing church, not a builder of Crystal Cathedrals).
Being the teacher and therefore moderator I took no part in the discussion; and it's just as well because I don't know what to think. Both sides made very good, but not altogether, persuasive arguments and I still have no opinion on the matter.
This is more or less the theme of Shaw's play, written in 1905 and filmed in 1941, at the height of the Blitz, with an excellent cast. Wendy Hiller is good as the woman who loves saving souls in the Salvation Army, but who has a crisis of faith when her father, a wealthy industrialist, offers the Salvation Army fifty thousand pounds and, over her objections, accepts it.
But when Barbara resigns her commission in the Salvation Army, is it pride, or her own problems with her father? Or is money really "tainted" just because it's earned from selling munitions? After all, munitions don't kill people, people kill people. (and, personally, as a capitalist I believe in earned money)
The fact that he is a munitions maker is immaterial. Shaw was a Socialist and despised capital, despite the fact that the twentieth century that stretched 95 years after the play was written proved capitalism knows how to create jobs and lift the living standards of the poor but Socialism only knows how to lower all standards to equal squalor.
The rest of the cast is uniformly excellent. Young professional Shavian Rex Harrison is good, and has a moment of brilliance when he's trying to pass through a trombone section of the Army. Robert Morley is a bit disappointing (I'm afraid I was expecting the arrogant Robert Morley, but he's just as good playing a pleasant-natured old munitions maker--in his thirties). The other major Robert in the cast, Newton, is his usual self, wonderfully hammy. Other familiar faces to American audiences will be Miles Malleson and Deborah Kerr, looking lovely in a very early role.
Also in the credits are rising David Lean, as "assistant to the director." Curiously, Ronald Neame replaced Freddie Young as cameraman, since young would go on to have amazing success working with David Lean on his later epics.
Like all Shaw's plays, it's talky. Not talky in the overly clever way of Wilde. More philosophically-talky,and eventually pedantry. And, as usual, Shaw stacks the deck in his own favor.
Just as does criticism of this movie as "pro-war" or "anti-war." No one is "pro-war," but more open-minded people realize its necessity (as did American Presidents Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, WJC, and BO, all of whom waged it at one time or another).
Shaw is never very relevant to an American audience, since Americans never came from a caste-ridden society. And Shaw is a lot of talk, talk, talk. But if you can avoid Shaw's wicked sleight of hand, there are some good momens here, though lots of it is dull. And Shaw seems to have forgotten the Christian adage, "Money is the root of all evil," but is not evil in itself, nor are any THINGS, but from the hearts of men. -
lawlibrarian9 November 2002Shaw decided to pose the question of whether money or religion leads to morality. It is a treat to see a screenplay written by the playwright...and the cast and performance were, to all reports, quite pleasing to Mr. Shaw. I certainly think that the cast and performance are excellent.
Shaw based the central theme on the life of John Cadbury, the founder of the Cadbury chocolate business. Mr. Cadbury was a Quaker who spent much of his life working for social reform. The two major characters are Andrew Undershaft and his daughter, Barbara. Shaw could not make his protagonist a socially aware candy manufacturer - so Andrew Undershaft is cast as an arms merchant and his daughter, Barbara, who rejects the family business as immoral and joins the Salvation Army.
Shaw plays the arms merchant's money off against the religion that Barbara has adopted and asks questions about the social compact, the origins of crime and criminal behavior and morality that were scandalous when the play was written 100 years ago and remain scandalous today.
I don't know how this film came to be classified as a comedy - it is serious social commentary of the highest sort. -
Have meant to watch this movie for years so when I awoke this Sunday morning before dawn...I sat down with coffee in hand & fired up the laptop and accidentally came across this movie on utube. I thought this would be the perfect time to give it a go. Boy was I impressed by the credits. Unfortunately as a movie going experience it just doesn't make the grade.
The acting is of course as you would expect. Top Notch! And while the screenplay does have its witty moments there's too much of the sermon and not enough of the song if you will.
I think I'd enjoy reading the play and perhaps seeing it staged but again, as a movie it needs the breath of life pounded into it.
Now I understand why this film isn't really talked about much even among film buffs.
I can totally understand why one would want to watch this film because there's so many famous talented British actors in it but even they can't elevate this movie.
And while Robert Morley was fun enough as the father, he's much too young for the role. Can't imagine why they just didn't use an actor of the appropriate age.
Oh and a very young Deborah Kerr is an extra added treat.
I watched about half the movie. So fun to see young Wendy Hiller (watch her in I Know Where I'm Going instead. Now THAT's a classic) and a young Rex Harrison deftly handling a challenging role and making it his own.
I noted another reviewer saying that the second half of the movie opens up a bit more and is less preachy than the first half. GOD I hope so!
I have to say I'm very disappointed. Don't get me wrong, it's not horrible, after all with talent like Hiller and Harrison how bad could it be? It's just, boring.
I kept watching the movie thinking aren't Hiller & Harrison wonderful. I do hope some ACTION of some sort is going to take place but nope...just one long talky scene after another. And, well, you know, how long can you watch actors talk about being saved? If you don't see them fall..well...where's the fun? -
the_old_roman27 August 2001Robert Morley as Andrew Underschaft must be seen to be believed. He is incomparated. Wendy Hiller as his high-spirited, free-thinking, and self-righteous daughter is equally magnificent. Rex Harrison gives them both a run for their money as the swain whose fallen for Barbara. Robert Newton, David Tree, and Deborah Kerr are also terrific in small roles. There are so many double and triple entendres this one will keep your mind swirling for weeks after you've seen it. It is completely enjoyable and universal.
-
Doylenf17 April 2010If you can sit through the first half of MAJOR BARBARA there is some small reward in that the second half brightens up a bit and there is less of the tedious social commentary that infects the first half--with an outrageously hammy performance from ROBERT NEWTON. He's actually a turn-off for me in the first half of the film.
WENDY HILLER is full of confidence in the title role and is charming throughout. REX HARRISON has an unusual character to play and he does so with his usual skill intact. ("I feel that I and nobody else would marry her"). But the real star of the film is ROBERT MORLEY, a leaner looking Morley with a becoming beard, who has some wonderful scenes with members of his family--particularly his son for whom he has no love at all.
But overall, this is a stodgy, stage-bound looking production burdened by much too much of Shaw's lengthy rants, the social commentary overtaking the storyline and making the whole thing a pompous affair that had me waiting for "The End" to flash on the screen.
I don't second the praise the film has received from intellectuals who love this sort of thing. Despite good performances from the leads, it's got a boring first half that is likely to turn off many would be viewers. Of course, there are some witty Shaw lines. ("You'd sell your soul to the Devil for a pint of beer!").
And incidentally, DEBORAH KERR is totally wasted in a bit role that is very colorless and not at all memorable. -
Hoagy2724 October 2010Outstanding acting: every tiny facial tick or movement of arms adds to the character and displays their feelings and emotions. Interactions are perfectly timed and presented to create an impression of reality (of course we know this is not reality but a film, so the acting must be more than real to succeed) .
Striking sets: Dour tones of black & white shade the early sets of down-and-out Limehouse. This is contrasted by gleaming whites and solid blacks of the futuristic mattes and rear projections of the later part of the film. Expectations are high and not disappointed with a crew including names like Vincent Korda, production design (The Third Man, The Thief of Bagdad, etc), John Bryan, art direction (Pygmalion, Great Expectations, etc), Jack Clayton assistant director (Room at the Top, The Pumpkin Eater, etc), Ronald Neame's cinematography (Blithe Spirit, One of Our Aircraft is Missing, etc) and even editing by David Lean.
Brilliant lighting: the lighting of the faces and sets heightens the emotions and intellect. When Robert Newton's Bill Walker first enters the story he kicks over a fence and strides across a cluttered yard. His head and shoulders lined with a nimbus of light as if he is some lost angel recently cast out of heaven. Later, Barbara walks forlornly to the river's edge. She is shrouded in shadows, but light (apparently) reflected from the water moves across her face and eyes signaling what she may be contemplating.
Sublime writing: each of the characters, no matter how small, is important to the story. Each speaks with voice that is true to the character and yet represents an aspect of the author's theme. Not one word is wasted.
Only the happy socialist worker's March of Humanity to a Better Future ending mars the experience. But then, much of this is probably due to seeing the film with 21st century eyes and besides, to expect a film over which GBS had complete control of the story to end any other way would be like expecting no one to die in a Roger Corman film. -
planktonrules19 September 2011This is from a play by George Bernard Shaw. Now I know that Shaw is like a god to some, but I didn't particularly like this film. I found it to be immensely talky and a bit dull. I know that makes me a peon, but I just thought everyone talked way too much and it all felt very stagy--too stagy for a movie. And, even the talents of Wendy Hiller, Rex Harrison (wow, did he talk and overact here) and Robert Morley aren't enough to make this one interesting.
Major Barbara is the title given to the daughter of a rich industrialist. She's in the Salvation Army and loves the life--and talks about it so endlessly you want to slap her. Then, inexplicably, she loses her faith very quickly and in the end comes to embrace the life of a man who is an executive in a munitions factory. There's a bit that happens in between and frankly it lost me because of its style. I could tell it was all meant to be immensely clever--yet none of it seemed very real or interesting. Sorry, but I guess I am a lout for not loving this film. -
nk_gillen11 June 2004George Bernard Shaw's 1905 satirical examination of salvation, "Major Barbara," is updated in this 1941 screen translation, but the story is basically the same. Munitions industrialist Andrew Undershaft, who has not seen his family in almost 20 years, returns to find that: (a) his son Stephen, at 25, has not discovered a suitable vocation; (b) his daughter Sarah has engaged herself to a pretentious but unoffending young fool, Charles Lomax; and (c) his other daughter Barbara has adopted the Salvation Army as a career toward moral self-fulfillment and social enlightenment.
The essential question in "Major Barbara" concerns the root of the Industrial Age's social ills. Barbara (well-acted by Wendy Hiller) would argue that the greed of whiskey manufacturers and the social rapacity of the ruling classes are the culprits. Her father, on the other hand, maintains that civilization's greatest sin is the existence of poverty. Further, he deplores the shameless glorification of the "meek, honest, and downtrodden" poor and the empty condescension that is offered to those who live in filth, disease, and constant hunger. And since Andrew Undershaft is the play's hero and Shaw's philosophical stand-in (Robert Morley, the actor who plays him, is even made up to resemble Shaw), there can be little doubt as to which character, father or daughter, will ultimately triumph.
Since Shaw was directly involved in this project, it's doubtful that purists will object to the fact that the film includes additional scenes that did not appear in the play's original text. A new prologue introduces us to Adolphus Cusins (Rex Harrison), the professor of Greek classics who is a dismal failure as a Hyde Park lecturer. When his speeches fail to hold or entrance an audience, he is advised by a sympathetic street patrolman (Stanley Holloway) to sample the "religious" speaking-circuit. Deciding he has nothing to lose, Adolphus heeds the policeman's advice, and while doing so, he encounters Barbara speaking to a crowd with incredibly religious fervor, and he is instantly smitten. From there, the movie segues into Shaw's original First Act.
Another important addition is the mock religious conversion of the drunken Bill Walker by wrestler-turned-Salvation-Army-sergeant Todger Fairmile, a scene only described in Shaw's original transcript. Robert Newton, a very fine actor who was especially memorable in Hitchcock's "Jamaica Inn" (1939), here plays Walker as an unbridled, unapologetic savage of a bully. His profane dismissals of the aged Miss Mitchens and the quickness of his physical abuse of the docile Army volunteer Jenny Hill provide the film's most shocking moments. But Walker's more lethal ammunition is used in his verbal taunting of Barbara ("What price Salvation, now?") after her disillusionment with and ultimate resignation from the Army of Good Samaritans. So deep is her despair that she almost commits suicide.
Her abandonment of the Army occurs after her superior accepts a large gift of money in the form of a check signed by her own father. Barbara insists that the money is tainted, that its blood money, gleaned from her father with the sweat of his underpaid workers and by the misery suffered by the victims of Undershaft's armaments industry. However, when reluctantly following up on her father's invitation to visit his munitions plant, she discovers that Undershaft's company town is a working-man's suburban paradise of modern architecture and schools and churches; and she then understands that it is not her father who drives the hellish multimillion-dollar business that makes this Eden possible. It drives him. And the film's concluding shot of Cusins, Walker, and Barbara, marching arm-in-arm with the rest of Undershaft's proletariat, is a celebration of the playwright's ironic vision.
Shaw is primarily enjoyed for the intelligent wit of his dialogue, but he had a serious purpose here. As the playwright himself reflected in 1906, a year after the play's premiere, "Undershaft...is simply a man who, having grasped the fact that poverty is a crime, knows that when society offered him the alternative of poverty or a lucrative trade in death and destruction, it offered him (a choice) between energetic enterprise and cowardly infamy."
Gabriel Pascal produced and directed adequately. Here, his style is very understated and completely serviceable to the film's source. The scenes are paced briskly, even by modern standards. And the casting is superb, particularly Emlyn Williams's two-faced cynic/beggar, Snobby Price (the name says it all); Deborah Kerr is an affecting Jenny Hill (she obtained this film role by reciting the Lord's Prayer for producer Pascal); Torin Thatcher is in fine comic form as Todger Fairmile; and Marie Lohr manages to quietly hit all the right notes as Undershaft's priggish wife, Lady Britomart. -
Love Wendy Hiller. Robert Morley could not have been much older than his early thirties!
This film is an extraordinary historical document! I haven't seen its political philosophy expressed or epitomized anywhere so well as in the movie's final act. The fact that it was filmed in London during The Blitz bombing of 1940 helps provide the production with the behind the scenes gravity or, as Robert Morley's character says , the "anxiety" to make its ideological sentiments, which could easily ring hollow, seem credible. In fact, somehow the movie's Fabian Democratic Socialism manages to surpass even Ayn Rand in its view of man as the measure of all things, thanks to the cagey implication that technological "progress" is the fulfillment of Christian ethics and that the elite are our saviors. "You may be a devil, but sometimes God speaks through you."
This and HG Wells' Things to Come are like comedic and tragic bookends for the Utopian vision of technology as Heaven on Earth, of the industrialist as saint. Here, like a freshly minted coin, before it was cynical or retro, before the appearance of Its antipode, the cinematic Dystopian Hells of the second part of the Twentieth Century, we see the vision of "modernism" in all its glory. Heaven is the "Future" and a secular Holy city of Jerusalem descends from Heaven as the modern industrialized city. This vision of a socialist utopia ruled by an enlightened elite has played a bigger role in our history than is generally acknowledged. It is not acknowledged because the system was successfully implemented, after which it was inconvenient to talk about its existence. Particularly because it was necessary to sustain a false narrative to "steer the 'democracy' from behind the scenes". Predictably this has became leading by deception. This need for deception may have been may anticipated by Fabian social architects like George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells as a necessary evil. I would guess that the way such systemic lying leads to corruption may not have been part of the ideology.
Did our self-appointed elite "fallen angels" get lost somewhere along the way and became drunk with unprecedented power and, rather than thinking "God speaks" through them, get seduced into deifying themselves? Or were they themselves manipulated all along by others who had always deified themselves? I'm sure some of our current leaders still believe in this vision, the ones who are not gangsters, Satanists, or both.
To his credit Brad Byrd took a stab at addressing this situation in Tomorrowland. -
sethxhaberman25 March 2010I just received the Eclipse Series collection which includes Major Barbara. I was familiar with a version of the movie that PBS (WNET-13 in New York) used to show. I was disappointed to see that scenes had been cut. Perhaps my favorite is after Undershaft negotiates his deal with cusins they talk about the True faith of an Armorer. What follows is a tour of Undershaft's ancestors. The DVD version I received cut this scene out. Does anyone know why or if there is an earlier version of the movie with that scene intact? Did anyone else pick that up?
BARBARA. Is the bargain closed, Dolly? Does your soul belong to him now?
(THE MOVIE NOW CUTS OUT HERE) CUSINS. No: the price is settled: that is all. The real tug of war is still to come. What about the moral question?
LADY BRITOMART. There is no moral question in the matter at all, Adolphus. You must simply sell cannons and weapons to people whose cause is right and just, and refuse them to foreigners and criminals.
UNDERSHAFT No: none of that. You must keep the true faith of an Armorer, or you don't come in here.
CUSINS. What on earth is the true faith of an Armorer?
UNDERSHAFT. To give arms to all men who offer an honest price for them, without respect of persons or principles: to aristocrat and republican, to Nihilist and Tsar, to Capitalist and Socialist, to Protestant and Catholic, to burglar and policeman, to black man white man and yellow man, to all sorts and conditions, all nationalities, all faiths, all follies, all causes and all crimes. The first Undershaft wrote up in his shop IF GOD GAVE THE HAND, LET NOT MAN WITHHOLD THE SWORD. The second wrote up ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO FIGHT: NONE HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUDGE. The third wrote up TO MAN THE WEAPON: TO HEAVEN THE VICTORY. The fourth had no literary turn; so he did not write up anything; but he sold cannons to Napoleon under the nose of George the Third. The fifth wrote up PEACE SHALL NOT PREVAIL SAVE WITH A SWORD IN HER HAND. The sixth, my master, was the best of all. He wrote up NOTHING IS EVER DONE IN THIS WORLD UNTIL MEN ARE PREPARED TO KILL ONE ANOTHER IF IT IS NOT DONE. After that, there was nothing left for the seventh to say. So he wrote up, simply, UNASHAMED.
CUSINS. My good Machiavelli, I shall certainly write something up on the wall; only, as I shall write it in Greek, you won't be able to read it. But as to your Armorer's faith, if I take my neck out of the noose of my own morality I am not going to put it into the noose of yours. I shall sell cannons to whom I please and refuse them to whom I please. So there!
UNDERSHAFT. From the moment when you become Andrew Undershaft, you will never do as you please again. Don't come here lusting for power, young man. -
writers_reign1 November 2008No doubt influenced by the success of Pygmalion producer/director Gaby Pascal followed up three years later with a second GBS polemic masquerading as a play, in this case that old chestnut God versus Mammon best out of three, Major Barbara. Wendy Hiller had scored a personal triumph as Eliza Doolittle in Pygmalion so here she is again as the eponymous Salvation Army lass whose father happens conveniently to be a munitions manufacturer. One of the problems with Shaw in this vein is that he tended to animate cyphers rather than create flesh-and-blood characters and here a group of actors from stage and screen do what they can with what they are given to work with. There's little discernible chemistry between Hiller and Rex Harrison, Robert Morley pays homage to Charles Laughton, Emlyn Williams phones it in and it's left to stage actress Marie Lohr to provide a touch of class. Elsewhere Bobby Newton offers a prototype Bill Sikes (possibly encouraged by Editor David Lean who also gets a co-director credit. Stanley Holloway gets a strangely long opening sequence for an uncredited role and in her film debut Deborah Kerr gives little indication of the durable career to come. A curio more than anything else.
-
bkoganbing15 April 2010I'm surprised that this wonderful classic from the British cinema ever got made at the time it did. Not with having one of the major characters of the play being a munitions manufacturer. Not so very long ago munitions makers were a despised lot of people and in Major Barbara, Robert Morley's character of Edward Undershaft is admirable only for the realistic way he views life.
People in his profession were characterized as 'merchants of death' and were held in low repute until they were needed when the United Kingdom was fighting for its survival again. Morley's Undershaft does not redeem the name of the profession.
Major Barbara was first presented on the London stage in 1905 and waited 10 years before it made its Broadway debut in 1915. Europe had a general post Napoleonic peace for nearly 100 years and war was unthinkable. The arms merchants such as they were busily made their product and the countries armed more and more. But it was thought that the guns might be used in their various colonial endeavors. When they started getting used against each other in a World War, pacifism became very popular.
But in Major Barbara its author George Bernard Shaw had a different idea in mind. I think his chief reason for writing the play was to illustrate one of Karl Marx's tenets that religion was the opiate of the masses. Shaw was a Fabian socialist and wanted to see socialism come to the United Kingdom by peaceful means. But he wouldn't have disagreed with that part of Marx's diagnosis about the ills of society. He lived until 1950 and saw the post war Labour government do much of what he advocated back in the day. One wonders what he would think now of British, indeed western society in general.
Morley who has been estranged from his family for years returns and finds his eldest daughter Barbara played by Wendy Hiller a Salvation Army worker in the London slums. She thinks of herself as repudiating her hated father's evil works by doing good. He finds the idea of visiting her at the mission and showing her the error of her ways as he views it.
Religion then as now needs money, why are the televangelists out there begging for your currency to keep their work afloat? The Salvation Army does do a limited amount of good with their soup kitchens and blandishments against indulging too much in the vices. But what Shaw and his fellow Socialists would argue is that without a real living wage and the workers having some say in production, all this does is just keep the workers at bay with dreams of a perfect life in the next world no matter how bad this world might be for them.
Major Barbara is one of Shaw's greatest polemical work and in the characters of Undershaft and Barbara he pits the material against the spiritual and the material wins in a knockout. This production has some really good casting beginning with Hiller and Morley. Rex Harrison gets one of his early cinema roles as scholar Adolphus Cusins who Morley also bends to his point of view and uses the mutual attraction of Hiller and Harrison for each other for his own ends. Deborah Kerr makes her screen debut as an innocent new salvation army lass and Emlyn Williams and Robert Newton as a pair of working class types who work the system so to speak.
Major Barbara is a play set firmly in its time, I doubt it could be updated, mainly because we've passed from the Industrial Age to the Information Age because of the computer. At least that's what the sociologists will tell you. New problems have arisen and for myself I don't think the organized labor movement has quite got a handle on them. Still this fine production raises questions that we should all think seriously about. -
HotToastyRag2 April 2018Wendy Hiller plays the title character, a devout missionary in the Salvation Army always trying to help and do good. A very young Rex Harrison witnesses one of her conversion speeches on the street, and so entranced by her beauty and passion, he joins the troupe. Before long they're engaged, but the story's just started! Barbara's estranged father, Robert Morley, returns to the scene and tries to buy his way back into the family by donating a small fortune to the Salvation Army-Barbara won't have it! And while she's busy volunteering with her aide Deborah Kerr, an unrepentant and mean-spirited sinner, Robert Newton, repeatedly causes trouble for everyone.
Wendy Hiller does a very good job as the tireless Major Barbara, and Robert Newton is always a very frightening bad guy, but Rex Harrison absolutely ruins this movie. His ego oozes off the screen, and his horrific mannerisms and flippant deliveries made me want to run out of the room screaming. I didn't think I could dislike him any more than I already had in My Fair Lady, but I was proved wrong.
Even without the terrible excuse for a romantic lead, the story of Major Barbara is pretty boring. Deborah Kerr has a very small role, and Robert Newton's character is the best part of the movie. Rather than this through this 2-hour snore-fest, rent Separate Tables, Elmer Gantry, and 1948's Oliver Twist instead.
Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, there's a scene where Robert Newton strikes Deborah Kerr and a little old lady, and while some kids might not understand what's going on, it might be upsetting to watch. So, I wouldn't let my kids watch it. -
alicecbr21 September 1999This 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. -
SimonJack27 November 2016George Bernard Shaw's three-act play, "Major Barbara," premiered on the stage in 1905 London. It wasn't made into a movie until this film came out in 1941. Shaw was involved with the film and wrote some additional material for it. The story has three main elements. One is the Salvation Army and caring for the poor on the streets of London. Another is related – advocates follow God and serve him in their service to those poor. And the third is industry that provides jobs so that people don't wind up poor and on the streets. In this case, it's specifically the munitions industry.
This is a wonderful movie with witty dialog. It is well written, directed, filmed and acted by the entire cast. And what a cast! Rex Harrison is Adolphus Cusins, Robert Morley is Andrew Undershaft, Robert Newton is Bill Walker, Sybil Thorndike is The General, Marie Lohr is Lady Britomart, Deborah Kerr is Jenny Hill and Wendy Hiller is Major Barbara. Hiller gives a performance worthy of an Oscar. But, she didn't even get a nomination; nor did the film receive any awards recognition.
The film came out in the summer of 1941. England was at war. It had survived and won the Battle of Britain in the skies over England the year before. It had been pushed off the continent at Dunkirk on June 4, 1940. And, it was engaged in a massive land war against Germany in North Africa. Many women and children had died in the London bombings, and in the German conquest of Europe. Thousands of soldiers and sailors already had lost their lives. America was not yet in the war, but the Western world was feeling the ravages of war.
Now comes a movie – a comedy, no less – based on a Bernard Shaw play with a strange message. It says that munitions manufacturing is better for society than the charitable works of the Salvation Army and similar groups. The reasoning is that the factory work feeds, clothes and shelters people so they don't wind up on the street. But the charitable work just provides soup and a cot for a night's sleep, and the people remain downtrodden the next day.
I don't deny that Shaw had good intentions in pointing out the value of business providing jobs versus charities feeding people out of work. But, it's also plain that Shaw is poking fun at the Christian charitable groups. His satire is as plain as day. One must remember that Shaw was a professed atheist. Most atheists, like agnostics, Christians or followers of any other belief, are content just to hold their views and let the other fellow have his. But, professed atheists are different. It is their "duty" or need to put down any beliefs contrary to their own. Similarly, zealous Christians know their calling is to spread the good news.
The Salvation Army was born in London in 1865. William Booth founded it as the East London Christian Mission. Then, in 1878, he reorganized the mission as the Salvation Army. He gave it a military structure and became the first General. When Shaw wrote his play in the early 20th century, the Salvation Army had spread around the world. So, Shaw pokes fun at the Salvation Army (and other Christian charitable groups). Those who deny any satire fail to see or understand Shaw's glaring exaggeration.
When Andrew leads Barbara, Adolphus and others on the tour of his huge munitions complex, he takes them to a workers' housing community. Isn't it marvelous? Nice new homes and whole neighborhoods laid out with parks and playgrounds for the children. I'd like to know where such model communities exist in any industrial country. Surely they're not in England or America. Nor were there any Communist countries in the world that provided such model accommodations for their workers. So, just where was this great beneficence of the munitions industry in Great Britain? There have been company housing plots in coal mining areas and others, but they are more indentured than ideal communities.
Yet, the ending message of this play is that the Undershaft munitions industry was more beneficial to the public and individual people than the Salvation Army. But that message flew in the face of the reality of the times. The exaggerated satire was lost on the public at a time when churches and charitable groups were rising to help care for the homeless, orphaned, hungry and lost millions that were being created by war. And that war, incidentally, was made possible by the endless supply of munitions from the Undershafts of the world. As it turned out, Shaw's social satire was doomed by the reality of events of the time. Shortly after he wrote his play, the world plunged into World War I. Right when the play was made into this superb movie, the world was beginning to feel the ravages of World War II. So, Shaw won his point in his play, but he lost it on the stage of real life.
All that aside, today we should look at this film and see the comedy, the satire and the contradictions. And enjoy some stupendous performances. We should enjoy seeing Rex Harrison beating the bass drum for the Army band. Or see the demure Deborah Kerr in her movie debut. Wendy Hiller's role was refreshingly convincing and uplifting. Even when she had a change of conscience toward the end. Which, by the way, was not so convincing to audiences — again, because of the war taking place. Hiller gave a superb performance. She finally did receive an Oscar – in 1959. She won best supporting actress for her role in "Separate Tables" of 1958. -
HarlequeenStudio19 June 2017You know what they say, if you're still an activist at 40, there must be something wrong with you. When faced with the cold hard truth that no money is kosher money, Major Barbara can relax and enjoy being rich. Just like with every activist, her manner of speaking is at least half a century old and she sounds like a Victorian spinster. The film seems to be set in the flappers era, so you can imagine how comical she must be. Wendy Hiller is a great actress and I'm sorry she didn't make more films and Rex Harrison is her equal. Deborah Kerr appears in a minor role, good from the start (this is her first film). Anyway, they speak too much and too fast, which maybe makes things unclear for most viewers, but that was not typical only of Bernard Shaw, but also of the screwball comedies of that period, which was actually ending by the time this film was released. You can still see the great Art Deco design during the factory visit scenes, photographed in beautiful B&W.
-
steven_torrey19 February 2017The London Blitz provided an ironic backdrop to the film not intended in the 1905 play.
In 1905, Shaw may have intended an anti-armaments story; but with war torn London as a backdrop, the 1941 movie came something different. That Armaments Business is what provides sustenance for lots of people--housing, food, clothing. And certainly the moral issue of working in Armaments for sustenance also meant the survival of Britain. Working in an American plant devoted to creating nuclear armament brings not the same intensity.
We all might decry the Capitalist and Capitalism. Before Rockefeller, whale oil cost $5/gallon; after Rockefeller, oil from oil wells cost 25cents/gallon. In 1900 Rockefeller was the most hated man in America, by 1940 he was one of the most beloved by virtue of his extensive philanthropy.
Shaw in 1905 could not have anticipated either World War that would bring so much devastation to the physical and psychological landscape of Europe. And yet by 1941, when the film was made, that devastation could not have been lost on Shaw, even as it provides a certain backdrop to several scenes in the film. In the movie, it appears by the end, that Shaw is praising the Armaments industry for the good of capitalism sustaining the lives of individuals, and the good of Amazements in protecting Britain (DEMOCRACY) from the Nazi maw. A conclusion Major Barbara Undershaft herself comes to realize.
This review sounds the heavy knell of propaganda message, and yet the film unfolds with a deft drama of a drawing room comedy about love. Even the last half hour, with stock footage of production being overseen by Cusins, Undershaft and his family, the film is brisk and almost sprightly despite the heaviness of physical abuse, a heaviness of abuse which simply underscores the abuse of Germany against its European neighbors.
The film worked because of its genius. -
robertguttman24 August 2009One of my all-time favorite films, "Major Barbara" is a cinematic Shavian gem that stands alongside the original "Pygmalion", "Caesar and Cleopatra" and "The Devil's Disciple". Many viewers regard this as a rather verbose comedy-drama but then, as with Plato, dialogue was always what Shaw was all about. And what dialogue! There are more fireworks in ten minutes of "Major Barbara" then can be found in entire movies made nowadays, and without a single explosion or car chase! But then, like all Shaw dramas, this is a story about ideas, not about action.
Although Major Barbara (Windy Hiller) is the title character, the real center of the story is her father, munitions tycoon Andrew Undershaft, played brilliantly by a fairly young, and uncharacteristically lean, Robert Morely. It is he who really moves the progress of the story, just as he has controlled the courses of the lives of his family in absentia for the past twenty years without their even being aware of it. As Barbara smugly repudiates his attempts to contribute his tainted money to save her Salvation Army mission, he ironically reminds her fiancée (and the audience) that she has actually accepted a great deal of it already. In fact, she has been living off his tainted money all her life. Tricked out with a Mephistophelean beard (he is constantly referred to as the "Prince of Darkness, and even his name seems redolent of Hell), Undershaft tempts his daughter and prospective son-in-law to abrogate their life in the Salvation Army for his life in the munitions business.
Undershaft proposes to spend a day in Barbara's Salvation Army mission if she'll agree to spend a day at his munitions works. She agrees because, in her religious zeal, she's convinced she can convert her father. The worldly Undershaft, on the other hand, is equally sure that he can wean his daughter away from a life he perceives as a waste of her time and talent for one where he feels she can really make a difference.
Whether viewers perceive Shaw's story as cynical or realistic depends upon their point of view. Clearly Shaw took the latter view, at least at the time he wrote "Major Barbara". However, perhaps the most remarkable thing about "Major Barbara" is that a film like this should have been produced in Britain at all during the very darkest days of World War II. It is almost impossible to imagine a film such as this being produced in Hollywood at all, let alone during wartime! -
clanciai14 September 2023I always had problems with Bernard Shaw as I never could take him seriously, as he never was serious. This is brilliant and entertaining indeed with breathtaking dialog all the way, but it actually leads to nothing. It's a social satire but there is no real point in it, especially as it was made during the Blitz and made a trifle out of the war business. Wendy Hiller makes a magnificent performance (as usual, she always does,) and so does Robert Morley as her father, but all the others are also perfectly excellent, there is a young Deborah Kerr, there is Robert Newton as rowdy as ever, Rex Harrison shows off as usual, there is Miles Malleson as a factotum like in so many films, and there is William Walton's music to gild the frame. It's not a great film, it's not a great play, but it fills up two hours with splendid entertainment, and whatever Bernard Shaw doesn't do in his plays, he sure never is disappointing.
-
Bernie444425 December 2023First came on this movie while reading "The Arms of Krupp" by William Manchester the paragraph that mentions this film is:
"Yet war ministers abroad were still very much aware of the family. So were the critics, as George Bernard Shaw demonstrated brilliantly in December 1905 when his "Major Barbra", a thinly veiled satire largely based on the Krupps, opened in London. In the play Barbara is substituted for Bertha, the head munitions family is named Sir Andrew Undershoot, and Bertha-Barbara is given a pacifist brother called Stephen."
The movie its self has some "Major" actors as Windy Hiller, Rex Harrison, and Robert Morley.