Vintage Wine

For me this has a period charm all of its own. I found the comedy, especially that of Seymour Hicks to be in some ways surprisingly modern. The plot is utterly absurd and all the better for it. It is played full force and everyone looks to be thoroughly enjoying themselves. It's an early film, and not on a huge budget but just go with the flow and you'll enjoy it as it relentlessly pokes fun at the generation gap - all four of them!

Seymour Hicks' elderly sons think he is losing it at 62. He lives in Rome, instead of the ancestral champagne estates, has a mistress and has squandered a third of his fortune. They conspire with his mother to trap him on the estate with them as guardians. Little do they know the reality: he is married to Claire Luce, who thinks him 45 and they have a six- month-old son.

It's an amusing situation and Seymour Hicks -- best remembered these days for playing Scrooge for forty years on the stage and twice on film -- plays it to the hilt, full of twitches, while Miss Luce plays a veddy English Sicilian girl. The standout performance is Eva Moore as Hicks' mother.

It's a three-act stage comedy, opened out with some tracking shots and you may downgrade it slightly for that. However, this cut-glass farce is played impeccably by practiced hands and kept me laughing when I first saw it (when I was 62).

A vintage British comedy of the Poinot family led by elderly matriarch Josephine Popinot.

They are a wealthy French family who make champagne. Concerns are raised as her son Charles Popinot (Seymour Hicks) as been living it up with a mistress in Rome.

Josephine plans to travel to Rome to have a showdown and maybe wrest control back of the family business from Charles.

Only Charles does not have a mistress. He has a wife of two year who has also given him an infant son.

The trouble is his wife thinks that Charles is in his 40s. He is in his 60s, has two grown up children and a granddaughter.

The truth comes out when they all arrive in Rome. It leaves Charles in the dog house with his wife and his mother.

Adapted from a stage play, this is a farce but it does not really translate well on film. It is amiable enough and fast moving.

Claire Luce was a favorite of Fred Astaire, playing across from him onstage in 'The Gay Divorcee.' Tragically she suffered a terrible accident in the famous table routine at the end of that play and never danced again. Legend has it that Astaire pushed hard to get Claire to play the movie with him, but this is difficult to believe since it was widely known she could no longer dance at all. Pandro Berman, RKO's producer, had seen that play and bought the book to make into a film and regardless of Fred's memory of events, Berman placed Ginger Rogers in the famous role (Rogers, too, had a bad fall in that same routine). Watching Claire in films like 'Vintage Wine' makes it obvious that Berman made the right choice; she doesn't have the ability to take over scenes, and her glamor shots simply aren't glamorous. Had RKO had made this film in Hollywood instead of in England, there would have been at least 10 actresses who would have gotten this role before Claire. She could act, but she had a slight screen presence and a heavy tread. Eva Moore completely outshines her. Regardless of Astaire's views, it's easy to see why she had a very, very short film career.

There are some of good ideas in 'Vintage Wine' but they're often wasted - like the guardian, assigned by the court, who simply disappears and is never heard from again.

These kinds of films were made to meet British regulatory environment - RKO had to make a certain number of films in England in order to sell their movies in England. This movie is very slow, very English, and quite likely it played the late night run in theaters and promptly vanished. And yet it is full of interesting ideas, worth watching once, although not for any of the acting.

One truly wishes for one of the great Hollywood actresses of that day - Harlow, Loy, Rogers, Dunne, Hopkins or one of the Bennetts - across from say, Francis X. Bushman.

A 62-year-old man's who has fooled his much younger wife into believing he is only 45 fears the worst when he discovers that his overbearing relatives are coming to visit. Seymour Hicks - remembered, if at all, for his portrayal of Scrooge in 1935 - is the best thing about this silly farce, which he tries hard to lift above the level of mediocrity. It starts brightly, but the ageing husband's secret is revealed too early, leaving the plot with nowhere to go for the last half-hour.