"I'LL NEVER FORGET YOU" (1951) ReviewI have seen my share of time travel movies and television programs over the years. But I do not believe that I have never seen one as ethereal as the 1951 movie called "I'LL NEVER FORGET YOU".A second adaptation of John L. Balderston's 1927 play, which was an adaptation of Henry James' incomplete novel, "The Sense of the Past"; "I'LL NEVER FORGET YOU" told the story of an American nuclear physicist named Dr. Peter Standish, who is transported to London of the late 18th century. The story begins when a co-worker of Peter's with the British nuclear program, Dr. Roger Forsyth, expresses concern about the former's lack of social life. As the two become friends, Peter reveals that he had inherited an old house located at London's Berkeley Square by a distant relative. He also also reveals that he was a descendant of an American Tory who had immigrated to Britain after the Revolutionary War to marry a cousin named Kate Pettigrew. Not long after this revelation, a thunderstorm sends Peter back to 1784, where he takes the place of his late 18th century ancestor, the other Peter Standish.However, once 20th century Peter settles into his new life, he is struck by a series of surprises. One, he finds himself slowly falling in love with his fiancée's younger sister, Helen Pettigrew. Peter discovers that Georgian era London is not the paradise he had assumed it to be for years. He also realizes that his occasional lapses of judgment, in which he uses modern day language and revealing information he could not have known if he had actually grown up in the 18th century. Peter's occasional lapses and his feelings for Helen lead to growing antagonism toward him from not only his fiancée Kate, but also from Mr. Throstle, the man to whom Helen had been promised; leading to potential disaster for him.I am usually a big fan of time travel movies. But if I must be honest, my reason for watching "I'LL NEVER FORGET YOU" stemmed from sheer curiosity and nothing else. I never really thought I would be impressed by this movie. And I was . . . much to my surprise. Mind you, the film's method of time travel - a bolt of lightning - struck me as unrealistic, even from a fictional point of view. There was no machine or vehicle like a Delorean to channel the energy from that bolt of lightning. Instead, the Peter Standish was struck by lightning and transported some 160 years back to the past. That he survived being struck is a miracle.Nevertheless, I still enjoyed "I'LL NEVER FORGET YOU" very much. At its heart, the movie featured two genres - time traveling and romance. And both seemed to intertwine perfectly, thanks to director Roy Ward Baker, who directed the 1958 classic, "A NIGHT TO REMEMBER". There have been time travel movies in which the protagonists are slightly taken aback by the "primative" conditions of the time period in which they end up. But I found Peter Standing's reaction to the reality of 18th century London rather enjoyable on a perverse level. I found it satisfying to watch him come to the realization that 1784 London was not the social paradise that he had assumed it was. "I'LL NEVER FORGET YOU" is also one of the rare works of fiction that pointed out the lack of decent hygiene that permeated Western society before the 20th century. Between Peter's disgust at London society's array of body odors and their bafflement at his habit of a daily bath, I was nearly rolling on the floor with laughter. But more importantly, "I'LL NEVER FORGET" is a poignant love story between Peter and Helen. What made it very satisfying for me is that Helen was the only one who seemed to have a bead on Peter's personality. More importantly, she seemed to be interested in Peter's comments about the future, instead of repelled by them.But what really made the romance between Peter Standing and Helen Pettigrew worked were the performances of the two leads, Tyrone Power and Ann Blyth. Thanks to their intelligent and subtle performances, they made Peter and Helen's love story believable. I was surprised that Michael Rennie had such a small screen presence in the movie, considering that he had received third billing. Nevertheless, I thought he gave a pretty good performance as Peter's 20th century friend and colleague, Dr. Roger Forsyth. Another performance that caught my attention came from Dennis Price, who gave a very entertaining performance as Helen and Kate's brother, a dye-in-the-wool late 18th century cad, Tom Pettigrew. Kathleen Byron gave an energetic and brief performance as Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire. The movie also featured solid performances from Beatrice Campbell, Raymond Huntley and Irene Browne, who not only portrayed the Pettigrew matriarch in this film, but also in the 1933 version, "BERKELEY SQUARE".Although I found the mode of time travel rather implausible - being struck by lightning, I must admit that I enjoyed "I'LL NEVER FORGET YOU". In fact, I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. And I have to thank Ranald MacDougall's adaptation of John L. Balderston's play, intelligent performances from a cast led by Tyrone Power and Ann Blyth, and more importantly, intelligent and subtle direction from Roy Ward Baker.
"JUDGING ELIZABETH POLDARK"To this day, I am amazed at the level of hostility directed at the Elizabeth Chynoweth Poldark character in the two BBC series titled, "POLDARK". Quite frankly, I find this hostility to be bordered on the level of a psychotic. Then it finally occurred to me.Perhaps the real reason why so many fans dislike Elizabeth – and I am making a major assumption here - is that they see her as an obstacle in the road to Ross Poldark and Demelza Carne Poldark’s "twu luv" or "perfect" relationship. As far as these fans are concerned, Ross and Demelza should spend their entire marriage, projecting the image of perfect love, with nothing or no one – including themselves - posing a threat to their relationship. But there is a problem. Ross continued to harbor feelings for Elizabeth, his first love, even after his marriage to Demelza, his former kitchen maid. Even Elizabeth continued to have feelings for Ross, despite her marriage to his cousin, Francis Poldark. However, Elizabeth has tried her best to keep her feelings toward Ross to herself. She has tried her best to work at making her marriage to Francis work – despite his insecurities and screw ups. Yet, since Francis’ loss of his fortune and mine at a card game, Elizabeth may have reached a breaking point in trying to maintain some semblance of affection toward her husband. Ross, on the other hand, seemed less disciplined in keeping his feelings for Elizabeth in check. He is in love with his wife, Demelza. There is no doubt. Unfortunately, Ross seemed incapable of moving past Elizabeth's rejection of him. There have been moments when he has either expressed his feelings or come dangerously close to openly expressing his feelings for her. The 1975-1977 version of "POLDARK" featured one episode in which Ross managed to convince Elizabeth to leave Francis and run away with him. Even after he had sex with Demelza in the previous episode. One episode in the current adaptation made it clear that Ross was in love with both his wife and Elizabeth, when he had admitted it to his cousin Verity.Many fans of the current series had reacted with disgust or dismay over the idea that Ross loved both Demelza and Elizabeth. In fact, many fans - either forty years ago or today - seemed incapable of understanding Ross' ability to love two women. It sees as if they wanted Ross to move past his feelings for Elizabeth and focus his love on Demelza. I understand why they would feel this way. With Ross focusing his love solely on Demelza, the viewers would be presented with a simpler and cleaner romance with no pesky little issues to cloud their relationship. But thanks to Winston Graham, Ross refused to do so. And instead of blaming Ross, many want to blame Elizabeth, because it was and still is easier to do. Graham provided his readers with an emotionally complicated relationship between Ross, Demelza, Elizabeth, Francis and even local banker George Warleggan that proved to be emotionally complicated. But these fans do not want complicated relationships or stories. They want their characters and the latter's relationships to be simple - at the level of a "romance novel for 16 year-olds". However, that is NOT what Winston Graham had written in his novels.I am also beginning to wonder if Graham's portrayal of his protagonist as a man in love with two women had led many fans of the saga to harbor an unnatural and deep-seated hatred of Elizabeth. Not only do they seemed to be upset over Ross' continuing love for her, these fans seem to regard her as unworthy of Ross' affection, due to her rejection of him, following his return from the American Revolutionary War. For some reason, these fans seem incapable or unwilling to view Elizabeth as a complex woman with both virtues and flaws. And due to their excessive worship of Ross and Demelza’s relationship, they seem incapable of viewing those two as complex people with flaws … especially Demelza. I never understood why so many have described Elizabeth as some fragile, delicate woman, who was too weak to be her own woman, let alone stand on her own two feet. Yes, Elizabeth could be rather conservative in the manner in which she had chosen to live her life. I believe that this conservative streak had developed from her penchant for practicality. In fact, I believe that at times, she was too practical for her own good. This practical streak led her to desire financial stability just a bit too much - to the point that led her to engage in two questionable marriages. Elizabeth has also been accused of being cold and emotionally closed off from others. Hmmm . . . sounds like the typical complaints many have made about reserved or introverted individuals. As an introverted person myself, I speak from personal experience. I suspect that many would have admired her if she had been more like her cousin-in-law, Demelza Carne. Fans seemed to have gone into a tizzy over the former kitchen maid with a fiery temper, sharp tongue and even sharper wit. Demelza seemed to be the epiphany of the ideal woman - openly emotional, beautiful, earthy, and witty. Elizabeth Chynoweth Poldark may not have been some female walking ball of fire, but she was certainly not some refrigerated hothouse flower, frigid bitch or limpid Stepford Wife. She was a living, breathing woman with her own passions, virtues and flaws. The thing with Elizabeth is that she was a reserved and private woman who believed in keeping her emotions to herself, due to 18th century society's demands for women and her own quiet nature.I realize some might respond that Elizabeth should have been more open with her emotions . . . a trait that many seemed to regard as ideal for a woman. I would disagree. Elizabeth had to be her own woman. And if that meant being a reserved or private one, so be it. Besides, when did it become a crime for a woman - any woman - to be shy or reserved? Why is it so terrible to keep one’s feelings to oneself, especially if one is a woman? Why does a woman, especially a woman character, have to be outgoing, witty, sharp-tongued or "feisty" in order to be considered worthy of society? Am I supposed to regard myself as unworthy, because I am a reserved woman? I do get tired of the public either idealizing female characters that they like/love and castigating other female characters who do not live up to their ideal of what a woman should be. Especially a woman character like Elizabeth Poldark who was created by a 20th century writer or early 21st century woman character … even if said character is from a story set in a different time period. Male characters are not subjected to such narrow-minded thinking. They are allowed to be complex. It is amazing that despite the fact that we are now in the second decade of the 21st century, this society is still held back by some rampant patriarchy that refuses to leave - even among many women of all ages. And that is pretty damn sad.
Below is a list of my favorite movie and television productions set during the Early America Period (1783-1828):
FAVORITE MOVIES AND TELEVISION SET DURING THE EARLY AMERICA PERIOD
"John Adams" (2008) - Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney deservedly won both Emmys and Golden Globes for their excellent portrayals of John and Abagail Adams in this excellent seven-part miniseries about the 2nd U.S. president.
"The Journey of August King" (1995) - Jason Patric and Thandie Newton starred in this adaptation of John Ehle's 1971 novel about a North Carolina farmer on his way home from market, who helps a runaway slave evade her master.
"Davy Crockett and the River Pirates" (1956) - This adventure conveyed the experiences of Davy Crockett and George Russel with keelboat riverman Mike Fink and river pirates along the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. Picturesque and a lot of fun. Fess Parker, Buddy Ebsen and Jeff York starred.
"Buccaneer's Girl" (1950) - Yvonne DeCarlo starred in this entertaining costume romp about a Boston-born entertainer who falls for a pirate with a secret identity as a respectable New Orleans aristocrat. Directed by Fredrick De Cordova, the movie co-starred Philip Friend, Robert Douglas, Andrea King and Elsa Lancaster.
"Interview With a Vampire" (1994) - Neil Jordan directed this fascinating adaptation of Anne Rice's 1976 novel about a pair of vampires during a period of 200 years. Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Kirsten Dunst, Antonio Banderas and Christian Slater co-starred.
"Brother Future" (1991) - Phil Lewis starred in the PBS movie about a Detroit teen who is transported back in time to 1822 South Carolina, where he finds himself about to participate in a slave revolt instigated by one Denmark Vessey.
"Sleepy Hollow" (1999) - Tim Burton directed Johnny Depp and Christina Ricci in this adaptation of Washington Irving's 1820 short story, "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow"
"The Seekers" (1979) - This adaptation of John Jakes' 1975 novel about the Kent family's experiences from 1794 to 1814. Randolph Mantooth, Timothy Patrick Murphy and George Hamilton starred.
"Many Rivers to Cross" (1955) - Robert Taylor and Eleanor Parker starred in this western-comedy about a footloose frontiersman in early Kentucky, who is targeted by a spirited spinster for marriage. Directed by Roy Rowland.
"JOHNNY TREMAIN" (1957) Review
Over fifty-six years ago, the Walt Disney Studios produced a television movie set during a three year period that focused on the years in Boston, Massachusetts Colony prior to the outbreak of the American Revolution. The name of that movie was 1957's "JOHNNY TREMAIN".
Directed by Robert Stevenson, "JOHNNY TREMAIN" was an adaptation of Esther Forbes' 1944 Newbery Medal-winning children's novel. It told the story of an arrogant adolescent named Johnny Tremain, who happened to be an apprentice for a silversmith living in Boston. Johnny has dreams of owning his shop one day and becoming wealthy and respected in the process.
When a wealthy merchant named Jonathan Lyte commissions his master to repair a family's christening cup, Johnny takes it upon himself to do the actual repairs and win the arrogant Lyte's patronage. Unfortunately, Johnny picked the Sabbath to repair Lyte's cup. And in his haste to repair it before being discovered for breaking the Sabbath, Johnny damages his hand. While repairing Lyte's cup, Johnny discovers that he is the merchant's long lost nephew on his mother's side. But Lyte refuses to acknowledge Johnny as his kinsman and has the boy locked up. Johnny's difficulties with Lyte and in acquiring a job eventually leads him to join the Sons of Liberty, an organization dedicated to American independence from the British Empire. Along the way Johnny befriends several historical giants including Paul Revere, Samuel Adams, and Joseph Warren. The story reaches its climax with the Battle of Lexington and Concord and the beginning of the American Revolution.
It had been a long time since I first saw this movie. A very long time. And considering that it had been originally produced as a Disney television movie, I was ready to harbor a low opinion of it. Considering the Disney Studios' reputation for churning out a superficial take on American History, one would be inclined to dismiss the film. And if I must be honest,"JOHNNY TREMAIN" has a superficial take on the later years of the Colonial Era and the beginning of the American Revolution. Although there is some depth in the movie's characters, there seemed to be lacking any ambiguity whatsoever. Well . . . I take that back. Aside from Johnny Tremain's brief foray into arrogance in the movie's first fifteen minutes, there were no ambiguity in the other American characters. Thankfully, screenwriters Esther Forbes and Tom Blackburn allowed some ambiguity in the British characters and prevented them from being portrayed as cold-blooded and one-dimensional villains. Even Sebastian Cabot's Jonathan Lyte (Johnny's British uncle) was saved from a fate of one-note villainy in his final reaction to Johnny's decision not to accept his patronage.
Disney film or not, "JOHNNY TREMAIN" is an entertaining historical drama infused with energy, good solid performances and a somewhat in-depth look into American history in Boston, between 1772 and 1775. Despite a running time of 80 minutes, the movie explored some of the events during that period - events that included an introduction of some of the important members of the Sons of Liberty, the Boston Tea Party of December 1773, the British closure of Boston's port, Paul Revere's famous ride and the Battle of Lexington and Concord. It is also the first costume drama that revealed the establishment of slavery in a Northern state - or in this case, colony. In the midst of all this history, Forbes and Blackburn delved into Johnny's personal drama - including his conflicts with his uncle, dealing with his physical disability and his relationship with Priscilla Lapham, his former master's daughter - with solid detail.
With the use of matte paintings, colorful photography by Charles P. Boyle and Peter Ellenshaw's production designs, director Robert Stevenson did a good job in transforming television viewers back to Boston of the 1770s. But the one production aspect of "JOHNNY TREMAIN" that really impressed me was the original song, "Liberty Tree", written by Blackburn and George Bruns. The song struck me as very catchy and remained stuck in my mind some time after watching the movie. The performances are pretty solid, but not particularly memorable. Again, allow me to correct myself. There was one outstanding performance . . . and it came from the late Sebastian Cabot, who portrayed Johnny's arrogant uncle, Jonathan Lyte. Everyone else - including leads Hal Stalmaster, Luana Patten and Richard Beymer, who would enjoy brief stardom in the early 1960s - did not exactly dazzle me.
My gut instinct tells me that the average adult might lacked the patience to watch a movie like "JOHNNY TREMAIN". Although historical drama remains very popular with moviegoers and television viewers, I suspect that Disney's early superficial style of portraying history might be slightly off-putting. However, "JOHNNY TREMAIN" might serve as a first-rate introduction to American History for children. And if one is in the mood for Disney nostalgia, I see no reason not to watch it again. Even after forty years or so, it is still an entertaining little movie.
