David Murdock Column: On old movies ... one more time
For reasons I’ll have to explain another time, I’ve been reading “old” books and watching “old” movies again. Specifically, I’ve been indulging in English books of the mid-20th century, but I watched a Hollywood movie from 1942 last weekend that really affected me.
The movie in question was “Mrs. Miniver,” starring Greer Garson in the title role, with Walter Pidgeon as her husband and Teresa Wright as her daughter-in-law. Directed by William Wyler, it was nominated for 12 Academy Awards, winning six of them — including Best Picture, Best Actress for Garson, Best Director for Wyler and Best Supporting Actress for Wright.
I’d never seen it. How I missed such a wonderful movie, I have no idea. Why I watched it last weekend is clearer: It was mentioned a time or two in other things I was reading, along with glowing recommendations. So, I watched it on a bit of a whim, an impulse.
Watching old movies is always a revelation for me. For example, it always strikes me now how different old movies are from ones released in the 2020s. I’ve gone to see two movies at the theater this year; both were set during the mid-20th century, but both were distinctly contemporary in technique and sensibility.
One thing that immediately caught my attention with “Mrs. Miniver” is that I could “make out” what the actors were saying! My friends and I have all noted that movie dialogue is becoming more difficult to make out, and it’s not just us. More than one article I’ve read lately has discussed how moviemakers record sound these days, and even teenagers report that they turn on the closed captioning when watching a movie at home to make out what is being said.
The sound in the last movie I saw in a theater, “Oppenheimer,” was so overpowering that it rattled the theater’s speakers. I could make out less than half of what the actors were saying. Needless to say, that’s annoying.
The other way that contemporary movies differ from old movies is in their sensibility. Filming on “Mrs. Miniver” started when the United States was still neutral in World War II. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and the movie was released in June 1942. It’s sometimes difficult to imagine a time when World War II was being fought, and we weren’t yet involved. The British endured the Nazi German bombing campaign against them — usually called “The Blitz” — largely before we entered the war. The evacuation of British troops from Dunkirk happened before we entered the war. The movie is set largely during that time, and both events are depicted.
“Mrs. Miniver” reflects that time period, a time when we Americans were only beginning to experience the horrors of World War II. I’ll say this: After I watched the movie — especially one scene — I was ready to go fight the Nazis.
The scene to which I refer is when the Vicar delivers a sermon near the end, after the village where the Minivers live has endured a Nazi bombing attack. The sermon choked me up. It’s especially emotional since there is a scene in the church near the beginning of the movie when the Vicar announces that the British have entered the war and does not deliver his intended sermon.
It’s the church setting that got to me: In the first scene set there, the church is whole. In the scene near the end of the movie, the roof of the church is gone and wooden supports hold up the arches. The Vicar delivers his sermon from a hastily-constructed wooden pulpit — I could almost smell the raw wood. Several sources I read mentioned that the Vicar’s sermon was printed and passed out to raise morale among British and American forces during the war.
That’s another thing about World War II we really don’t remember. At the time the movie was released, it was not yet evident that the Allies would win the war. The uncertainty of ultimate victory is evident in movies like “Mrs. Miniver.” However, the certainty of the cause in which we were fighting is also evident.
It’s far too easy, and tempting, to judge the past by the standards of the present. That’s why it’s useful to read and watch not only the “classics” of a period, but what was “popular.” By the way, that explains my next intended read. President Franklin D. Roosevelt made a reference to a largely-forgotten novel from 1933, James Hilton’s “Lost Horizon,” in a cryptic comment he made in 1942 — a comment that entered our public consciousness so much so that we named a World War II aircraft carrier after it, the USS Shangri-La.
The study of history and the study of literature are more similar than we sometimes realize, especially popular literature of the time frame in question. When FDR made that cryptic comment about Shangri-La, the reporters in the room “got it.” The novel had been popular enough that most folks would get it, and his remarks were reported in the newspapers of the time. I’ve always been aware of the source of his comment, but I’ve never bothered reading the novel — it’s time to change that.
Of course, there was a movie made from the novel in 1937, directed by Frank Capra. There’s my next movie!
David Murdock is an English instructor at Gadsden State Community College. He can be contacted at murdockcolumn@yahoo.com. The opinions expressed are his own.
This article originally appeared on The Gadsden Times: David Murdock looks at old movies
