Old men stopping wars: “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon” (1949)

Standard

Chief Pony-That-Walks: Too late, Nathan. Young men do not listen to me. They listen to Big Medicine. Yellow Hair Custer dead. Buffalo come back. Red sun. Too late, Nathan! You will come with me. Hunt buffalo together. Smoke many pipes. We are too old for war.

Captain Nathan Brittles: Yes, we are too old for war. But old men should stop wars.

By Scott Ross

The second entry in John Ford’s post-war “Cavalry Trilogy” is in many ways the best, marred only by his baffling penchant for depicting the “humor” of drunken Irishmen, here in the person of Victor McLaglen as John Wayne’s obnoxious stage-Irish factotum. Fortunately McLaglen is on the periphery of the action, which involves the last day in the Cavalry of Captain Nathan Brittles (Wayne), a threatened Indian uprising following the news of Little Big Horn, and Brittles’ attempts to head it off while escorting two women to their train. Aside from McLaglen’s bibacious shenanigans, which reach their nadir in the phony “comic” saloon brawl near the picture’s climax, one of the few badly-staged sequences in Ford’s work, the movie is remarkable for Brittles’ pacifism, for Wayne’s full-bodied portrayal of him, and for the extraordinary Technicolor photography by Winton C. Hoch. Although I maintain that most movies don’t need color, and while Ford’s strongest and most poetic images of Monument Valley are in black-and-white, what he and Hoch achieved in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon was exquisite, arguably the finest live-action Technicolor job since Gone with the Wind ten years earlier.

The eternal triangle: Harry Carey Jr, Joanne Dru and John Agar

Technicolor, for years the only full-spectrum color process, was problematic because the company insisted on Natalie Kamus, its developer’s wife, supervising any movie production employing it, and as a picture’s “color consultant” Kalmus objected to anything she felt put Technicolor in a bad light… which of course meant anything daring or artistic or out of the norm. Great (or even just very good) directors and lighting cameramen challenged her repeatedly, and their results were nearly always better than what they would have had to settle for if they hadn’t. In She Wore a Yellow Ribbon the Technicolor, which could be garish, is glorious. Hoch used the work of Frederick Remington as a template, getting richer color and imagery than almost anyone else working in Technicolor at the time. More, he and Ford took advantage of what nature gave them; to Natalie Kalmus’ chagrin they kept filming during a display of prairie lightning, and it’s one of the most celebrated color sequences in American movies. They captured life as it happens, in almost a documentary fashion; grafted to the fiction, it becomes something unique in moviemaking of the period, and anticipates more studied things like Days of Heaven 30 years later.

John Wayne and Ben Johnson. I wonder if Johnson ever realized just how good he was?

One reason the picture feels so rich is that is that it’s lived-in; Ford and his scenarists (Frank Nugent and Laurence Stallings, adapting two Saturday Evening Post stories by James Warner Bellah*) catch the characters and the action, essentially, in medias res. As always, Ford concerns himself with community, and we get a sense of life at the Cavalry outpost that is fuller, more detailed, than is the case in anyone else’s Westerns. There’s the Easterner (Joanne Dru) creating, and feeding, a rivalry between two eager young Lieutenants (John Agar and Harry Carey Jr.); the wife of the commandant (Mildred Natwick) assisting the camp’s doctor (Arthur Shields) in a delicate operation, and in a moving Conestoga, no less; and a sutler (Harry Woods) selling guns to the Indians and coming to a nasty end. That’s a lot to pack into the movie’s narrative, yet nothing in it feels either lingered over or rushed.

Wayne, cast after Ford got a look at his performance in Red River, is marvelous as Nathan Brittles, and I mean that not as meaningless linguistic decoration but in the dictionary sense (in this case the American Heritage): Causing wonder or astonishment; of the highest or best kind or quality; first-rate. Those who had been paying attention to Wayne’s development, particularly since the end of the war, would not have been astonished at the range he displays in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, but anyone else might well have been. Brittle is a man largely at ease with himself, and the soldiers under his command have the measure of him; he doesn’t need to bark or bully to gain their respect. Wayne even carries off, with deceptive ease, two sequences that could fell greater talents than his: Talking to his dead wife at her graveside, and receiving a token, in the form of a gold watch, of the esteem and affection of his men and getting noticeably choked up about it. He’s enormously affecting in these moments without succumbing to the sentimentality implicit in them. Wayne, nominated for a Best Actor Oscar that year for Sands of Iwo Jima, felt that the nomination should have been for She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. He was right.

Wayne, George O’Brien and Mildred Natwick in “the dad-blastedest outfit” Nathan Brittles has ever seen.

Joanne Dru is a bit better here than she was in Red River, but she seems to have carried over some aspects of that character, and the femme fatale sits uneasily on the mantle of an innocent young woman from the east. And she still has too damned much make-up on. John Agar and Harry Carey Jr. do good enough, if not exceptional, work as the men she leads on, only one of whom she is truly interested in, and George O’Brien is almost wasted as the Major. The young Ben Johnson has a much better role as Brittles’ wry, indispensable runner Sergeant Tyree, as does the always wonderful Mildred Natwick, as the Major’s wife. Playing Pony-That-Walks, Chief John Big Tree, perhaps best remembered as Blue Back, the Indian whose appearance terrifies Claudette Colbert in Drums Along the Mohawk, has a beautiful scene with Wayne; there is nothing maudlin about it, but the way the sequence limns the impotence of old men who have outlived their ability to contribute meaning or effect change is as unforgettable as the man’s big, weathered face.

John Wayne battles a storytelling cliché, a mediocre studio interior and a phony desert sunset and still triumphs.

There’s a sequence late in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon that at first glance seems exceptionally cold-blooded: As the duplicitous sutler played by Harry Woods is being tortured by the natives to whom he’s just tried to sell arms (his being repeatedly thrown onto a campfire is all we see) Brittles, Tyree and Pennell (Carey), watching from a distance, debate the relative merits of chewing tobacco. Their chilling indifference to the gun-seller’s anguish appears comic in the darkest possible fashion. Yet what are they to do? Reveal themselves to a large war-party for the sake of a man who with mercenary indifference sells firearms to both soldiers and Indians indiscriminately, rifles which may shortly be used on the Cavalry men themselves? As terrible as the man’s impending death may be, he knew the risks when he took them, and money mattered more to him than professional ethics. Ford and his screenwriters aren’t endorsing murder; the trio’s tobacco discussion is a form of whistling past the graveyard, and no filmmaker of the period other than Ford, with the possible exception of John Huston, would have paused in his picture’s action this way to comment on what we’re seeing in it. That’s one difference between hackwork and artistry. Whatever his blind-spots or excesses, Ford if he did not always achieve the latter was almost never guilty of the former.


*Bellah, either the source for, or the author of, numerous Ford movies (all three of the Cavalry pictures, which included Fort Apache and Rio Grande came from Bellah stories, and he co-wrote The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance) was and remains an uneasy figure. His son James, Jr. described him as “a fascist, a racist and a world class bigot,” so one can only imagine how much Ford toned down the scripts that sprang from Bellah’s pen. For today’s reactionary, self-described leftist-liberals, of course, John Ford himself was a racist, so the distinction for them between him and Bellah is probably too fine to register.

Text copyright 2022 by Scott Ross

Come back to Erin, Mavourneen, Mavourneen: “The Quiet Man” (1952)

Standard

By Scott Ross

In her capsule review of The Last Hurrah, Pauline Kael noted, not without cause, “John Ford turned into a sentimental faker whenever he got near the Blarney stone.”* Of greater account to me than his sentiment was Ford’s indulgence in allegedly hilarious comedy based on that most innovative of cultural figures, the drunken, brawling Irishman. If any other, non-Irish filmmaker had so consistently depicted Gaelic masculinity in this way, I think we can imagine Ford’s response. Only occasionally does he rise above these affectations (or are they afflictions?) and rarely for an entire picture. The rapturous The Quiet Man comes close, as close as Ford ever got, even with an epic fist-fight at its climax. It’s also, despite the comic elements, his most mature depiction of romantic love, and his sexiest work. The picture has the deliberate feel of a fable,† and Ford and Frank S. Nugent, his gifted scenarist, are careful not to nail it down to a date, although you can extrapolate the action as taking place in the late 1920s or early ’30s. Ford fell in love with Maurice Walsh’s short story 20 years before he was finally able to make a movie from it, and its outlines are simple: An Irish-American boxer who’s accidentally killed an opponent in the ring comes back to his childhood home of Innisfree to reclaim his mother’s house and live out his determination to never fight again. He immediately stumbles on a girl whose appearance hits him like a bolt from the blue and must then reckon with her wealthy older brother’s inflexible opposition, her own determination to bring her modest dowry into the marriage, and the brother’s constant goading of him to engage in fisticuffs.

That’s all there is to it, really, but the complications are observed with wry amusement and the characters, from John Wayne’s Sean Thornton and Maureen O’Hara’s Mary Kate Danaher to Victor McLaglen’s Squire Danaher, are so fully lived in they seem to have existed long before the picture begins and will continue on after it, perhaps into infinity. It’s interesting to see Barry Fitzgerald, the movie’s impish matchmaker, in the same picture with his brother, Arthur Shields, if only to note the difference between them: Shields, who gives a lovely performance as the town’s Protestant minister, is a real actor. Fitzgerald is a stage Irishman. He’s sometimes, as here, charming in his way, but you often have to accept him as a type rather than as a serious actor. He has one great moment in The Quiet Man, however, the funniest in the picture, when he sees the broken bed in Sean’s bedroom the morning after his marriage to Mary Kate, assumes they destroyed it on their wedding night and intones, with approving surprise, “Impetuous! Homeric!” McLaglen could try one’s patience too — he’s especially annoying in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon — but is perfectly cast here, and it’s funny to see him in the same frame with Wayne; no other movie star in the world could make John Wayne look skinny. Frances Ford has a nice role, with a few lines of dialogue for a change; Jack McGowran another good one as McLaglen’s weaselly yes-man; and Ward Bond is surprisingly engaging, and as a priest(!) Almost no screen performer makes me smile quite as readily as Mildred Natwick, in The Quiet Man the kind, wealthy widow Danaher has set his cap on.

In Sean Thornton, John Wayne had his best non-Western role, and he must have known it; he gives it everything without either breaking a figurative sweat or playing for audience sympathy. Those who are surprised by how gentle he is here haven’t been paying attention: Except in those pictures that demanded hardness from him, such as The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, or cruelty (Red River, The Searchers) or a cantankerous outer shell (True Grit) being soft-spoken was what made Wayne different from other action stars. He didn’t have to constantly proclaim himself, and it’s only when he does, in lesser movies, that he’s embarrassing. Thornton has bigness because he’s being played by a big man, but he’s remarkably sunny and easygoing. He doesn’t seek attention, in part because he hopes in Innisfree he can evade his past but in part, we also sense, because he’s naturally diffident. As Wayne plays him, Thornton is so likable we share his frustrations; every time he relaxes during the picture, some new crisis is thrust on him. That’s why when Mary Kate runs off and leaves him he reaches a boiling point: It’s one outrage too many, and the biggest one of all.

Although her flaming red hair was doubtless a factor and while she had played any number of passionate roles since her movie debut in 1939, it was probably the combination of Kathleen Yorke in Rio Grande (1950) and Mary Kate Danaher that cemented Maureen O’Hara’s screen reputation as “fiery.” John Wayne met his match in other actresses (Katharine Hepburn in the middling True Grit sequel springs to mind, and Angie Dickinson in Rio Bravo) but it’s O’Hara one immediately thinks of as the quintessential romantic foil for him. (They made five pictures together, although her role in Big Jake is small.) And they often are foils; her indomitability meets his head on, the irresistible force and the immovable object translated to popular archetypes. That she was one of the most striking, beautiful women in the movies hardly hurt, but O’Hara brings intelligence to her roles, not only opposite Wayne but generally. She’s often ungovernable, in the best sense, tart and self-reliant, and although she can suffer for love (her Angharad in How Green Was My Valley is an aching example) it’s difficult to imagine her in doormat roles. She captures Mary Kate in all her human contradictions, longing for a life with Sean but too proud to submit to his reasonableness regarding her dowry. When, after her enforced walk with Sean from the train station to Innisfree she opens a boiler door and Sean throws the money in, the look of determination and hope on O’Hara’s face as she stares up at Wayne, the smile she conveys when she walks away, and the proud lilt in her step as she does so, say more than a brace of monologues could about what she’s feeling in those moments.


Wayne and McLaglen after their fist-fight.

Although there’s an epic donnybrook between Wayne and McLaglen near the end of the picture, Ford makes it, and nearly everything else in The Quiet Man, work, including even the sentimental attachment to Erin; it’s occasionally a bit thick, but it’s never false. The only aspect of the movie that rankles was beyond its maker’s control: The phony back-projections, allegedly of Ireland, imposed on Ford through Republic’s cheapness and by the Irish rains. A couple more weeks of (dry) location shooting, and this gloriously photographed paean to Ford’s homeland (Winton C. Hoch was the lighting director) would rival nearly anything he ever did in color. But while the lush, storybook beauty of Ford’s imagined Innisfree is mouth-watering, it would be of little significance were Ford and Nugent not so fully engaged in telling a good story, and in limning the contours of that story so fully and intelligently. They refuse, for example, to lard the narrative with Sean Thornton’s biography at once, meting out the details gradually, and as it suits them to do so. And when they do, they trust the audience to grasp the essentials without spoon-feeding it every detail.

The Quiet Man is a comedy, yet its carries a patina of melancholy, most notably in the moment when Sean and Mary Kate sit together, staring into the fire in their cottage. The image in a more conventional romantic picture would convey matrimonial contentment. Here, it reflects the shakiness of the marriage and the doubts both feel about its future. Even in the movie’s most overtly erotic sequence, when during their official courtship the pair slip away to some picturesque ruins and are caught in a thunderstorm, the emotion Ford and his actors depict is fear on Mary Kate’s part and uncertainty on Sean’s. At the same time, the rain turns the white shirt Wayne is wearing nearly translucent; he seems more naked somehow fully dressed than he would if he was standing there bare-chested. The tug of war between sex and dubitation has rarely been so fully expressed in a single image.

Ford and Nugent also never let us forget that the core of the picture is Sean and Kate: How she at first (and despite her own attraction) resists and then falls for him, and how she is unable to fully integrate her marriage to him with her essential, tradition-minded self even as he keeps doing his level best to reach her heart, and as Ford shows his obvious sympathy for both. Only at the climax, before the epic brawl between Sean and her brother, do these two meet completely, as full (and, especially for the 1950s, astonishingly equal) partners, to the joy of everyone but Danaher. And they get there in a delightful fashion, one that would probably drive today’s liberal super-sensitives insane. Indeed, the entire picture is ripe for attack and censure by the cancel-culture, from the justly famous scene in the windstorm in which Sean and Mary Kate first kiss to the long, amusing sequence in which Sean, fed up with the whole business concerning her dowry, drags Mary Kate from the train and forces her to walk back to Innisfree to confront her brother.

One can well imagine the outrage that would greet this should any contemporary filmmaker attempt it, particularly the hilarious moment when one of the female bystanders sweetly offers Sean a stick “to beat the lovely lady with.” He does no such thing, of course, but one also suspects that younger viewers watching the kissing scene, one of the most luminous expressions of romantic desire in American movies, so rhapsodic Spielberg used it for a charming homage in E.T., would certainly proclaim it, and the entire picture, “rapey.” I shudder to contemplate what sorts of movies these types will make when they’re in charge, but they will probably, in their terrible earnestness and overwhelming need to signal their virtue, do in very short order what so far nothing else has managed to: Kill the motion picture dead.

Such people deserve a cinematic diet comprised solely of Tom Hanks movies.


*Speaking of Kael, I cherish her description of Spencer Tracy’s ostentatiously (and unbelievably) benign character in that review I quoted above of The Last Hurrah: “Skeffington is so full of the milk of the human kindness that he almost moos.”

†Ford acknowledges the essential artificiality of The Quiet Man, charmingly, by having the cast perform what amounts to curtain-calls at the end, Wayne and O’Hara even waving goodbye at the camera.

Text copyright 2022 by Scott Ross

Cockeyed perfection: “Holiday” (1938)

Standard

By Scott Ross

Johnny Case: I’ve been working since I was 10. I want to find out why I’m working. The answer can’t just be to pay bills and pile up more money. Even if you do, the government’s going to take most of it.
Linda Seton: But what is the answer?
Johnny: I don’t know. That’s what I intend to find out. The world’s changing out there. There are a lot of new, exciting ideas running around. Some may be right and some may be cockeyed but they’re affecting all our lives. I want to know how I stand, where I fit in the picture, what it’s all gonna mean to me. I can’t find that out sitting behind some desk in an office, so as soon as I get enough money together, I’m going to knock off for a while.
Linda: Quit?
Johnny: Quit! I want to save part of my life for myself. There’s a catch to it, though. It’s gotta be part of the young part. You know: Retire young, work old — come back and work when I know what I’m working for.

Years ago I had the misfortune of attending a dispiriting amateur production of Philip Barry’s second most famous play, and it caused me to wonder whether high comedy was something Americans were no longer any good at. An era past can never be reclaimed, of course, nor should it be. But the march of time has not been kind to American humor, which has grown increasingly crude, self-referential, aggressively witless and almost shockingly unfunny. A cursory glance at what passes for political satire now will leave you admiring the cleverness of some of the satirists, but almost never actually laughing, or even breaking a smile. I don’t find myself laughing all that much at The Philadelphia Story or Holiday either, yet if I laugh aloud only occasionally at either I smile throughout both, especially in the screen versions directed by George Cukor and starring Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant.

Both pictures sparkle with wit and abound in pleasure; they radiate good feeling, and admiration for what’s going on in the movies, and for how Barry expressed his ideas, lightly and with gentle humor. But if while enjoying The Philadelphia Story we can never quite forget we’re watching a glossy MGM production, there is something about Holiday, made at Columbia, which in its more unassuming way strikes me as absolutely perfect. I’ll probably outrage someone when I say this, but I’m not sure Cukor made another movie with such suppleness and verve, and Barry’s dialogue is among the most memorable ever committed to film. When I saw several scenes from Holiday excerpted in the PBS series “The Men Who Made the Movies” in the mid-’70s I was well and truly dazzled. I’d never heard people, even people as wonderful as Grant and Hepburn, talking that way, and I wanted more of it.

I say “Barry’s dialogue,” although the picture was adapted, beautifully, by Donald Ogden Stewart and Sidney Buchman; they added their own polished words to Barry’s, and they’re indistinguishable from his unless you know the play well. While there was some tinkering, or re-arrangement, with the original, the big scenes in the movie come directly from Barry’s play and most of the dialogue in them remains intact. All of which would be insignificant if the players (and their director) were not attuned to the rhythms and stresses of the words, and to the thoughts behind them. Holiday is a play of ideas as much as a domestic or situational comedy: Its male lead, Johnny Case, although in love with the daughter of a tycoon, has the radical notion (radical then, less radical perhaps 30 years later when the picture was being rediscovered by young cineastes) of cashing out his earnings while he’s young and taking his time finding out what he wants to do before going back to work; he wants his holiday before he’s too old to enjoy it.

For the actor playing Johnny in the 1938 movie version of the play, the character is closer to Archie Leach, his working-class progenitor, than it is to “Cary Grant,” the character he constructed and successfully hid behind. One of the movie’s funniest moments comes at the beginning when, after coming in through the servants’ entrance of the mansion, Case takes a look at the awesome vestibule and softly intones (as only Grant could), “Ju-das!” I’m not not sure how Columbia slipped that one past the censors, and delight at the filmmakers’ getting away with it is part of the laugh. The other part is Grant’s peerless way with not merely a line but a mere two syllables. Although (unlike his characters in Sylvia Scarlet and, later, None But the Lonely Heart) Johnny Case is no longer working-class, he is not of the upper set either, and doesn’t care either way. He isn’t ashamed of his plebeian background and while he’s witty he doesn’t have the gloss of the Cary Grant prototype perfected in The Awful Truth a year earlier. At the time of Holiday Grant was in the process of becoming the movies’ greatest light comedian; his approach to Barry’s aperçus, and his amusement at the goings-on around him, are charming, but he also understands Johnny’s seriousness of purpose. Grant makes us see how reasonable the switch is when he walks out on his fiancée rather than compromise his ideals, which in lesser hands could seem either inexplicable or petulant.

Even more remarkable is Katharine Hepburn as Linda, the older sister of Johnny’s inamorata. Like her brother Ned (Lew Ayres) who is so unhappy being forced to wear the Wall Street yoke his industrialist father has fitted for him that he’s on his way to becoming a hopeless drunkard, Linda is desperate to flee the family’s grip but, aside from spending time in her childhood playroom or embarking on brief, dilettantish social protests, hasn’t an idea of how to escape. She catches on quickly to how remarkable her sister’s intended is (“Light came into this house this morning!” she enthuses) long before she recognizes how attracted she is to him. Hepburn adored her own patrician parents, so there’s no direct parallel there with Linda. But she grasps the character’s needs instinctively: Linda’s love of childish things like the stuffed giraffe she calls Leopold and the Punch and Judy show put on by Johnny’s friends the Potters (Edward Everett Horton and Jean Dixon), her longing to create or to otherwise contribute, her desperation at being trapped, and her ready and often self-effacing wit. Like the besotted dialogue between Romeo and Juliet that reveals a love of words and wordplay as much as a strong romantic passion, when Linda and Johnny banter it’s already a kind of platonic love-duet. It just needs a push to become something deeper.

Although Linda Seaton may seem on the surface the kind of Hepburn role (idiosyncratic non-conformist daughter of a wealthy elitist) that turned audiences off her in the late 1930s the character is much more nuanced, and Hepburn plays her with so much feeling that Linda comes off as far more impressive and empathetic than Tracy Lord, her Philadelphia Story role, the one that put her back in the public’s graces in 1940. While Linda’s determination to have things her way borders on serious psychological disturbance, unlike Tracy Lord she isn’t haughty and doesn’t need to be brought down to earth, a process which after the success of The Philadelphia Story became the unfortunate reactionary template for Hepburn’s comedic pairings with Spencer Tracy and which so mars their otherwise effective work together. Everything Hepburn could do well, dramatically and comedically, she puts into Linda. She’s as effective in the climactic revelation scene with her sister Julia (Doris Nolan) as she is putting Johnny on with a somewhat specious interrogation (“somewhat” because there is much truth among the satirical flourishes). There’s a delightful air of childhood playacting here, both in Linda’s character and in Hepburn’s performance, a put-on of the values Linda’s father and sister embrace but which so affront her. Hepburn had a tendency in those years to put people off; she often pushed too hard and occasionally came off as a highfalutin pill — the very sort of character Julie Seaton proves to be. In Holiday she hits every note with exactly the right weight and timbre and when Linda and Johnny perform an impromptu acrobatic stunt, the viewer is cheered; we see immediately, even if no one else in the picture can, what the show’s real love-match is.

Cukor’s direction of his actors is strikingly fresh, and his groupings of them have a feeling of inevitability about them; not only are they not static, you can’t imagine the camera, or the performers, being in a different place. He was always a superb director of actors’ performances, but a picture like Holiday makes you apprehend how good he was at their placement within the camera frame. (Franz Planer provided the beautiful lighting.) Holiday has a spirit, a snap, that is unlike anything else in Cukor’s oeuvre. It’s directed almost like a screwball comedy, which it isn’t, and the pace is wonderfully refreshing. Next to Holiday, even a movie as ginger-sharp as The Philadelphia Story drags a bit.

It’s interesting to compare what Cukor & Co. did in 1938 with the 1930 version, a nice print of which is included in the recent Criterion release of Holiday. It’s a good picture, within the technical limitations of the early talkie, but it never really catches fire. The best things about it are seeing Mary Astor as Julie and Edward Everett Horton as the same character he plays in the 1938 version, but almost entirely different. In the 1930 edition (and the play) the Potters are Linda’s friends; in the Cukor they’re Johnny’s. This makes them outsiders, like Case, observing the monied class from the audience’s point of view. Further, Stewart and Buchman re-wrote almost all of their dialogue, so if you watch both movies back-to-back, the Potters are the most variable aspects. (Jean Dixon as Mrs. Potter in 1938 is also warmer than Hedda Hopper in 1930, but that shouldn’t surprise you.) Astor hadn’t yet mastered the art of talkie acting, and she’s a bit stiff. But she’s so remarkable looking you forgive her, and she’s far more interesting than Doris Nolan in the Cukor.

Holiday in 1930: William Holden, Ann Harding, Mary Astor and Monroe Owlsey as the Seatons.

The Ned Seatons of ’30 and ’38 are comparably good in a general fashion. But while Monroe Owsley’s is a fine stage performance, Lew Ayres’, scaled to the screen, is heartbreaking. You can see in his gentle, caustic manner what a sweet youth is being destroyed on the shoals of his choking familial obligations and his inability to stand up to his domineering father. As Julie, Ann Harding is often effective but she’s wildly theatrical, sawing the air too much, as Hamlet would have said. Her intense, wide-eyed performance makes you truly appreciate Hepburn’s economy of gesture. Henry Daniell and Binnie Barnes as the hated Crams of 1938 also have it over their 1930 counterparts. The different versions of Holiday vary the ending, each successive edition becoming that much more satisfying: In the play, after Johnny leaves to start his holiday, Linda follows a few minutes later; in 1930 she races in a taxi to catch up with him before his ship leaves the pier; and in 1938 she catches him on-board, leading to a rather superfluous happy-fade-out clinch. Robert Ames makes a genial Johnny Case in the 1930 Holiday, but he’s too old for the role. (He’s 41, and looks older.) Worse, there’s no spark in his performance. Johnny should as Linda suggests bring light to the proceedings; Ames’ wattage is, to be charitable, on the anemic side. A side-note, speaking of age: It’s interesting from both a 21st century perspective (and, for me, one slightly beyond the age of 60) to note that as the Seaton patriarch William Holden in 1930 and Henry Kolker in 1938 appear far older than their years. Seaton has a speech in both pictures in which he declares his age as 58, and although the two actors playing him were of similar age, they look a decade older — if not, in Holden’s case, at least two.

Linda: Looks like me.

Two further observations, on surface features:

1.) I don’t know who styled Hepburn’s hair for Holiday, but she looks better here than in nearly any picture I can think of. The cut, close to the head yet full and free-flowing, softens her look and gives her a spontaneous feel. It suits Linda Seaton, but it also suits Hepburn. I wonder why she didn’t stick with it. (Grant’s locks, boyishly falling over his forehead, also fit the young Cary, the way his carefully sculpted cut of the late ’50s and beyond suited the older one.)

2.) In the Criterion Holiday, when Hepburn and Grant do their acrobatic stunt in the playroom, the ceiling looks like badly-stretched muslin. Columbia may have been cheap, but if you look at the photo of the moment a few paragraphs above you can see a pattern on the ceiling that is invisible in the digital “restoration.” This is nearly as bad as the way every digital edition of Citizen Kane reveals the actors’ faces in the projection-room scene, destroying Orson Welles’ careful contrivance of not alerting his audience to the presence of Everett Sloan, Erskine Sanford, Joseph Cotten and himself.

Why is it so hard for today’s technicians to honor the work of the great studio craftsmen? They knew what they were doing — what are you up to?

Text copyright 2022 by Scott Ross