So Red the Rose

So Red the Rose is yet another civil war drama, this time from Paramount, and starring Margaret Sullavan, Randolph Scott, Elizabeth Patterson, Janet Beecher, Walter Connolly, and Robert Cummings. I guess I never realized that Cummings started out so early, and in small roles. He's not very good.

This family, the Bedfords, has it a little tougher than the Tara group, though what went on in GWTW was pretty harrowing. This film focuses on the loss of family members, and slaves rebelling, although the family is shown here as being loving and supportive.

Their treatment is very typical Hollywood, though it is true that some slaves were well treated, learned to read, etc., which is no justification for it. But they want their freedom, and they hear it's coming. On the day the rebellion was filmed, 500 African Americans were needed. So it was filmed during a city-wide "Maid's Day Off" in Los Angeles.

What Sullavan says to the slaves who want to quit is interesting and actually realistic. Slavery, she says, is at an end, and you'll be free. But what are you free to do? Are you promised land? Freedom means you work for wages or for yourself.

This actually is a good handle on the issues faced during Reconstruction. This topic is not shied away from in "So Red the Rose" at all.

In the beginning, I almost turned this off because it was so over the top. Margaret Sullavan as Vallette flounces around in what looks like a parody of an antebellum gown. And the accents - yikes. Cummings is a friend of Vallette's brother - his performance is just too big.

Randolph Scott plays a distant cousin who objects to the war and refuses to fight. Vallette is in love with him, but he is focused on other things.

All in all, a darker film, though one is less attached to the characters as we are in Gone with the Wind. What I like about both Wind and Rose is that it shows that the way of life of southerners changed within minutes. And they weren't prepared for what it meant.

As a huge fan of director King Vidor's work, and of the genre, I was eager to see SO RED THE ROSE. It took me years to find this obscure film, and now I understand why.

The worst and most glaring flaw is the superficial character development throughout. I never once cared about the romance presented in this Civil War melodrama. There is no depth or soul to this production. The cinematography, score, costumes, and set design all seem like a TV production from the 1950s and not the glossy prestige film this should have been.

There are no moments of poetic brilliance, nothing profound in the script, and the slave stereotypes are offensive even by the standards of the time. I have a hard time believing King Vidor directed this mess, because his trademark sensitivity, intelligence, and masterful touches are completely absent from the production.

As far as good Civil War romances go, I think you know which one to watch, but may I also recommend OPERATOR 13 with Marion Davies and Gary Cooper. That is the obscure classic you are looking for.

I have wanted to see this film since I was a teenager. It took twenty years to see it and it was not worth the wait. The plot lacked depth and there was not any real character development. The best thing about the movie was Margaret Sullivan. She put in a good performance on something that was dry and lacked life. Despite saying this, the film deserves to be available to audiences through VHS or DVD or late night TV viewing. All classics should be there for the public to enjoy or hate. It seems to have remained a film almost no one has seen due to the racial images and messages portrayed in the film. However, many viewers are adults and know they are watching a film from the 1930s.

Interesting seeing the 25 year old Robert Cummings acting alongside Randolph Scott. I didn't believe his Southern accent, but he demonstrated that he could ride a horse. I don't think Westerns are his forte. Scott, however, put in a good performance. It really does depend on who is directing him which determines what performance you get. Sometimes he's wooden and bland. Other times he can be dark and deep. His best performances is when he is an antagonist or displaying a bit of menace. Margaret Sullavan may have been popular in the 30s and good friends with James Stewart, but she doesn't stand the test of time like Maureen O'Sullivan. She doesn't add much to this film, and the film itself is a bit weak. However, it does give a voice and screen-time to African- American characters and actors.

This movie seems to end just when it should begin. This story of the old South cannot fail to be compared with "Gone With the Wind", as it tells the story of a Southern family just before, during and just after the Civil War. The house even looks like Tara. But "So Red the Rose" finishes way too early and with an awful abruptness. Vidor has just begun to explore the ambiguities of the Civil War when the music swells and it's all over. With his characteristic humanism he looks at the conflict amongst the newly freed slaves - what do they do with this freedom? How will they eat? And must they now hate their former masters even those they once loved? And there are conflicts amongst the white folks too - especially when an innocent young Yankee asks the family for help. Can they allow this boy to be hanged? Is he not just like the son they lost? But before Vidor can really explore these issues the film is over.

Strong performances from Margaret Sullavan, Walter Connolly, Elizabeth Patterson and especially Janet Beecher give the film a solid base - and Vidor's technical skill and Victor Milner's cinematography give the film beauty. But it is Vidor's humanism that gives it heart. He was a remarkable artist - much over-looked by film historians. "So Red the Rose" is not a great film, but it is a remarkable one.