L'Esprit s'amuse

Blithe Spirit, loosely based on Noel Coward's classic farce. We have Dan Stevens as a writer who's trying to turn his novel into a screenplay. He has an empty-headed wife (Isla Fsher) who swans about the estate. With friends, they go to see a show Madame Arcati (Judi Dench) is putting on, but her act goes wrong and she's exposed as a phony. Because Stevens is thinking a lot about his dead first wife (Leslie Mann) he gets Arcati to come to the house (a sprawling art deco thing) for a seance. Of course she summons the dead wife who, although it's 1937, has a #metoo sensibility.

Things turn slapsticky, and although the stars try hard, it doesn't work. One moment the ghosty wife can't slap Stevens because she's only ectoplasm but the next minute she can play a piano. Worst of all is the version of Arcati. Dench plays her as an aggrieved victim who's sham has been discovered and she's resentful. Bleh. The various Arcati's of film, TV, and stage, have generally played her as a swooping eccentric who's on the dotty side: Margaret Rutherford, Mildred Natwick, Ruth Gordon, Angela Lansbury, Penelope Keith.

This version plays like a sitcom, with the three main characters as madcaps and Dench's shuffling dud of a medium as an unfunny subplot.

Any time we see a movie, we have to suspend disbelief in order to get into the fictional world of a film (that's not a documentary). The huge problem with Blithe Spirit is that much of it was so unbelievable as to make it almost impossible to suspend disbelief and therefore impossible to watch.

Basically, the main theme of this version of Noel Coward's play, is that after the main male character's deceased ex-wife is summoned forth from a medium who's supposed to be a fraud (Judi Dench), said deceased ex-wife sets out to get between her former husband and his now (living) wife. For me, the big problem here was that the husband, a crime-writer, acts in such a stupid and irrational way that the whole film just seems ridiculous. Plus, the former wife, played to the hilt by Leslie Mann, was a stereotype of the vengeful scorned wife, even though anyone who is rational would recognize that that's not what she really was.

Specifically, once he has "seen" the ghost of his former wife and realizes others don't see her, he should have altered his behavior accordingly. Instead he keeps repeating the same moronic behavior over and over which just served to make me angry. Did the director and/or scriptwriter really think an audience would go for this?

Despite this major flaw, the film was visually engaging and busy enough to keep me watching despite my annoyance.

The only levels on which this adaptation succeeds is that it opens the play up so it feels less theatrical. However the new script on retains only a scattering of the Noel Coward dialogue and the new stuff makes all the characters unlikable and tedious. They've even made Madame Arcati's character far less quirky and quite bland. Can't image who the makers think this will appeal to. Traditional Coward fans will hate it and it has nothing to recommend it to anyone else.

Blithe Sprit

So many reviews on here fail to just get it, this play/farce was written by Noel Coward, in 1941 as an antidote to WW2 and presented on the West End stage. Noel Coward very much in the style of Oscar Wilde writes light whimsical repartee between the characters and it really is a celebration of language.

This movie, set in the 1937, just does not tick the boxes that light up modern audiences. This is a most unfair way to judge it, the plot was well executed, the acting crisp, with a light touch delivery was really quite splendid.

It your looking for a car chase, criminal masterminds and superheroes in spandex look elsewhere.

I'm giving this a jolly well done 7

Not a patch on the 1945 version I'm afraid. Even the wonderful Judi Dench can't match Margaret Rutherford as Madame Arcati and sadly Dan Stevens is nowhere near as sauve as Rex Harrison. Elvira seems quite horrible as opposed to mischievous. A case of style over substance.