Flor de mayo

Four unhappy women leave dreary London to spend an ENCHANTED APRIL in a castle on the coast of Italy.

Elizabeth von Arnim's novel comes alive in this charming little film which beautifully demonstrates the virtues of a literate script and ensemble acting. All the elements come together to produce a movie that, although nearly forgotten now, still produces a feeling of appreciation at the story's appropriate resolution.

The actresses each acquit themselves splendidly. Ann Harding is the free-spirited wife longing for 'wisteria & tranquillity' far from foggy London. Katharine Alexander plays the quiet housewife wishing for the elegant responsibility of acting as hostess in the castle. Jane Baxter is the beautiful young noblewoman temporarily escaped from her throng of male admirers. Jessie Ralph steals every scene she's in as an old lady wanting only to be alone with her memories of the past.

The men in the story are also well cast. As Miss Harding's husband, Frank Morgan has a rather complex role as a mousy researcher who has a disturbing personality change when he becomes a successful writer. Reginald Owen, as Miss Alexander's spouse, is marvelously pompous as a man well equipped to bore for England (his hilarious attempt to take an English bath in an Italian bathtub is made even funnier with the assistance of Charles Judels & Rafaela Ottiano as the castle's harried servants). Finally, Ralph Forbes, one of the decade's finest forgotten actors, is joyously eccentric as the ladies' lighthearted landlord.

Movie mavens will recognize an uncredited Ethel Griffies playing the proprietress of the Hampstead Housewives Club.

Many other reviewers inexplicably focus on how the 1935 adaptation of Enchanted April isn't faithful to the 1922 source novel by Elizabeth von Arnim or is somehow inferior to the longer 1991 version. Sadly for them, they're missing the point. Firstly, this is a work complete in and of itself, and neither enhanced nor diminished by specious comparison to a related work. Secondly, it isn't actually based directly on the novel, but the successful 1925 Broadway play that the novel inspired, hence this being a US as opposed to European-made film. A single viewing makes this fact abundantly clear. What's more, at a mere but adequate 95 minutes, the excellent 1991 version is not - and could not - be faithful to the novel either.

What we do have here is an utterly charming and concise little film that, despite its US studio-bound production, effectively establishes both mood and mise-en-scène, especially by clever use of rear projection, matte paintings and spacious, well-appointed sets. Even within the necessarily limited characterisations and plot development dictated to by its abbreviated running time of 66 minutes, it manages to squeeze in much humour, both subtle and slapstick, wry, witty dialogue and an unexpectedly powerful and poignant ending. Lastly, and perhaps most of all, it leaves you wanting more; what more could one ask of any film? Enchanted April is a masterclass in brevity and economy in its storytelling and filmmaking, and is highly recommended to all fans of early talkies.

As for actually seeing it, aside from infrequent TV airings, as of 2017 the best way is via two authorised home video releases from France (Avril enchanté, Editions Montparnasse, 2005) and Spain (Un Abril Encantado, Vértice Cine, 2013). Both region 2 DVDs feature a very clean print from an unconverted NTSC- PAL master, hence its unaltered running time, and optional subtitles. Additionally, the former has an informative 2½ minute intro in French, sans sous-titres; while the latter has a 24-page booklet in Spanish.

You're in for a rare treat - enjoy!

I originally read the book. Later I viewed the 1992 version which you may also want to view.

The film is monochrome and naturally in full-screen format.

At the time of my purchase, this was not available in the U. S., so I purchased from Amazon.fr and I am using a region, free player.

This 1935 version is not as good as the remake and some of the characters are reversed in their ways. However, aside plus which is a lot of fun is recognizing the actors and placing them in other films in which you remember them.

Over the years some people have become more fun and interesting. On the other hand, some become staunch and passionless. It seems that Lottie (Ann Harding) picked the latter to marry. One day at her club she sees an advertisement to rent an Italian villa for a month she shows this to a friend Rose and offers to share the cost.

This leads to a great adventure with the beautiful Italian villa "San Salvatore."

The story is well written and could have been made into a good play as it has all the elements of understanding and misunderstanding. Even some explosive scenes.

There all the characters, looking for a retreat from life, find each other again; for some the first time. You will find yourself wanting it to go on.

This version of "Enchanted April" isn't as ethereal or delightful as the 1992 version, but it does has a certain charm. Mainly conceived as a vehicle for Ann Harding (who was a big star in the mid-thirties, but not well-remembered today), the pacing is somewhat slow and almost appears to be a filmed stage play. We don't "see" and "feel" the changes everyone undergoes as a result of staying in the Italian villa (as we do in the remake), but Ann Harding does her best to get that point across. She is ethereal and pretty, and her "hothouse flower" talent would seem well-suited to the part. It's interesting to compare the two versions and see how the 1992 version managed to successfully capture the flavor of the period without sacrificing anything to a modern movie-going audience's baser expectations for entertainment. See both versions!

I had been delighted to find that TCM was showing this, as I love the 1992 version with Josie Lawrence, Jim Broadbent, Joan Plowright...This film had a luminous Ann Harding, a wonderful performance by Frank Morgan, but others' acting made the film more of a farce then the wonderful unfolding that the later film. Reginald Owen's Arbuthnot is painful to watch and you can't understand why his wife adores him. I found out after watching the film that it was based on the stage play where the 1992 film is based on the book. The original film also felt like it was a snippet of a larger piece and felt incomplete. Too bad it was such a let-down.