The Browning Version

I do not think the 1994 remake is so appalling.But it cannot hold a candle to this one,for sure,though.Part of the reason can be found,IMHO,in how the two directors deal with the main character.THe color version gambles on Albert Finney's performance and overlooks the rest of the cast which is not that much exciting in the first place (M.Modine is rather bland).Here ,the whole cast is outstanding ,from the young guy who plays the student to Jean Kent,a bitchy wife ,from Nigel Patrick's bewildered science teacher who becomes a human being during the movie to Wilfrid Hyde-White's (whatever a precedent user's view on the matter)mischievous,suave and finally cruel headmaster.

Of course Michael Redgrave steals the show ,but he gets good support all along the way.His performance is subdued,but emotionally intense ,and if you do not shed a tear during his final speech,you must have a heart of stone.The black and white cinematography and the stifling atmosphere give the tragedy the three unities (place,time and action) and an inventive directing makes us forget it's a play,like in the best Mankiewicz works.

The 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.

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.

This 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.

Michael 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.