You can thank my mom for this video's existence. :) I considered reviewing the 1948 movie on its own, but I found it was impossible to refrain from talking about the 1999 version as well, so this turned into a comparison video. Enjoy!
I love him too. I think he is VERY underrated. He was like a chameleon, whose body language would change dramatically depending on whatever part he was playing. He also was very good at subtle changes in his facial expressions which would occur depending on what emotions he was trying to convey. He was one of those actors who could convey what he was thinking without uttering a single word. He also had a wonderful speaking voice and his timing was, perhaps, the best I’ve ever heard. He made the way he recited prose sound like poetry. That’s very evident, especially in this film. I wish that more people were aware of him. He was brilliant.
There are a couple of TV adaptations, one of which starred Emma Thompson as Catherine Winslow and the late great Ian Richardson as Sir Robert Morton with Gordon Jackson as Arthur Winslow. You can find it on RU-vid. From about 1989 on a BBC series entitled Theatre Night. Shortly after she did Fortunes of War in 1987.
*A little bit of trivia: Neil North, who played Ronnie Winslow in the original film version, portrayed the First Lord of the Admiralty in the 1999 remake.*
Really enjoyed your comparison of the films and your insights into the story! The 1999 version is my all-time favorite film, and I'm glad people are still watching it and enjoying it even though it was never a box office success and is nearly forgotten now. It really is a beautifully crafted film about a family's love for one another, and yet it never becomes overwrought or cloyingly sentimental. Keep up the good work, you've got great taste in film and literature!
Watch the original film and read my comment. Donat was a brilliant, and imo, very underrated actor who did not make a lot of films due to a severe asthmatic condition that plagued him throughout his career.
I've only seen the '48 version, and many times too, and to me it's quite flawless. I shall now have to seek out the '99 version and make my own comparison but I suspect my bias for originals will win the day.
@@Weiselberry Anthony Asquith was the son of HH Asquith, who was the PM at the time of the story, which adds a whole meta aspect to it. Rattigan colaborated with Anthony Asquith often, and appatently met HH Asquith.
Nice comparison - thankyou. The 1999 version is very much David Mamet, as signified by the stylised dialogue (repeated phrases and deadpan delivery). That’s ok, but it does rather dominate the film (then again, you always know what you’re getting screenplay-wise with him, it seems to me). On reflection, I think your observations about the 1948 version filling in gaps is good and Robert Donat’s performance does add energy. On a technical note I’m pretty sure I noted somewhere that the date of the alleged theft differs between films….🤔 In both versions the interrogation by Sir Robert is breathtaking - both Sir Roberts are superb. And finally - that closing sequence in the garden: “How little you know women….” “Oh really? How little you know men !” Superb 😁
I like this video. And may I just say that I think -- in the 1999 version -- that when Sir Robert saw Catherine in his rooms that evening, for him it was love at first sight. That only really occurred to me after hearing what you said about the two portrayals of Sir Robert. And BTW my mother liked Robert Donat too. But she wasn't sure how to pronounce his name any more than I am.
I must’ve watched the Mamet version 50x since 1999, but remembered watching the Donat version as a little girl with my mom in the 60s. Eventually I did see the Donat version again around the time you posted this here. At first I thought Margaret Leighton was just too soft a character-didn’t believe her at all as a suffragette. What did I expect? Militancy? I guess I really like Rebecca Pigeon’s throaty and wry delivery, especially “as the prime minister says, ‘wait and see.’” Both Donat and Northam are “charming” (I’d say DREAMY!). So restrained, so intelligent, so..so…firm and humorous at the same time. Yes, it’s their intelligence. Really, even though I’d seen Mamet plays back in the day while living in Chicago, it was this movie that made me connect those plays with the man Mamet. He married Pigeon btw. At first I attributed the intelligent script to Mamet, though I’d also seen a Rattigan play in London (cannot recall which one) in 1978. I rented everything I could find that Mamet had directed. It seems to me that his films are extremely “masculine” especially “Glengarry Glen Ross” (too much testosterone for me), but I think this is a much more feminine play. It’s subtle, the female characters are really fleshed out and complex. Yes, that’s Rattigan, because Mamet isn’t exactly a “women’s director” like Cukor. Great compare/contrast.
I was happy to see that you'd compared these versions as I too like them both, (some scenes make me cry. ) I thought it would be good to share your review also which I did on Facebook about half an hour ago. Then I saw I'd watched your review before and you'd kindly responded! I'm 67 and a bit like a dog I look after sometimes. I gave your review an even more appreciative long sniff this time 🙂! I agree with my previous conclusion. Good job J. W. No need to respond, you'll have no free time to create some short story? of your own, others will be delighted to approve!
It's a great compliment that you enjoyed the review so much that you expressed your appreciation twice and even chose to share the video the second time. Thank you!!
Good review, the 1948 version created big shoes to fill, but the 1999 version didn't disappoint IMHO. But did 1999 beat 1948 or vice versa? I dunno, I watch either version as the mood takes me. But if pressed to choose one, I would probably opt for 1948, just for the chemistry between Robert Donat and Margaret Leighton, and that parting shot 'How little you know men, Miss Winslow'.
Thanks for the review and comparison. Was fun to hear about your thoughts on the movie. I know you were pretty excited to see it, and am glad you finally got the chance to.
As a barrister myself I have always loved this story especially as it takes a lot of the main points of the true incident upon which it is based for the play and the part of Sir Robert is based on the real life lawyer who took the case, the famous Sir Edward Carson who eviscerated Oscar Wilde in the witness box in his infamous libel trial. I am due to play Sir Robert on stage next week in the UK and really looking forward to it. I tried to persuade the director to change the ending as I agree with you those lines at the end of the films between Sir Robert and Catherine are electric but sadly the director would not! Thank you for the review-and your mother too!
Great! I myself studied law and did an internship at a venerable London law firm over 30 years ago. I was also on stage for seven years. Love from Germany 🌹
@@oliverbrownlow5615 P.S. - A bit of trivia: He also had two nephews who became actors, one of whom (Peter Donat) appeared as Fox Mulder’s father in The X Files.
The new version is beautifully mounted but totally lacks the familial British dignity and equally underlying very English low key tension that the original had. While Northam bears a striking resemblance to Donat , he most definitely isn't anywhere near him in talent ,electricity and presence. The new support cast does a good job but again don't add any emotional depth like the original group did. Kind of a coincidence cuz I mentioned Winslow Boy in a comment on the wonderful Ronald Colman segment you did. The original is very hard to beat. Once Donat enters the film midway it ratchets up the level of excellence and excitement much the same way Wells did for the Third Man. Northam just hasn't that charismatic drawing power.
Sorry I just came across your video today. I think that the 1948 version is far superior. Of course I am a huge Robert Donat fan, so I am biased. However I think that, overall, the acting in the original is better by all of the actors. I think that Jeremy Northam was good in the remake but I didn’t feel that he was given enough dialogue. One part that I found particularly frustrating was when he was first interrogating the boy. Why did they have to get another actor to help him? One of the things I found so compelling about the original was the way Donat starts off very calmly and then proceeds bit by bit to build to such a crescendo that he would have us believe that he thinks the boy is completely guilty, only to say afterwards that he will take the case. This gives a proper introduction into why he is considered to be such a great barrister (usually on the side of the prosecution). He has that pit bull intensity that leaves the boy in tears. I also love his speech before the House Of Lords. His timing there is immaculate. And, as you mentioned, his courtroom scenes, especially when he is questioning the handwriting analyst. As for the rest of the cast, I think that Neil North is better than the other kid (sorry, don’t remember his name). He is more emotive. I think that both Cedric Hardwicke and Nigel Hawthorne are just about equal (though there was a scene or two where I preferred Hardwicke). I thought the older brother in the original was funnier than the actor who plays him in the remake. The actress who played the nanny (Kathleen Harrison) was also amusing. I feel that the mother in the remake was probably a little better than the one in the original. The one character that I feel was performed MUCH better in the original was Margaret Leighton’s version of Kate. Rebecca Pidgeon was much too wooden in the remake. I didn’t feel anything for her at all. I feel that the only reason she was cast was because she was David Mamet’s wife. Well, that’s my assessment, for what it’s worth. The original film is one of my favorite films of all time.
Robert donat plays this part to perfection his cool English no nonsense accent intelligence and wit not to mention his handsome looks it's definitely the best version if I may say so
I love the play as literature, unfortunately I have never seen it on stage. I also like how it it deals with the historical facts. It renames all the characters, which I felt symbolized well the fact the liberties it takes with the historical characters, and something I think more movies that fictionalize real events should do. At the same time it changes the characters, eg the lawyer is no longer Irish and real boy had a sister but she was not a suffragette, it sticks quite closely to the historical facts when it comes to the actual theft and the legal/political procedures. Some of the the dialogue is quoted from the real record.
There was another good version in 1989 which seemed to be similar to 1999 version being more stagey, starring Ian Richardson & Emma Thompson. Richardson was also nearer the right age for Morton.
Hi thx really enjoyed your review of both films robert donat is a wonderful actor brilliant in the 39 steps .Margaret Leighton and cecil Hardwicke both great actors Loved the 1999 version slightly different love the interaction between Sir Robert and Catherine
When are you going to do another Jane Eyre video? Also have you seen Belle or A United Kingdom? Those are both great movies and I would love to hear your thoughts on them in one of your mini movie reviews
Nat Sch I love both of those films so much! Amma Asante has become one of my favorite directors/writers because of them. I am really looking forward to seeing When Hands Touch (I think that's the title) because this is her first time doing strictly historical fiction vs a story based on true events and the cast looks awesome😄
The young lady who revues the film tells us that the young man involved in the real theft .o accused of same is named Ronnie Winslow...the name in the play n films the actual boys name was Reginald? ARCHER- SHEE. Please check the Christian name....and tell the young lady ...whom I enjoyed. MW
Robert Donat turned down a long term Hollywood contract that would have guaranteed superstardom; He was replaced by Errol Flynn in 'Captain Blood' & 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' & was originally considered for the leading roles in "Waterloo Bridge" & "Random Harvest". He was unimpressed by the pretentiousness of 'thirties tinsel town describing it as similar to an ideal Homes Exhibition.
I didn’t know about some of those film you mentioned! Wow. He would have been great in all of them. I do know that Hitchcock wanted him to do “The Secret Agent” along with Madeleine Carroll (his costar in “The 39 Steps”) and play Maxim de Winter in “Rebecca” (which went to Lawrence Olivier). As much as I like Olivier, I think that Donat would have been superior in that particular role. He was like a chameleon who was capable of blending into any characters he chose to portray, and he was also very good at being able to display different emotions on his face and in his eyes without uttering a single word. It’s unfortunate that Hollywood producers didn’t feel it was worth their time to travel to the UK in order to work with him.
@@MsAppassionata Hi. Sorry for delay in replying to you; [My E-mail went down for a month.] I agree with you about Robert Donat. It's nice to know that he wasn't a phoney, in the business for fame & money only, but had respect for his profession. He did not make as many films as his fans would have liked.
I have watched all the film versions and read the play, and I believe the romantic element when Sir Robert is played by a young handsome man obscures the fact that the play is really about the father, the main character. Also I think almost every person who sees the films and is not aware that Rattigan was homosexual misses the true focus and point of the play; like the works of E. M. Forster and Tennessee Williams, a homosexual can not write a true conventional love story, he has to fake it from outside his own experience, and none of Rattigan's plays are really love stories.
BTW I must add that in the 1999 film directed by David Mamet he cast his own wife Rebecca Pidgeon as Catherine, which I think was not the best choice and greatly influenced his concept of the story, she was a rather cold Catherine.
It's very obvious in the 1999 version Catherine and Sir Robert are going to wind up in bed. He would convince her to give up the Suffrage ambitions , she had already admitted to her father that it was a lost cause. The best scene was when Sir Robert leaned in to tell her Ronny was smoking and when father interrupted they both turned abruptly away, uncomfortable with the sexual tension. He couldn't take his eyes off her and she wanted marriage. It would be great to hear them arguing further---the movie ended too soon.
I disagree that she would have given up being a suffragette. She only said that it was a lost cause in a moment of weakness when the family was being put through hell because of her and the father’s belief that justice must be done. That’s kind of the point of the whole film: Standing up for what you believe in no matter what cost. For her to abandon her beliefs would have been to go completely against that idea. I believe that she and Sir Robert would eventually have been persuaded to reach some kind of compromise if they wished to have a relationship.
