SYLVIA SCARLETT

[charliechaplinfan]

I watched Sylvia Scarlett again today. How did it miss being a hit back in 1936? Perhaps it is too subtle or cross dressing was too risque for 1936. I think it is one of the best Katharine Hepburn performances in a career that spawned many great performances, she's superb as both the boy and as the girl. No one in this film is above reproach, everyone seems to have there own motives at work. The best cockney trickster/wideboy ever put on film is Jimmy Monkley played so well by Cary Grant that many believed he was a cockney. One thing I did wonder is how did Sylvia end up with such a liability for a father?

Perhaps it is a little risque the fact that Brian Aherne's character is attracted to this strange boy but for reasons he doesn't understand. Also the three occasions that as a boy she finds herself in a situation where she has to bed down with a man, well that too could be risque but it's splendid when put on film. I think any decent girl should run out on Jimmy Monkley.

The best relationship in the film is that between Sylvia and Jimmy, both when she is a boy and then as a girl. He's always one step ahead of her. Watching Jimmy's attitude change from mild annoyance and irritation at the young Sylvester to his widening eyes and horizons as he realises she's a girl, Sylvia. Very nearly does she bring him round to being a decent human being but he meets one of his own kind and is lost to the shady side of life with a shadier kind of person where he is most at home. Sylvia begins to see that her life is bound to Jimmy's, they are on the edge of society, shunned by some and at least with Jimmy she'll get by, even if she is a little repulsed by his wideboy antics.

Brian Aherne's Michael and Sylvia are entangled with people that aren't good enough for them, but can't see it themselves although they see what is wrong with each other's potential partners.

On second viewing I noticed so many more of the subtleties that George Cukor laced the film with. He got the feel of Britishness, in part by casting two very British actors and found the right level for the seedy London underworld they tried to thrive in and the seaside. It's simply a great film that is only now getting some of the recognition it deserves.

[moira finnie]

It is a lovely film, filled with amusing comments on gender, class and that fine line between con-men and victims. I love Cary Grant and Brian Aherne in this movie, (boy, what a choice!). After seeing many of Grant's early films quite recently, it seems to be the first time that he's blending that rougher, bright boy from the lower class with the dashing fellow many of us cherish. I particularly like that little speech that Grant makes to Hepburn about "sparrows & 'awks", which can be heard here


It's funny, but to the end of his life, Cukor seemed quite diffident about discussing the film, even after it gained a cult status. This may have been because it revealed so much about his own nature, as well as the fact that the movie was a bigger failure for Cukor & Hepburn than they'd ever experienced previously, beginning a bit of a fallow period for Katharine, if not for Cukor.

Have you ever read Compton MacKenzie's two books on these characters? I read the first one as a teen before seeing the movie, but would like to go back and read both with adult eyes.

[charliechaplinfan]

I've never read the books, do they capture the characters?

It's an odd film. Moira, do you think Jimmy ran off with Lily because he wanted her more that Slyvia or do you think he ran off with her to give Sylvia a chance to get Michael? Before he ran off he was becoming more human and almost tender towards Sylvia, it gave me hope that they would end up together rather than with Michael who I found far more insipid. I wouldn't have trouble with the choice, it would be Cary/Jimmy everytime. It does showcase the talents Cary must have picked up with the Pender troop.

I've always thought that Cary and Kate are a great onscreen combination, the boy with the poor upbringing who apprenticed in music halls with the girl from good stock and from classic theatre. They really are cinema magic.

I think the scene when Slyvester and Jimmy get ready for bed the best in the whole film.

[myrnaloyisdope]

I'm glad to see a post about one of the finer forgotten films of that era.

I know Hepburn hated the film, and Cukor thought quite poorly of it as well...although it seems that their dismissal of the film has more to do with the film's disastrous preview and ensuing financial failure than it does with the quality. I've read a couple anecdotes about the preview, and essentially the whole audience hated the film, with Hepburn and Cukor both being in complete shock that no one was laughing. Pandro Berman, the film's producer told Cukor and Hepburn that he never wanted to work with them again, while Hepburn offered to do a picture for free just to make up for the calamity.

The film was essentially a pet project for Hepburn and Cukor, as they were the ones who pushed for it to be made.

As for the film's failure, well I think a lot it has to do with the Hepburn persona failing to connect with the audience. After the success of Little Women, Hepburn suffered several notorious failures on film and on Broadway, with Spitfire being a particularly big bomb. The string of failures combined with Hepburn's refusal to play by the rules (ie wearing pants, avoiding Hollywood, not doing publicity), and her genuinely unusual persona, created an audience antipathy to her that didn't really wane until The Philadelphia Story. She was essentially portrayed in the media as being above Hollywood, and in essence above the audience, so they didn't respond kindly.

I should also add that Sylvia Scarlett isn't the most accessible film. It's tough to describe easily, and doesn't really fit a genre. I know my first viewing left me somewhat confused, as the tone shifted multiple times without any preparation. The intro sets up the viewer for what should be standard story of con-artists and disguises, and then it shifts into a story of a musical troupe on the English countryside, then it becomes a love story with Hepburn and Aherne, and then Cary Grant becomes the villain, but then he's not really. Add to that the gender-bending and you have a movie that covers a ton of ground in a very short time. The jump from comedy to musical to romance and back again is rapid and leaves one breathless. But this factor is the key to what one thinks of the film: if you can handle the rapid genre and tone changes as well as Hepburn in drag, then you'll like the film, otherwise it appears to be a mess (although a very interesting one at that).

[charliechaplinfan]

It's just before screwball comedies came into their own and although not a screwball comedy, it has got that quick fire, fast pace about it. Do you think the audience had problems with the Cockney accident 'the 'awks and the sperras' being one example.

I've got a good biography of Katharine Hepburn, she must have had a strong belief in herself to take these knocks and keep coming back for more. A good thing too, she had so much to give.

[Ann Harding]

MLisdope, you certainly summed it up perfectly: the change in tone and genre is precisely why I love Sylvia Scarlett. It starts like a musical, looks a bit like a melodrama, then becomes screwball again. I just love films where several genres are intertwined. It creates a real suspense. You don't know what to expect next and the characters end up having far more depth than when they are stereotypical and fixed in a particular genre. My taste has certainly been colored by my love of French Classic films where this kind of 'genre-hopping' is quite common.

[ken123]

When I first saw this film on TV about 40 years ago I hated it, since then my toleration level for this film has increased but I would not go out of my way to see it.