Based on Terence Rattigan's play, this is a moving story of a public (private) schoolmaster's disappointments as his life slips away from him, and his increasing sense of isolation from everyone around him as even his wife makes clear her bitterness towards him. Michael Redgrave's performance is masterfully poignant. The film was made in an era when the values inherent in the film still had considerable currency, helping the film to achieve a degree of authenticity which it is doubtful could be achieved today. (I have not seen the more recent version, though, so it may be that I am wrong). If you are interested in the human condition, or simply want to see a masterful portrayal of human pain then you should watch this film.
Add a Review
-
Paul-2509 May 1999
-
A filmed play (by Terence Rattigan), for sure, but this is the kind of play that's just so excellent the film never comes close to suffering from staginess. It plays kind of like the flipside of Goodbye, Mr. Chips. Michael Redgrave stars as a crotchety old Classics teacher, Andrew Crocker-Harris, in a boys' school. It is his last day before retirement. To the students, he is something of a monster. They refer to him as "the Croc". They know he is retiring because of heart troubles, and it amuses them to think the man has a heart at all. Of course, he does, and the film peels back his layers until it is found, crushed and bleeding on the floor. He is married to a much younger woman (Jean Kent), and the love they had once has turned into bitter resentment on both sides. Kent has been cheating on Redgrave with the science teacher, Nigel Patrick. Kent has never lied to Redgrave about the affair, preferring to taunt him with his sexual worthlessness. The film is a very introspective look at one man's failure in life. It's about as well written a character study as has ever been made. Redgrave's performance is simply off-the-charts. I have no qualms about calling it one of the all-time greats of the medium. I think the film makes one major miscalculation - the vigorous applause after Crocker-Harris' departing speech. It makes dramatic sense, I guess, but it doesn't make any logical sense. Otherwise, this would be a masterpiece.
-
OllieZ19 November 2006Michael Redgrave is wonderful in this film. To watch him in The Lady Vanishes, then to see him in this, it really is a testament to his acting versatility.
The story itself is utterly depressing, and shows little remorse. Though this is why the film is so brilliant. The atmosphere mixes that of the school and that of the Greek tragedy - namely Aeschylus' the Agamemnon. Coker-Harris is slowly broken down by his wife, which is similar to that of Clytemnestra and Agamemnon. However, Coker-Harris has not done much wrong to warrant this hate and spite, which makes him a sympathetic and tragic character.
The film moves at a brisk pace and is not once boring. The acting is superb, the look efficient and makes for a superb film. -
writers_reign2 June 2005This is, quite simply, the Best One-Act play ever written, any time, any place; it's a Faberge egg with a Swiss movement and the fact that as I write, June, 2005, a French translation has just picked up a couple of Molieres is indicative of its wider appeal. It was Terence Rattigan who first identified and named the 'English Disease' as repression and he explored it in play after play such as Separate Tables and this one. A consummate scriptwriter as well as a Dramatist Rattigan handled his own adaptation and though he 'opened it out' a little he still maintains the tension and his dramatic skill is evident in every frame. Michael Redgrave is simply magnificent as the repressed Andrew Crocker-Harris, so much so, that he makes the excellent supporting actors, Jean Kent, Nigel Patrick, Wilfrid Hyde White, etc seem merely competent. This is a film that cannot be praised too highly
-
hernebay9 March 2001With a screenplay by the author of the play on which it is based (Terence Rattigan), "The Browning Version", although it records the manners and morals of an age and social milieu that have now vanished, remains a powerful and deeply moving film, its essential insights intact, and of continued relevance to our own time.
Arthur Crocker-Harris (Michael Redgrave) is a master at an English public school. Once a brilliant young classicist and a promising poet, he has turned into a desiccated, unfeeling and spiteful pedant, despised by his colleagues and feared by his pupils. Ill-health has prompted his early retirement, but it is apparent that his departure will go unmourned, in contrast to that of his attractive and personable young wife (Jean Kent), who is well-liked by all.
The genius of this remarkable film consists in the effortless skill with which it inverts the viewer's initial perceptions. Dismissed as outdated and irrelevant after the Angry Young Men of the mid 50s rendered his middle-class scenarios unfashionable, Rattigan was a master technician of drama, and his dialogue and pacing are faultless. Michael Redgrave was born to play the role of Crocker-Harris, to which he brings a restraint and control that render his performance all the more affecting. Asquith shows remarkable judgment in refusing to manipulate the viewer's emotions with a schmaltzy soundtrack (except for a burst of Beethoven at the end, there is no music). In the event this is unnecessary. It is a rare film that moves me to tears, but "The Browning Version" wins this distinction. Do not waste your time on the 1994 re-make. -
hondude3 May 2005Without a doubt, one of the best movies I've ever seen. This movie is a movie for today, it seemed fresh enough to have been shot in our time. Michael Redgrave's performance is amazing as the beaten professor, life deals him blow after blow and he keeps on going without a blink. You want him to scream, you want him to react, but he is simply too scared. Perhaps he's accepted his lot in life, but you want more for him. It was heart wrenching and I was left knowing I had witnessed a classic that would not be easily matched. I haven't seen a movie so moving since my first viewing 10 years ago. Highly recommended and it appears it's coming to DVD very soon!
-
noncentz28 June 2005Not a review...just an anecdote.
My wife and I were preparing to attend a party and I turned the TV on as I was getting dressed. The Browning Version had just begun. I had never seen it but after a few minutes, found myself sitting on the bed, still watching. My wife came in to ask why I wasn't getting ready and I pointed to the TV saying, "This is a great movie and I have no idea what it is." She sat down and watched a few minutes to see what I was talking about.
we never made it to the party.
Emotionally engrossing with sterling performances. Very glad to see this finally coming out as a Criterion Collection DVD. -
alexandra-2511 December 2005The 1951 edition of the film, The Browning Version focus's on the 'stiff upper lip' of the Englishman (and woman). In this sense the English stiff upper lip is less of a human trait, but more a phenomenon deliberately shaped by cultural ideology and attitudes from the upper classes of English society. This causes the human, as illustrated with precision in The Browning Version by Michael Redgrave, to subdue feelings, and by so doing transform the human being into a mere mechanism of an ordered society which serves to function as apposed to lives life.
For illustrating how the elimination of human feelings can be so destructive to mind, body and soul, here Redgrave deserves all accolades awarded him. Clearly one of the finest actors in cinematic history.
Just to add here that it is not a weakness to illustrate feelings but as the film states strongly, it is more of a failure to hide them.
This is a lesson in how the human condition can in the end and ultimately triumph over suppression of life itself.
Excellent film. -
claudio_carvalho17 July 2012In a British school, the conservative and emotionless Latin teacher Andrew Crocker-Harris (Michael Redgrave) has a heart problem and is forced to retire. His unfaithful wife Millie (Jean Kent) is having a love affair with his colleague, the science teacher Frank Hunter (Nigel Patrick), and he is hated and despised by the students, fellows and the direction of the school. His pupil Taplow (Brian Smith) is studying with him the tragic Greek poem The Agamemnon, expecting to be promoted at school.
On his last days at school, Crocker-Harris is informed by the headmaster that the board refused to pay his pension plan for earlier retirement and he realizes that he is a failure as a teacher and a man.
"The Browning Version" is a heartbreaking British film based on a play that tells the story of a teacher without emotions that is hated and betrayed and in the end is helped by his pupil, his replacement and even by the lover of his wife to react to the situation and "live" again. The performances are top-notch and the depressive story is another great British film about the relationship between teacher and student (the other is "To Sir with Love"). My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Nunca te Amei" ("I Never Loved You") -
Curtis-233 September 2002[WARNING This comment tells how the film ends.]
Terence Rattigan's screenplay for The Browning Version expands and greatly improves his short stage play of the same name. The title refers to a translation by the poet, Robert Browning, of "Agamemnon," a classical Greek tragedy. The film's protagonist, Andrew Crocker-Harris, an English private school teacher brilliantly played by Michael Redgrave, once wrote a translation of "Agamemnon," and has been trying for years to teach 13-year-old boys to read the Greek original. Because of poor health and general dissatisfaction with his performance, he has resigned his position.
In the tragedy, Agamemnon is murdered by his wife, aided by her lover. In the film, Crocker-Harris is spiritually dead, partly from spousal "murder," although the slaughter has been reciprocal, and his wife, Millie, is in worse shape than he. His "death" shows as extreme precision of word and manner, absence of emotional reaction, supercilious bullying of his students, and a cool, high-pitched, stilted, professorial approach to every circumstance. Her "death" shows in a desperate search elsewhere for masculine love, and in harsh, hard, hostile, cold-blooded, humiliating attacks against her husband.
In a tragedy, the hero starts out happy and becomes miserable. In this film, full of the sadness of professional and domestic failure, the hero moves away from misery, via understanding and heartfelt repentance, to the possibility of happiness. With nary a mention of Jesus or the Bible, this story of a teacher of classical Greek reverberates with Christian motifs of spiritual death and resurrection.
The reversal owes much to the intervention of Taplow, one of Harris' students; Frank Hunter, his colleague and Millie's lover; and Gilbert, his replacement. Impressed by the discipline in Harris' teaching, but put off by its humiliating style, Gilbert mentions that the students call Harris "the Himmler of the lower fifth." Harris has not been aware of the nickname, and is clearly hurt. Gilbert is genuinely apologetic and Harris speaks of his failed career and early hopes. At this point in the play, he attributes his failure to shortcomings in the students, which he says will also cause Gilbert to fail. But Gilbert's gibe and sympathy have penetrated.
Taplow, who does a beautiful, satiric imitation of Harris in his absence, nevertheless feels sorry for him and wants to like and help him. In tutorial with Harris, Taplow argues for a vivid translation of "Agamemnon," which he finds exciting. Responding to this warmth, Harris mentions the "very free" translation he had written long ago. Later, as a goodbye present, Taplow gives Harris Browning's translation, inscribing it: "God from afar looks graciously upon a gentle master." Harris weeps, sobs; the ice is breaking up.
Hearing of the gift, Millie insists that Taplow is apple polishing. The shell temporarily recongeals. Hunter, angry at Millie's conduct and thoroughly ashamed of his affair with her, assures Harris that Taplow's appreciation is genuine. He urges Harris to leave his wife, and to stay in touch. Harris blames himself as much as Millie for the failure of the marriage, he unable to provide the physical love, she the intellectual love, which the other most needed. But the genuineness of Hunter's apology and interest have made a difference.
In a sense, the heroes of the story are the three helpers, especially Taplow and Hunter. And the love they give is not physical or intellectual, but that of the Good Samaritan, extended to a fellow human being in need. But if to Harris, why not to Millie, whose need is even greater? Why are Taplow and Hunter and we in the audience eager to rescue Harris, but content to abandon Millie?
While Taplow in the study translates the scene in which Clytemnestra stands over the body of her murdered husband, Millie on the lawn pleads with Hunter. Hunter: "I feel sorry for him." Millie: "He's not sorry for himself, so why should you be? It's me you should be sorry for." Hunter: For Heaven's sake, stop this [complaining]." Millie: "For Heaven's sake, show me some pity. . . . If you don't [come to visit me], I think I shall kill myself." Why not -- for Heaven's sake -- try also to rescue her? Her coarse brutality toward Harris is hard to forgive, but so is his refined humiliation of students. But two huge defeats, heart disease and forced resignation, invite our compassion for him at the outset. His language, beautifully dressed, raised in pitch but never in volume, quiet, clear, restrained, invites attention and leaves room for helpers. Following Taplow's lead, we start the film wondering what is wrong, and hoping to fix it. But most important, Taplow and Hunter appreciate this man, who is really dying to be liked. They don't like Millie. We follow their lead. Taplow, Hunter and we are not saints: they don't stop for Millie, and we don't ask them to.
At a school assembly, Harris and a popular cricket star are to make farewell speeches. The latter's speech, expected to produce a climax of public enthusiasm, falls flat. Harris' appearance, expected to be an embarrassment, electrifies the audience. Putting aside his planned text, he confesses his complete failure as a teacher, not because of the shortcomings of his students, but because he has not given them "sympathy, encouragement and humanity." (The viewer, through his tears, may note that this is what Harris has newly been receiving.) The eloquent, short speech concluded, the assembly begin to clap and then to cheer. Not a realistic response, I think, given the school's long-established fear and rejection of this man. But surely the video audience is cheering, and the angels above.
At the Cannes Film Festival, Terence Rattigan was awarded Best Screenplay and Michael Redgrave, Best Actor. Emphatically deserved! The film is beautifully directed by Anthony Asquith, with a fine cast, especially Brian Smith as Taplow and Nigel Patrick as Hunter. I wholeheartedly second the raves in other comments at this site. (This one is based on the VHS edition.) -
pontifikator11 September 2010The Browning Version
This is a quietly good British movie from the early 50s. It stars Michael Redgrave as a pompous and disliked professor of Latin and Greek, Andrew Crocker-Harris; Jean Kent plays his wife, Millie, and Nigel Patrick plays his fellow teacher Frank Hunter - who is Millie's lover.
It's a bit of a "stiff upper lip" drama. Crocker-Harris has a health problem at the age of 43 and must retire from his position. The board refuses to give him a pension, and he has to take a low-paying position at another school which will not support his wife and him. The Crock, as the students call him, is thoroughly disliked by his pupils and apparently also by the board. He soldiers on without kicking up a fuss, even when the headmaster asks him to speak before another teacher instead of last as his longer tenure entitles him. Crocker-Harris accepts degradation after degradation as his last days at the school turn to ashes.
It's clear from conversations that Crocker-Harris was once considered brilliant and that he should have had a bright future ahead of him. Instead he has become a dried up shell of a human being, pedantic, boring, and known for his epigrams in Latin. His students refer to him as Himmler. (For those who have forgotten their history, Himmler was very well known as the head of the Nazi Gestapo, overseeing the internal security forces and the concentration camps where six million humans were slaughtered.) The director (Anthony Asquith) contrasts the classrooms of The Crock (quiet, labored) and Hunter (noisy, much laughter) to show us Crocker-Harris killing the souls of his pupils in his effort to instill an appreciation of Latin and Greek.
How Crocker-Harris became this way is slowly wormed out of the script in a few surprising twists of plot. I hesitate to recommend the movie, as its pace and precise portrait of Crocker- Harris may put some people off. But the actors and the script are remarkably good. We see a portrait of a failure, we learn how he became as he is, and we finally see some hope for redemption.
SPOILERS-------------------------- seriously - serious spoiler here if you haven't seen the movie.
What makes the story rise above the ordinary is that Hunter and Crocker-Harris become friends and Crocker-Harris gives himself a chance to recover his lost brilliance. Hunter and Millie are lovers, but Hunter sees her abusive treatment of Crocker-Harris and dumps her on the spot - a surprising turn of events given his lack of decency so far. Hunter turns to Crocker-Harris as a friend, rejected at first, then accepted with a confession from Crocker- Harris concerning the failure of his marriage. We end up going from a bitter ending with Crocker-Harris as a total failure in his life, his work, and his marriage to an ending with the potential for him to recover his life and his work, but ending his marriage with dignity.
Redgrave's performance as Crocker-Harris is very British and always on point; never a parody nor condescending - Crocker-Harris is a very precise man, and Redgrave nails the role. The confession Crocker-Harris makes to Hunter is that there are two kinds of love, and he could give Millie only one, when she wanted the other. My assumption is that "the other" is what she was getting from Hunter - a sexual relationship. The one Crocker-Harris offered is not spelled out. Watching the film without any knowledge of it, I assumed Crocker-Harris was impotent and offered only a platonic love.
The movie is based on a one act play by Terrence Rattigan. According to the IMDb, Rattigan was a closeted homosexual born in England in 1911. He grew up in a land where homosexuality was a crime. Rattigan did the script for the movie, and the suggestion is that the love Crocker-Harris referred to was gay love, but the script is vague. There is nothing gay about Crocker-Harris, but one would not expect a gay man to be openly gay in his situation.*
Whether Crocker-Harris is straight or gay, the lack of sexual satisfaction leaves Millie bitter and angry. We see her abuse him mercilessly, taking away any small pleasures he may have had. We see ultimately why Crocker-Harris became the dried up shell he is, sucking dry the souls of others without even knowing it. His entire life and career manifest the bitterness of his wife toward him. Hunter helps Crocker-Harris see the situation and make the decision to end his marriage and pick up his life and work again. It's a bitter ending with some hope; maybe enough to be bittersweet; maybe not. It's an adult work without the Hollywood ending - just like life.
*Michael Redgrave, according to Wikipedia was married to the same woman for 50 years but was a bi-sexual with a long term affair with another man. It's an interesting position for Redgrave to be in. -
After watching the Terence Rattigan DVD collection (with most of the adaptations being from the 70s and 80s) when staying with family friends last year, Rattigan very quickly became one of my favourite playwrights and he still is. his dialogue is so intelligent, witty and meaty, his characterisation so dynamic, complex and real and the storytelling so beautifully constructed.
'The Browning Version' is a defining example of Rattigan at his finest. As said in previous reviews for the adaptations part of the Terence Rattigan DVD collection, is also at his best when laying bare deep emotional and psychological strains in his principal characters within a skillful dramatic framework. 'The Browning Version' epitomises that as well as everything that makes me love Rattigan's work so much. Was bowled over by this near-perfect 1951 film.
Not only is it the definitive version of the play but to me it is also one of the best adaptations of any of Rattigan's work, film or television. The only thing that rang false was despite Crocker Harris' very powerful, lump in the throat and tear welling departure speech how it concludes so optimistically after everything that happened in the rest of the film, it just seemed so contrived.
Can't say anything wrong with anything else though. The best things about it are the script and the performance of Michael Redgrave, the aspects that one remembers long after the film is over. The script benefits hugely from the involvement of Rattigan himself and from him extension, his superb writing, dynamic between the characters and consummate attention to very complex characterisation shine through wonderfully here and really keeps things afloat.
Redgrave is simply mesmerising, he has never been better and his performance is nuanced, at times stern and cold but extremely moving, there is self-pity here but done with incredible dignity. He's not the only good actor. Jean Kent's heartlessness as Millie is very chilling, if she comes across as a character with no redeeming qualities or weaknesses that is the film taking the right approach with a character that is meant to be like that. Nigel Patrick is suitably cocky, while Wilfred Hyde White steals scenes and Brian Smith is a winning Taplow.
Anthony Asquith's direction never allows the action to become stage bound. The gentile shabbiness of the school is captured neatly but never pat as is how all the different woes come over so mercilessly, which is what makes the drama so poignant and haunting. The story is basically an introspective character study and in terms of detail and emotional impact it's remarkably rich and subtle. There are standout moments such as the emotional turning point for Crocker Harris and the departure speech.
Cinematography is beautifully done and the set and costumes are handsomely produced. Good music from Arnold Bax as well.
In summation, a wonderful film and an example for any future Rattigan adaptation, especially for a play as good as 'The Browning Version'. 9/10 Bethany Cox -
JamesHitchcock18 April 2007Andrew Crocker-Harris, a teacher in a British public school, is approaching retirement. This is not, however, a sentimental "inspirational teacher" film like "Goodbye Mr Chips". James Hilton's character was an elderly man looking back happily on his long years of service to the school and his pupils. Andrew is a comparatively young man (Michael Redgrave was in his early forties at the time), forced by ill-health to retire and take a less arduous, but also less well-paid, position in a less prestigious school.
Moreover, no teacher could be less inspirational than Andrew Crocker-Harris. His less-than-friendly nickname among his pupils is "the croc" (as in crocodile- spelled thus in Rattigan's text, but this could also be heard as "the crock", British slang for broken-down old car). A brilliant scholar at Oxford, he entered the teaching profession in the idealistic belief that he had a vocation to inspire his pupils with his own love of classical literature. The intervening years have disillusioned him. He has become humourless and pedantic; his pupils either dislike him or treat him as a figure of fun and regard his lessons as a bore. His attempts to maintain discipline by using sarcastic ridicule have made him even less popular and given him an even less friendly nickname-"the Himmler of the Lower Fifth". He is unpopular with his colleagues and patronised by his headmaster. His marriage to a younger woman has broken down, and his wife Millie has been having an adulterous affair with one of his colleagues, the young chemistry teacher Frank Hunter.
The plot of Rattigan's play- attractive young married woman, torn between the demands of a dull, unresponsive husband and those of a charming but faithless lover- is similar to that of a number of literary works, notably "Madame Bovary" and "Anna Karenina", but whereas Flaubert and Tolstoy placed the emphasis on the woman, Rattigan is more concerned with the wronged husband. The crisis comes when Taplow, one of Andrew's pupils, unexpectedly gives him a copy of Robert Browning's translation of Aeschylus's "Agamemnon". (Hence the title of the film). Millie spitefully suggests that the boy gave him the book, not out of kindness or love for Greek literature, but as a bribe to secure promotion to a higher class.
Another version of "The Browning Version" was filmed in 1994. Although it starred another great name of the British acting profession, Albert Finney, as Andrew, it was not well received. Possibly the reason is that the forties and fifties have come to be regarded as the official Golden Age of British cinema. The trouble with recognising any age as officially Golden is that it can lead to the works of later periods (and occasionally even of earlier ones) being undervalued. I have always regarded Mike Figgis's film as one of the best British films of the nineties, and actually better than the 1951 version, but the critics treated it as an impertinent attempt to copy a Golden Age masterpiece.
The weakness of Anthony Asquith's version is one that affected a number of Golden Age films, excessive emotional reticence. (I have never, for example, been able to regard "Brief Encounter" as the great film that everyone else tells me it is, for precisely this reason). American films of this period, by contrast, often had a greater emotional honesty. Redgrave is very good early in the film as Andrew the dry-as-dust pedant- perhaps too good, as it makes the later scenes, when a more emotional side to Andrew's character is revealed, less credible. With Finney's interpretation, one can always sense, even in the early scenes, that beneath his crusty exterior Andrew is a man of deep feelings. The fault does not entirely lie with the actors, but also with the director. The scene, for example, where Andrew breaks done in tears after receiving Taplow's gift, was shot mostly from the rear, which seemed to waste much of its potential.
Of the three main characters, I felt that the best in the original film was Nigel Patrick as Frank Hunter (better, I thought, than Matthew Modine in the remake). Frank is everything Andrew is not- handsome, easy-going, popular with both the boys and his colleagues and a gifted teacher. Although he is Millie's seducer, a man happy to carry on an affair with a married woman he does not love, Rattigan (and Patrick) are careful not to paint him as a one-dimensional villain. He is troubled by a guilty conscience about the way in which Andrew has been affected by the affair, and he resolves to end it when he sees how badly Millie treats her husband.
I did not, however, much like Jean Kent as Millie. She came across as too cold, hard and spiteful, and I preferred the way in which Greta Scacchi played the character (renamed Laura) in the later film. In Scacchi's performance one senses, as one does not with Kent, something we are told by Andrew, namely that Millie/Laura is as much to be pitied as he is. She behaves badly towards her husband, but she is a victim, not only of a failed marriage, but also of the way in which she is treated by Frank, with whom she is deeply in love, even though he does not love her. (There is a hint, albeit veiled in very guarded language, that her marriage broke down because Andrew was unable to satisfy her sexually).
When the film was recently given away as a DVD by a British newspaper, it bore on the cover "Certificate U". For those not familiar with the British system of film classification, that means it is suitable for all, including young children. I have nothing against films for all the family, but when a film dealing with adultery is considered to fall within that category it suggests that the subject has not been dealt with as frankly as it might have been. 7/10 -
Here is a magnificent play and screenplay, beautifully written and conceived. Much has been made of the performances of Michael Redgrave and Jean Kent, both of whom are brilliantly cast in a physical sense. Good as Redgrave and Kent both are, it is to the supporting cast that we must look for the strongest and most credible performances; Nigel Patrick is rock solid as Frank Hunter, the popular science teacher who transforms from thoughtless philanderer to decent human being, and Wilfred Hyde White is at the peak of his game as the headmaster who is self seeking, self satisfied, unfeeling and ultimately rather cruel. Michael Redgrave, for some unknown reason decided to give Crocker-Harris a rather thin dry voice which is obviously "stuck on" he also fails to show any vestige of the human being behind the persona of the school master until it is far too late, his performance is just that, a surface study of a rather frail failure, rather than a man who tries and fails. He is expected to be unpopular, but Redgrave's characterisation is, unfortunately, rather cold. Jean Kent is brilliantly cast in the physical sense, here is woman who could well be the wife of a rather lacklustre school master, but also has the magnificent womanliness, and frankly, sex appeal, to stir any man's biological chemistry. For all this, her performance as Millie Crocker-Harris is patchy, at times so very believable and at others driven by a surface petulance, a false grandeur and an unnecessary viciousness which guilds the lily of the already powerful writing. I have seen Ms Kent's work in other roles, she was well capable of more subtle work than this, which leads me to feel that the direction by Anthony Asquith may have been rather heavy handed or just plain careless in her case. Michael Redgrave has the more difficult role with which to contend, and in my honest opinion, his characterisation, flawed from the start, fails him absolutely at the vital moment of Taplow's gesture, and in spite of an effective gear change in his defiance of the headmaster and a fine delivery of the final speech, the overall performance is under the bar for an actor of Redgrave's standing.
-
planktonrules17 October 2010This is an exceptionally written and acted film--one that I strongly recommend. However, I warn you up front that it is often hard to watch because it deals with some very sad and pathetic people--particularly the lead, played by Michael Redgrave. The film is about the final weeks in a job by a long-time teacher at an upper-class British school. It seems that a sickly middle-aged teacher (Redgrave) is leaving and, unfortunately, his leaving isn't causing any sense of loss among the students or faculty. That's because long ago this teacher's spirit dwindled away--much of because he is locked in a loveless marriage. And, over time, his disappointment in love has been translated into a coldness towards his students. It's a fascinating but powerful study of a pathetic man--a man, who at mid-life, has come to realize that his life has been a waste and his wife could care less about him.
This is a wonderful film--and an interesting contrast to the old character from "Goodbye, Mr. Chips". While Chips was a bit stuffy, he adored his students and was beloved...whereas, with the character from this film Redgrave plays a man who is bitter and sad...yet by the end manages to keep some level of self-respect.
By the way, my wife hated that this film never really got to the heart of why the teacher and his wife were so cold towards each other. There is a scene that alludes, mildly, to perhaps him being impotent or perhaps even gay--but she needed to know this in order to love the film and was disappointed it was never revealed. See the IMDb trivia for more on this, by the way. -
JekyllBoote-114 July 2005Until a week ago I had never seen this film.
I was lent a videocassette of it (taped from the TV) by a friend who urged me to watch it. "But you must watch it alone", they stipulated.
I am not sure whether my friend's act was one of great kindness or great cruelty. I do know that watching the film was extremely harrowing and upsetting.
It is difficult to convey quite what is so troubling and disturbing about this film without giving the plot away, but I was unprepared, among other things, for the frankness about sexual matters in such an old film (especially the frankness regarding female sexuality). Given that Rattigan was himself a homosexual (albeit, in a pre-Wolfenden age, a closeted one), it is possible (indeed, possibly too easy) to perceive a homosexual subtext in the film, should one choose to. But it is not necessary.
At first I was half expecting something sentimental in the "Goodbye, Mr Chips" vein (and this is, indeed, ironically referred to in "The Browning Version"), but this film is no facile tear-jerker. I did not read the other IMDb reviews before watching the film, and I was unprepared for the shock to my system that this amazing film has delivered.
I am not sure that I can unreservedly recommend the film, if only because it is so deeply unsettling and emotionally raw. A film set in an English public school of the early 1950s suggests a world of emotions reined-in and denied. But the terrible crises that occur in "The Browning Version" expose real emotions in a way that, even now, is rare.
This film urgently needs to be made available on DVD. For those who can withstand the intensity of its onslaught, it constitutes a salutary emotional cleansing.
This is a beautiful, and perennially relevant film. -
Gordon-M19 November 2006I had seen the film before on television, starting twenty minutes in, but experiencing this drama, from the beginning, allowing the full emotional build up to Crock's revelatory and moving moment - where his stoicism dissolves - to be fully delivered had a devastating effect on me.
When the Crock first speaks of the greatness of Agamemnon to Taplow, the transmission of the regret at not only not completing his verse translation, but that he has lost the manuscript ("and so many other things") is beautifully delivered by Redgrave. However, as with all men, there is opportunity for redemption. When Fate delivers the manuscript back to Crock, a strange power gripped me; it was the equivalent of Kane reclaiming Rosebud. But Crock has lost faith; he has been 'ground down' as us Brits say, through proxy by the school system and by his cruel, selfish and childless wife. Clearly a great scholar, Crocker-Harris was ultimately used as a cog, trapped in the lower-fifth, alluded to as being like Heinrich Himmler, locked in a loveless marriage, suffering heart problems and facing a financially insecure future.
The weight of Life is on Crock's shoulders, sapping his will. He could never suspect the sliver of light - of affection - that Taplow would bring when he presents him with an inscribed second-hand copy of Robert Browning's verse translation of Agamemnon. But it is smothered in shadows by his wife's cruel, spiteful and misguided 'hard truth'.
I read the ending thus: In his farewell speech, Crock fearlessly faces facts about his apparent failures; he also does so with great dignity and self-deprecation and seemingly wins belated respect from the students. Taplow's appraisal of his in-progress verse translation might just have ignited Crock's determination to exert his will to power on Life again, after years of partly self-imposed psychological slavery. Pure speculation of course, but that's how it plays to me.
Redgrave's subtle, poignant and exquisitely developed performance, which is not only his best, but one of Cinema's very best. The final image of the respectfully defiant Crock walking off, manuscript under arm, God looking on graciously is "most gratifying" to me. Good old Crock! Good old Crock! -
MOscarbradley11 December 2005As the dry-as-dust, cuckolded public schoolmaster, dying of heart disease, yet heartless in the eyes of his pupils, Michael Redgrave gives one of the screen's finest and most moving performances in Anthony Asquith's superb screen version of Terence Rattigan's play. (Rattigan himself wrote the economical, precise and first-rate screenplay). The rest of the cast act in that arch, fastidious fashion prevalent in British films of the time, though that fine and under-valued actor Nigel Patrick breathes considerable life into the role of the adulterous but penitent science teacher while Jean Kent is superbly treacherous as the unfaithful wife.
As a director, Asquith never really displayed much in the way of a visual sensibility, relying instead on the quality of his scripts but he still managed to make some of the best British films of the period, this being one of them. Although well-played the Albert Finney remake doesn't come close. -
bob the moo29 December 2005On the last few days of term, a new tutor comes to a boys school to familiarise himself with his new position. He meets his outgoing predecessor and sits in a class with the feared Crocker-Harris, or "Croc" as he is known by the boys. Crocker-Harris is on his way out on accounts of his health and the general impression is that he will not be missed. Inside though, he knows that he has failed because he allowed himself to become hardened to the craft of teaching, allowing his frustrations with his professional and personal life to come out in the classroom. The attention and innocent kindness of student Taplow brings him to a feel more than he normally allows.
With the manners and approach of Crocker-Harris not something that makes sense or is relatable within my generation (or my workplace!) this film was not the easiest to get into and required it to go passed the period and into the characters of the piece. Thankfully it does this very well and, by producing convincing and interesting characters it transcends the drawbacks of the period. The story is based around the portrayal and eventual development of Crocker-Harris as a broken man who has retreated behind his shield of rules, manners and discipline as a way of masking the hurt he feels from others and, more importantly, himself. The script and play by Rattigan bring this out marvellously and produce not so much a narrative as a journey into a man we meet as his pupils see him. The story takes it gradually and the writing is strong enough to make the main characters convincing. The side characters are less people and more narrative drivers but this doesn't really matter because it is such a fine character piece. Some viewers may struggle to see this film in the period it was written and will probably lose patience with both it and Crocker-Harris, but it is their mistake and their loss.
With such fine writing the performances needed to step up and mostly they do. Redgrave was a little too buttoned up for my taste but mostly he works really well. His sadness is too well hidden behind his proper performance but this is too his credit for being convincing rather than easily wearing his hurt on his sleeve. Jean Kent is just as good but in a more obvious way she is bitter and evil but yet I totally bought her as a character. Patrick is OK as a side-issue while support from Hyde-White and the young Smith is enjoyably strong. This viewer also enjoyed an early appearance in a small role from the sturdy Bill Travers.
Overall an enjoyable character piece that is convincingly written by the original writer. The main performances match the standard and produce a strong version of the play that I found engaging, thoughtful and ultimately quite moving. The time period and conventions may have moved on for the vast majority of us but the main character transcends this and makes the film well worth seeing. -
SAMTHEBESTEST8 January 2023The Browning Version (1951) : Brief Review -
Unlike anything you'd ever seen in a teacher-drama, and likely to be one of its own kind. I didn't know that British cinema, which has given us so many out-of-state humorous flicks in the 50s, could have something serious like this to offer the cinema lovers' fraternity. When I have to recall the best schoolteacher dramas, the first thing that comes to mind is "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" (1939). And this film even has a reference to that-only to show how completely opposite it was. The film is about Andrew Crocker-Harris, a cold-hearted school teacher who is afflicted with a heart ailment and an unfaithful wife. His interest in his pupils wanes as he looks towards his final days of employment and starts off on a new journey in the late days of life. Terence Rattigan's writing is really powerful as it deals with certain extreme points such as solitude, compassion, love, sacrifice, betrayal, pity, strain, and the dark secrets of life. Such a classic mix he made. One has to admire the writing more than anything else here, as it gathers so many classic features in 90 minutes. The screenplay doesn't give you a moment to blink. How quickly it takes off and you don't even realise when you become a part of it. The second best thing has to be the extremely committed performances of all the actors, especially Michael Redgrave. The Cannes Film Festival was right to pick him as the best actor. He deserved it like, by far, by a wide margin-no competition at all. Jean Kent's unfaithful wife is as good as any legendary actress of the time, whereas Nigel Patrick is too good in his superbly written character. He is neither bad nor good, and how often do we see the supporting characters written so beautifully? Brian Smith may be a kid, but he was a grown-up actor for sure. Anthony Asquith's grip over the narrative is unshakeable. It's a painful film to watch, but believe me, it was a more difficult film to make, and Anthony did exceptionally well.
RATING - 7.5/10*
By - #samthebestest. -
Meganeguard13 September 2006A once brilliant and promising scholar of the literature of ancient Greece Andrew Crocker-Harris became a schoolmaster for a prominent British prep-school eighteen years ago. However, although he had high aspirations that his career would continually advance, he has been stuck in the same job for his entire career. At one point in time Crocker-Harris loved the literature he taught and wanted to imbue his students with the love of Greek Literature. Yet because of his dry humorless nature, his students began to lose interest in what he had to say and so he just went through the movements of teaching without really caring if his students learned or not. At one point he enjoyed the fact that his students laughed at his odd vocalizations and mannerisms, but that faded as well and Crocker-Harris became viewed as a humorless Himmler-esquire man. Now with his health fading and his marriage on the rocks, Crocker-Harris is going to retire from his present institution and go to a school for less than upstanding students, and it seems that his present colleagues and students could not care less. However, this might not be entirely so, because he has one student, Taplow, who seems to have a bit more interest in the old curmudgeon.
On the same day he learns that he will not receive a pension for all of his years of teaching and that he has been asked to speak next to last instead of last at a reception, Crocker-Harris receives the Robert Browning's translation of Aeschylus's Agamemnon from Taplow and his stony visage crumbles. However, even this bit of pleasure might be taken away from him The Browning Version is one of those films that I knew that I wanted to watch when I saw the cover of the box. I am not exactly sure why, but the stoic visage of Crocker-Harris, Michael Redgrave, just piqued my curiosity and I am glad it did because this is a spectacular yet heartbreaking film. Please do check it out if you get the chance. Redgrave's acting job is one of the best that I have ever seen. -
nabokov9524 July 2013Firstly, I'm a Rattigan fan. Separate Tables (1958), although it hasn't aged well, is still one of my top ten films. I came to The Browning Vesion late, first hearing it as a radio adaptation. The radio adaptation was faithful to the theatre script in every detail and I was genuinely disappointed by the abrupt (and seemingly anti-climactic) ending when the script appeared to be heading towards a more dramatic resolution of themes. In the play the resolution is left to the imagination. The film goes beyond the play and adds the much anticipated ending. Unfortunately, for me, it didn't work. It seemed contrived and unrealistic, tacked on in an attempt to satisfy a cinema going audience. I'm sure Rattigan himself was well aware of the dilemma. Crocker-Harris' last line in the play is "An anti-climax can be surprisingly effective". While I can understand the studio's concerns I think I have to agree with Crocker-Harris and wish the film makers had had the courage to end this film on the same line.
-
The Browning Version tells the story of a teacher, once a brilliant young scholar, on the day before his retirement. He slowly realizes that he has been a failure, but with that realization comes a form of redemption. Michael Redgrave gives perhaps his best screen performance: a virtuoso lesson in the subtle creation of character. You must watch the short interview with Redgrave to appreciate how astonishing the performance is. The is the original movie version of The Browning Version (the playwright Terence Rattigan also wrote the screenplay) and it has aged better than many of its contemporaries. Even most of the supporting actors managed not to look too dated.
-
moonspinner5512 September 2011Terence Rattigan adapted his acclaimed one-act play about a humorless professor at a British school for boys realizing some awful truths about his life on the eve of his retirement from the institution: his embittered wife holds him in contempt (and has been carrying on an affair with one of his fellow teachers), while the headmaster of the school cannot wait to sweep him under the carpet. Michael Redgrave gives great shading to this lanky man with the puny spirit; though, at times, the actor sounds as if he's just swallowed John Gielgud, he is nothing short of fascinating to watch, even in the climactic moments when this adaptation becomes a curiously showy piece of grandstanding for the character. The relationship between Redgrave's Crocker-Harris and his students is left a bit unclear; they tolerate him and complain behind his back, but we don't sense the sort of give-and-take which would make the finale plausible. Jean Kent (as Mrs. Crocker-Harris, with her condescending eyes), handsome Nigel Patrick, and young Brian Smith are excellent in support. Remade in 1994 with Albert Finney in the lead. **1/2 from ****
-
fcasnette12 December 2005you have to get past the time and place and mores of when this film was made. Yes, it seems old fashioned now, with a type of 'British Film' acting that seems arch, but at least we have clear diction and projection, and intelligent dialogue little seen nowadays.
All the performances are first rate, from the 'foot in mouth' gauche newbie teacher who realises his embarrassing mistake, to the repentant Nigel Patrick who puts across genuine regret and regains his humanity and dignity in his insistence to meet up with Crocker-Harris to show some support and kindness to the downtrodden man, and Wilfred Hyde-White doing a wily turn as a most despicable head-master, willing to tread on anybody for his own ends with the smoothness of the arch bureaucrat manipulator.
Jean Kent does a fine wicked-witch, and although you can see that this character has been downtrodden and needs love and redemption as much as Crocker-Harris it is strange that we are manipulated into seeing her as the worst character in the tragedy, maybe Rattigan's homosexuality had something to do with this aspect of the script. But she is presented as cruel, manipulating, and false in public without the redeeming feature of some higher yearning, in the vein of Crocker's poetry and culture, and her search for love without a wider horizon than hanging on to and manipulating her lover, so maybe the character's eviction from the possibility of some kind of paradise is deserved.
But Redgrave towers above them all, and it is a remarkable achievement to get us to feel for this horribly repressed character who attains his own kind of peace and redemption by laying bare his soul in public at the end, and is rewarded by the recognition of the boys, the young seeing genuine honesty before the stunned adults - and the horrible head-master failing to quell the applause put in his true place in the scheme of things at last.
So accept the old-fashioned milieu and be thankful that a Hollywood schmaltz version has not been made, because movies of this bare tearing apart of the human soul and condition are few and far between nowadays, and Redgrave's performance a master class in itself of redemption on earth with dignity and feeling without seeming to act, let alone a million miles away from falling into the trap of over-acting.... brilliant stuff.