Customer Reviews

The Winslow Boy (1948) [ NON-USA FORMAT, PAL, Reg.2 Import - United Kingdom ]

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This movie is one of the finer examples of 1940's british drama. Robert Donat (Goodbye Mr. Chips/ The Count of Monte Cristo) gives a great double- edged performance as an aloof barrister and as a conscientious member of Parliament. In the House of Commons Donat argues for bringing the case of the accused naval cadet forward, quoting the Magna Carta, "Let right be done." The British Naval Ministry however does not want to set the dangerous precedent of allowing a subject to sue The Crown. Although Robert Donat is the nominal star of the movie he doesn't make his first appearance until 30 minutes into the feature! Margaret Leighton appears as the accused's sister and as a suffragette offers considerable sexual tension between her character and Donat's. Anthony Asquith (Pygmalion/ The Importance of Being Earnest) directs and does a superb job of keeping the story moving.

.

This is a marvelously acted English drama, typical of the genre for its time, but superior in its casting. Based upon the play by Terrence Rattigan, the film takes place in England during the early part of the twentieth century, before the advent of World War I. A thirteen year old Naval cadet is expelled for stealing a postal order. He claims he did not do it, despite seeming evidence to the contrary. His upstanding family stands behind him and supports him. After going to the Naval academy from which he was expelled, where their entreaties fall upon deaf ears, they decide to take the unprecedented step of suing the Crown.

The family retains the services of the well respected barrister, Sir Robert Morton, cooly played with dash by the ever wonderful Robert Donat, who agrees to represent the boy. The case becomes a cause celebre all over England, and Sir Morton's client becomes known as that Winslow boy, a notoriety that shakes the boy's very proper family to its core. While the case wends its way through the British legal system, tension between the boy's intelligent, bluestocking sistersister, beautifully played by the talented Margaret Leighton, and his barrister bubbles to the surface, and the sparks begin to fly.

The old time English courtroom scenes that follow will satisfy all legal beagles and lovers of courtroom drama. The resolution of the suit is somewhat predictable, but enhanced by the delicious wit of the dialogue and the wonderful performances by the entire cast. The movie ends on a note of romantic hope, as it does not lament what might have been between the barrister and the boy's sister, but, instead, augers what is surely to come.

All in all, this is a terrific movie with a stellar cast.

The Winslow Boy tells the story of a family's effort to prove that an English schoolboy has been unjustly expelled from school, on a false charge of taking a postal money order. In recent years, a well-done David Mamet film based on the Terence Rattigan play renewed interest in this work. The Robert Donat 1950 version uses most of the same material to tell the story with an entirely different shading. Donat is masterful as the barrister retained to defend the boy's honor--he is as accomplished in this role as in so many other roles he brought to life. Margaret Leighton, as the boy's elder sister, shimmers in this film, with a cinematic aura lost to actors in this more computer-generated age.

The Winslow Boy story holds the viewer's interest consistently, and the directorial touch here is light and deft. In contrast to the Mamet film, this earlier film is less self-conscious in its effort to tell the "psychological story" of the trauma that fighting for justice imposes upon a family, and more direct about telling a jaunty good tale. But make no mistake--this film tells a simple but effective story about the cost of doing the right thing that resonates fifty years later.

This movie is a grand bit of cinematic magic and a crackling good story. I highly recommend this video.

This is the version of the Terrence Rattigan play that deserves to live on, despite the excellent performances of Nigel Hawthorne and Jeremy Northam in the 1999 version. A somewhat stodgy, filmed-play production suits the stodgily respectable lives of the Winslow family, who find their name--most distastefully--a household word when they pursue a suit to uphold justice and restore their young son's reputation, after he is cashiered from cadet school without benefit of representation. Rather than the complacent and smirking Rebecca Pidgeon as the suffragist daughter Kate, we have the coolly supple Margaret Leighton--witty and self-possessed, but intense in feeling, and thoroughly believable in her willingness to sacrifice what she sees as her one chance at marriage in order to see that right is done. However, the film really belongs to Robert Donat as the famous barrister hired to represent the Winslows, although he makes a late entrance and is seen from afar, as it were, most of the way through the film. Donat achieves a kind of cold splendour in his first scene, in full evening dress and behaving towards the Winslows with an apparent bored indifference. He warms up (just a bit) in subsequent scenes, and there evolves a most delightful and subtle interplay between him and Leighton's Kate--that classic kind of British movie proto-romance in which everything is in small glances and delicate shadings of tone. Unaccountably all of this was dropped in the remake, including the foreshadowing moment when Kate, expecting her fiance to call and throwing open the door to find the barrister standing there, says lightly, "Oh, I'm so sorry, I was expecting a friend." As it turns out, of course, the barrister turns out to be a very good friend indeed to the Winslows and especially to her. Best of all, though, is simply enjoying being under the spell of Donat's grave, otherworldly voice. For those looking to see how versatile this great actor really was, compare him in "The Winslow Boy" to his performances in "The 39 Steps," "The Adventures of Tartu," and "Vacation from Marriage."

David Mamet made a brilliant try to reproduce and enhance the play, but I believe this is the best version. It has a wonderful minor - and yes, I do mean minor - performance by Robert Donat. For me, the central performance is that of the father who absolutely will not give up. His declining health and spirits are no bar to his determination to not let matters rest. When his son is accused of stealing, he stands by him no matter what the cost - and the cost is high. Cedric Hardwicke gives the performance of his life and he has not been equalled. If you have dry eyes at the end, then there is little hope for you. It is a film to be loved and adored.

This film adapts a play by Terence Rattigan, first staged in 1946. The author had a great story. An ordinary citizen battles the British government to gain a fair trial for his son, who has been expelled from a junior naval academy for the crime of stealing.

In the play, the father's crusade is important, but not the main dish. Rather, the focus is on the impact of the crusade on the boy's family circle, and how they respond. Every scene occurs within the home. The whole country may be arguing about the case, but the arguments we hear -- whether the boy is guilty; whether, even if innocent, his expulsion warrants so much fuss -- are made or quoted en famille.

This movie adaptation, on the contrary, moves out into the world where the public fight takes place: in the offices of naval officials, in the British House of Commons, and before the Lord Chief Justice. The approach is exciting, and makes it easy for the audience to follow the stages of the battle. A disadvantage is that it leaves less chance to experience what the play says about people and about life.

Usually, in dramas about battles for justice, a wrong has been done. The business of the action is to right the wrong. However, in Rattigan's play, it is never clear that a wrong has occurred. Although the play helps us believe that Ronnie Winslow did not cash a stolen money order as charged, at least one member of his family thinks he did, and no proof emerges that he did not.

If we assume he was innocent, did the degree of wrong to him warrant the battle waged, and the sacrifices it entailed? There is no indication of animus against Ronnie on the part of the academy, which had strong evidence for thinking him guilty. If their finding was incorrect, it seems a reasonable mistake. Moreover, the boy is happy in another school, and increasingly uninterested in the crusade. In these circumstances, how grave is the wrong? Does it justify the enormous public attention it receives, or the physical, social and financial costs to members of his family?

The play raises these questions stubbornly and extensively. That doesn't halt the action, which perseveres, as often in real life, toward a goal whose worth is uncertain. The movie, focused primarily on winning the battle, tends to pull away from the play's uncertainties. Nevertheless, in one respect it adds to them. When it takes us to court, it shows the family's lawyer running circles, fairly and unfairly, around the opposition. Is a battle for justice, unjustly waged, a battle for justice?

Robert Donat is very good as the family's forensic champion. I might have thought excellent, had I not been spoiled by Ian Richardson's superb (matchless? definitive?) performance of the role in a PBS broadcast of the intact play in 1988. As the father, Cedric Hardwicke is insufficiently forceful and expressive. Margaret Leighton as the daughter is pretty, but insubstantial. Neil North does well as the expelled boy. Cameo appearances by Cyril Ritchard and Stanley Holloway are fun.

Based on an actual event, playwright Terence Rattigan's The Winslow Boy had its London debut in 1946, opened on Broadway in 1947 and was released on film in 1948. Directed by Anthony Asquith, the film stars the great Robert Donat as Sir Robert Morton KC, Cedric Hardwicke as Arthur Winslow, and Margaret Leighton as his radiant daughter, Catherine.

Set on the eve of the first World War, the plot examines a comfortably middle class family whose tranquil existence is shattered when the youngest son, Ronnie, is accused of stealing a postal money order from another cadet at the Naval Academy he attends. The expelled boy protests his innocence and his father begins a lengthy and costly battle to clear his name. Ironically, this fight for right ends up extracting a personal toll from everyone involved except the accused. Mr. Winslow engages the brilliant barrister Morton to defend his son, although Catherine is vehemently opposed to him on philosophical grounds and considers him "a cold fish" to boot.

The beautifully crafted movie alternates between intimate domestic settings to public gatherings in the House of Commons and a courtroom. Much of the exposition is cleverly reported as newspaper headlines, overheard conversations, news boys cries, etc. The script follows the Roman stage convention of having much of the action happen off-stage and reported by the actors. The dramatic trial conclusion is actually delivered by the Winslow's maid Violet in her strident Cockney accent.

Sexual tension develops between Sir Robert and Catherine at their first meeting when he arrives at the Winslow home to decide whether or not to take the case. Expecting her fiance when she answers the door, when Sir Robert is standing there instead she greets the seemingly supercilious man dismissively, "Oh, I was expecting a friend" but nonetheless he enters into her home and life.

This viewer desperately wishes Rattigan had written a fourth act to explore the attraction between the conservative barrister and the contrary, cigarette-smoking suffragette.

Interesting drama of boy accused of stealing at UK Naval school.

First his father, and then a famous lawyer fight to clear his name.

Robert Donat is terrific as the lawyer, and some of the character arcs
are very touching, but a number of the performances are stagy and
awkward, and the ending is too neat and perfect.

Definitely worth seeing for some great moments, but I found it more
uneven than most. So much so that I will try to see it again.

The VHS tape is far from a great transfer. The film really deserves upgrading
to DVD.

Beyond that, there are many VHS versions out there (I assume the
title is in public domain), and the first I bought under this listing had
a slightly different box, and was recorded at slow speed, so the transfer
was almost unwatchable. Buyer beware.

This is an excellent movie but the copy I received had very poor sound and only mediocre picture quality. Caveat emptor.

One of my favorite films, "The Winslow Boy" is a showcase for Robert Donat, with his melancholy face and beautiful voice, and for the underused Margaret Leighton, who plays one of the rare women on film whose character is defined almost entirely by integrity. One of the pleasures of the film is watching as these two perform the elaborate social pavanne of Edwardian London, moving by the most indirect steps imaginable towards a relationship.

Cedric Hardwicke is also especially good.

The real question is: why on earth hasn't this movie been released on DVD in the US?