Skip to main content

Back to the Feature: The Bishop's Wife (1947)


       Looking at it today, The Bishop’s Wife can’t help but feel like an imitator of It’s a Wonderful Life. It came out just a year after Frank Capra’s seminal classic, and the similar subject matter of an angel coming to do good in one mans’ life feels constantly in the shadow of that greater movie’s use of the same idea. However it should be remembered that It’s a Wonderful Life was not an instant classic –it was in fact one of Capra’s most disappointing films, and The Bishop’s Wife was based on a novel by Robert Nathan. The idea of angels interfering in mens’ lives around Christmas it seems was merely a popular idea in the 1940s.
       The Bishop’s Wife itself wasn’t much of a success either, at least not until producer Samuel Goldwyn added Cary Grant’s name to the very title by dubbing it “Cary and the Bishop’s Wife”, a marketing move so stupid and condescending, that it absolutely worked on the American public of 1947. The issue seemed to be that the title as was implied an overt religious nature to the film, an implication not entirely unfounded in the films content. That aside though, I was genuinely surprised how charmed I was by this movie, especially given my experience with Christmas movies of this era has been largely disappointing (apart from the aforementioned classic and Miracle on 34th Street).
       It’s about a Bishop Henry Brougham (David Niven) struggling to fund a new cathedral during the holiday season. His concern with this has caused him to neglect his household, his daughter, and his wife Julia (Loretta Young). In answer to a prayer for guidance, Dudley (Cary Grant) shows up, claiming to be an angel, and in the next few days spends time with Brougham’s family, getting to know Julia especially and trying to help the Bishop see what’s really important.
       The smartest choice this movie made was not making Dudley the protagonist, despite being played by Cary Grant. Being played by Cary Grant, he does have the most screen-time, but the story arc and character journey belongs to Henry. He’s the one walking in the path of Ebenezer Scrooge and George Bailey, needing to learn the important lesson of the story. Despite the films’ structure designed to showcase Dudley more, Henry remains the heart; it’s him we’re invested in and his growth comes about in a believable way. Okay, the possibility of losing one’s wife to an angel would make anyone think twice about how they’ve been living their life, but David Niven does a great job making this feel like part of a larger whole. I don’t think we appreciate enough how good of an actor David Niven was, because he’s never in the conversation with the other greats of his era (Cary Grant among them). But this was the same year he did A Matter of Life and Death, and he is likewise exemplary here. As much as he may be written that way at times, he never comes off as unlikeable or overly pious. Niven plays the character with conviction and a genuine desire to do good in a big picture sense, though naïve to the needs of his own household and the spirit he purports to be doing this in.
       Dudley, in as much as he’s meant to be a guide for Henry, is also a great foil. The conversations between the two are some of the movies’ best moments, both for the principles and the banter. I like that there’s no obvious supernatural presence to Dudley, leaving the audience to wonder for a time if he really is an angel as he claims. And Dudley is no Clarence, he knows exactly what he’s doing and is aware of the necessary propriety to keep his true nature a secret. Playing all of this with both his usual sophistication and a welcome aura of wisdom is Cary Grant in one of his most unique roles. It’s one of the few times the story isn’t centred on him and he doesn’t pair off with his leading lady in the end. In a way this makes it feel like a more mature performance from Grant, and it says a lot that he was offered the part of the Bishop but chose the Angel instead. The way he uses his magic, whether to give someone a spark of inspiration, just to show off, or to make a point to Henry, it has a particular quality to it -reminiscent of the Ghost of Christmas Present. Grant is so naturally charming and endearing as he does this too, and has great chemistry with Niven. But of course a lot of the movie is given over to Dudley being with Julia in the community, meeting people and occasionally undermining Henry -such as when he persuades the wealthy Mrs. Hamilton (Gladys Cooper) into donating her money to a charity rather than the Cathedral project. And all the while he’s accidentally falling in love with the wife of the man he’s supposed to be helping.
       The relationship between Dudley and Julia is fine, though the latter isn’t a particularly strong character. It should be noted that Loretta Young had a tough job for this movie though, having to be charmed, curious, and elated by Dudley without coming across as falling in love with him (even if this does appear the case at times). The Production Code refused to allow a married woman to, even in feeling, commit adultery, and that likewise seems to be the reason why Dudley couldn’t romance her by the end. This made the movie better overall (one of the few times the Code actually did good), but it leaves the thinness of Julia’s character more transparent -and she’s the title figure. Young does work well as an audience surrogate and a few of her romantic scenes with Dudley are really good, most of all that skating sequence that the films’ poster emphasized. The supporting cast is generally quite good, featuring in addition to Cooper and Monty Woolley as the non-religious writer, a delightful Elsa Lanchester as the Brougham’s housekeeper Matilda. And you can’t get much more perfect an example of typecasting as two kids from It’s a Wonderful Life showing up in this Christmas movie just a year later in pretty much the same parts. Karolyn Grimes, famous as Zuzu Bailey, having uttered arguably the most famous line from the earlier film, is the Broughams’ daughter, while Bobby Anderson, who played the young George Bailey, is once again an outspoken ice-skating youth.
       The Bishop’s Wife is a Christmas movie despite my having not mentioned the holiday much until now. Christmas may not be a direct part of the plot but this is more than a movie merely set at the festive time of year. Its themes of valuing people more than material goals is undoubtedly tied to Christmas and the holiday imagery is all over this movie from the snowy streets to the lavish Christmas tree Dudley magically decorates. And though obviously there is a lot of religion in the movie, what with a clergyman and an angel being the protagonists, it’s not a vessel for preaching and keeps its story relatively secular. It remains grounded in more universal morals and notions. Dudley doesn’t even talk to God, being certainly much less reliant on his boss than Clarence. Most importantly, the construction of a cathedral is the major roadblock in Henry’s morality lesson. Essentially the movie says such buildings are not important.
       And the movie is right in saying that. Henry is right for heeding Dudley’s advice and Dudley is right for leaving their lives without a word (erasing their memories in the process). And Cary Grant exits a movie in one of his most meaningful ways. The Bishop’s Wife may be regurgitating a common Christmas message but it’s one that works nicely in this particular story. The existence of a remake made in 1996 by the recently late Penny Marshall starring Denzel Washington shows that the story has some staying power. It’s not a great Christmas movie by any means, but it is a warm one, a genially entertaining movie that reminds us that family, love and generosity are more important than the business of building monuments to those things.
       Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!


Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...