The Plough and the Stars

If you like Ireland, Irish history & literature, the traditions of the Irish people & the ambiguous creation of the Irish nation -- what's not to like about this movie? Sure, now, it's more John Ford than Sean O'Casey. But what would you be expectin from John Ford at the height of his creative spirit -- four years before he filmed "Grapes of Wrath"? Almost everyone in this movie plays their part with pungent efficiency. It's old-fashioned acting of the best sort. As movie, this is much more cinema of ideas, of belief & revolution, of theater, of language & gesture & non-verbal communication -- than our contemporary cinema of special effects and technicolor sensations. This movie is political entertainment of a very fine order; with as much said by the words as by what is shown. But how many people alive now can relate to it with the potency it must of had back in the 1930s?

Made as a follow up to the hugely successful THE INFORMER, John Ford's much maligned screen version of THE PLOUGH AND THE STARS has long been regarded as one of his worst films.

I finally saw this film tonight, thanks to the wonderful Talking Pictures TV Channnel here in England.

My Iriish-born father loathed this film because he said it was a travesty of O'Casey's play and just a Hollywood fiction of the Easter uprising.

Well I read all the reviews here expecting the worst.

But, I was amazed to watch a print of this film that bore NO relation to that described in the reviews posted here! There was no newsreel footage interpolated, no unfortunate added narration whatsoever and no extra footage by other directors to explain the marriage of Stanwyck & Foster's marriage! What gives? What I saw was obviously a genuine John Ford film, beautifully directed and photographed, with many of his trademark camera set ups, close ups and scene compositions. His usual flair for narrative and the many subtle visual trademarks did not indicate a hatchet job by RKO.

The whole thing had an understated poetic quality and the pace and fluidity were striking.

So what was I looking at? A pre-release print that had somehow survived in the UK but not in the RKO archives in LA? It was certainly no turkey and even Stanwyck impressed me - her lack of accent did not matter, because Ford (in this print at least) let her face do all the acting for her. And she was great! Barry Fitzgerald was clearly doing a warm up for his role in THE QUIET MAN, but the remaining Abbey Players were all fine and I believe acted large portions of O'Casey's dialogue intact. I do not have a copy of the play to make a comparison but will seek it out.

Una O'Connor showed what a fine dramatic actress she was in Ireland before she found fame in Hollywood. Even Preston Foster demonstrated an impressive restraint and was highly impressive.

Ford did not have Max Steiner for this film (as he had on THE INFORMER and THE LOST PATROL) but Roy Webb did a fine job with a highly dramatic and vivid music score throughout.

But what of the source print? Are there really two extant versions of this film? If so, I think I watched the long lost "Director's Cut" tonight! How exciting!

The harnessing of crudely stereotypical Irish characters to the tale of the Easter uprising of 1916 makes for forgettable viewing. It departed so drastically from director John Ford's vision that he stormed off the set, leaving his assistant directors to finish the film. Barbara Stanwyck tries her best, but her task is hopeless as she's given nothing to do other than beg rebel husband Preston Foster to lay down his arms.

Sean O'Casey's drama of the Easter Rising doesn't survive its transformation to the screen. Director John Ford was reputed to be so angry over front office interference on his passion project that he walked off and never returned.

While Joe August's lighting and the serio-comic performance of Barry Fitgerald are wonders to behold - he edged basically the same character a little more to the clown for The Quiet Man - something has gone desperately wrong with the movement between the interior scenes, where the play takes place and the exterior, where it's opened up. Given that Ford was working with his pet screenwriter Dudley Nichols, and a couple of titles explain what is going on, it looks like butchery to me. I'd guess the studio heads were concerned about losing the British market. As if they had ever expected this to play big in Blighty.

Barbara Stanwyck is also a problem here. While visually she is perfect, she can't sling the lingo, and her occasional attempts to do an Irish accent are pathetic. It's particularly awkward when the scene shifts from her to the Abbey Players.

John Ford made most of his films for Twentieth Century Fox and perhaps much of it was because the studio let the director do what he wanted. After all, he was a proved commodity--an Oscar-winning director with a great track record. But with this film he did for RKO, apparently Ford was NOT thrilled and even walked off...forcing the studio to finish the film without him due to creative differences. Ford apparently hated the final product.

I am not sure why Ford was so disenchanted with the project, but I would hazard to guess that at least some of his disgust was the decision to cast Barbara Stanwyck in the lead. Now I do not have anything against her...she was a fine actress. But the film is about Ireland and she sounds absolutely nothing like an Irish woman...nothing. Heck, Hattie McDaniel would have been about as convincing in this role! She couldn't even approximate the accent...and in most of the film she didn't seem to try. Her character was also extremely whiny...too much so. As for the other co-star, Preston Foster, he was much more convincing and was well cast. So for me, this was a HUGE strike against the movie at the onset.

When the film begins, you learn that Nora (Stanwyck) has hidden a letter that arrived for her husband, Jack (Foster). The letter was appointing him a leader in the Irish militia...and soon they would be involved in the infamous Easter Uprising. Well, Nora is NOT the patriotic sort and is actually rather selfish--and she later begs him not to join in the fighting and to reject his appointment. Jack is not about to do this, as he's a loyal patriot.

Much of the rest of the film is made up of the rebellion as well as its aftermath--most of which time Nora whines and complains and seems to care not one bit about her native land...which is pretty weird and pretty despicable. In fact, her character and performance were pretty awful and the film left me wanting to see her get killed or at least horse whipped. And, even more oddly, the film ends this way...with Nora whining and having no care about the deaths of others or her Republic. I have no idea WHAT the point of the film was...and I could see how audiences left confused and unsatisfied. A rather terrible film, actually...