21 Days Together

Although released in 1940 this picture was made in 1937, well before Leigh and Olivier were married. Producer Alexander Korda intended it as a career-boosting role for Leigh but, for whatever reasons, it was put-aside. Columbia bought the property in 1939 and released it after Leigh's success in "Gone with the wind".

The 1937 date explains what must seem to be an anomaly for modern audiences - the sympathetic treatment of the "Axis" characters, ie the German landlord and the Italian grocer.

Well-worth watching - the depth of talent in the supporting roles (Francis L Sullivan, Hay Petrie, Robert Newton etc) is notable.

But not much plot. This was obviously a vehicle for its stars who were married at the time. Lawrence Olivier is quite wooden and stagey, Vivien glows, the camera just loves her. The story is a neat twist on ethics and morality with the wayward no-good brother standing firm for honesty and the uptight, successful barrister brother - on his way to becoming a judge - ready to hang an innocent man for a crime he did not commit. The twenty one days refer to the length of time the trial of this innocent man is going to take. The technical quality of the film was poor, the background of London was nearly washed out and the streets were obviously studio sets, not surprising, as it was filmed at the start of WW2. 5 out of 10, the ending was a bit of a let down and Larry really hams it up.

Of all the dramas that have ever graced the Silver Screen, some are better than others. Save for the very noteworthy cast, I don't know that there's anything so remarkable about '21 days' as to demand viewership. Yet its tale is suitably compelling to keep one watching, with surprising variety and balance squeezed into only 72 minutes. I didn't necessarily expect much when I sat to watch, but ultimately I find myself quite pleased with just how good this is.

Weirdly enough all the most significant characters are sympathetic in one fashion to another, if to different degrees: Wanda, the innocent romantic; Larry, the conflicted lover; Keith, the upstanding citizen and loyal brother; John Evan, the extraordinarily guilt-ridden vagrant. The dynamics between these characters, and the law's investigation of a homicide, provide all the fuel necessary for a slight but delicious film. Even outside those principle characters, other supporting figures are given delightful quirks to help them stand out. The dialogue is quite smart at points, as is the scene writing, and the narrative at large offers a tad more complexity than one might commonly assume of titles form this era, especially those of such relatively abbreviated length. Through to the very end '21 days' rather successfully inculcates minor airs of tension and suspense. My commendations to director Basil Dean and co-writer Graham Greene, for their adapted screenplay is richer than I supposed from the outside looking in.

True, there are tinges of ham-handedness at points that are a little excessive. The transitions that the editors employ are a bit needlessly embellished. Yet these seem like such minor considerations in the grand scheme of things, especially when the whole is broadly so engaging and satisfying. Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier have splendid chemistry and give noteworthy performances in what are the two chief roles; Leslie Banks and other co-stars are steady presences. Dean's direction is firm and mindful, neatly complementing his writing, and all facets of the production contributed from behind the scenes are just swell. This may be a picture in which the storytelling is specifically the key, but no one involved was a slouch by any means.

Again, this may not be an absolute must-see, or something to go out of your way to see. It's entertaining and very deserving, but perhaps not so grabbing as to be an essential drama. All the same, I'm pleasantly surprised by how well done the feature is, and how enjoyable. If you do have the chance to check out '21 days, then as far as I'm concerned this is well worth a mere 72 minutes of one's time.

he film begins with two happy lovers (Laurence Olivier and Vivian Leigh) returning to her home. There, waiting for her is her husband--a man who she hasn't seen in three years. He demands money and then attacks Olivier--trying to stab him. In self-defense, Olivier kills the husband and dumps his body in an alley. He then visits his brother, a respected judge (Leslie Banks) and confesses. However, the brother surprisingly does NOT want him to go the police--which is odd, since it was a case of self-defense. It seems that he doesn't want this dirty laundry to be aired in public. For a time, things appear fine...until some other guy is arrested for the killing. Olivier cannot allow this to happen but his brother encourages him to be quiet--the defendant is sure to be found innocent. But, as the trial progresses, things look worse and worse for the defendant. And, all the while his brother, a respected judge, encourages the couple to leave the country and forget about the case. The problem is that Olivier's character has character--much more than his supposedly upright and respectable brother.

While the story is very simple and relatively easy to predict (though the ending was a bit of a twist), I liked the idea of two brothers who appear one way but are the opposite. Olivier's character is a bit of a rotter--gambling and living a rather frivolous life--but down deep, he has a conscience. His proper brother, however, is truly evil and can live with an innocent man being convicted and hung! Because it is a very good film, it is perplexing why Gainsborough Pictures shelved this movie for three years before finally releasing it. I'd love to know why.

You'll get hooked on this right away but then annoyed at the way it takes so long to get to the point. Director, Basil Dean's lugubrious pace and humourless direction tries too hard to build tension rather than developing the story or making us get to know his cast.

According to Mr Dean he was not entirely to blame. Studio boss Alexander Korda was so underwhelmed by Dean's direction that he started to re-shoot and rewrite scenes himself. This conflict gives the picture a disjointed feel but the main issue is that the balance is really wrong. About half the film is taken up by the (anti) climatic court case which is meant to get you on the edge of your seat. It achieves that ambition but only because you're yelling "get on with it!" This is one of the dullest court room scenes I've seen - where is William Powell or a Barrymore brother when you need them ? What's sacrificed for this pseudo-arty tension trope is that we don't get time to know the characters straight away. More time should have been devoted to that because it takes too long to draw you in.

On the plus side, it looks good, it's full of mood, clever lighting and the inevitable 1930s London fog - the camerawork also is pretty impressive. The acting, as you'd expect from this lot is first rate but it's the story which doesn't grab you. Such a tale about abuse, murder, deception and blackmail handled by another director could have been the most exciting thing since sliced bread but this is actually less exciting than that aforementioned piece of bread.

What does eventually makes you sit up and take notice is the brilliant cameo from Hay Petrie as a down and out ex-vicar. You then wish you'd been paying more attention earlier! That's what happens with this - once you've started you really want to find out what happens next but your brain keeps trying to switch off.

Despite what some reviewers have said, this is not a bad film - it's just frustrating because you know that it could have been made better. For example, had Hitchcock been in the chair this might have been a classic. As it stands it's just ok.

One interesting thing to see is Mr Olivier not playing the alpha male - as the weak willed looser, the unsuccessful brother, he's remarkably believable. That's until you realise that this young actor has, just a few weeks earlier married probably the most beautiful woman in the world.