In 1845 London, invalid poetess Norma Shearer (as Elizabeth Barrett) finds reasons to live, after meeting fellow writer Fredric March (as Robert Browning). "The Barretts of Wimpole Street" focuses on one particular Barrett; not surprisingly, it is the one played by Ms. Shearer. At the time, she was considered one of the best actresses of all-time, and this MGM production captures Shearer's appeal perfectly. Unlike many of her contemporaries, Shearer approached most of her later roles from a movie star perspective, and stayed there. So, rather than trying to inhabit Elizabeth Barrett, she brings the character to Shearer. Herein, it works. This was the last time Shearer had the use of her greatest behind-the-scenes collaborators, director Sidney Franklin and husband Irving Thalberg. The latter assembles the usual top talent, and Franklin expertly presents his star.With William Daniels' loving camera, Shearer is given numerous close-ups and medium shots, made to showcase her acting.So, you will see the litany of Shearer looks. Much of it is unnecessary, but it certainly makes the picture fun to watch. And, Shearer's performance is one of her best. The "Academy Awards" took notice, and Shearer finished #2 behind Claudette Colbert in the annual "Best Actress" race, ahead of Bette Davis. Many people think Ms. Davis was "robbed" that year; but, Shearer was even more slighted. The film was "Best Picture" according to "Film Daily" and "Photoplay" while Oscar placed it second. There were no "Supporting Actor" awards yet, or Charles Laughton would surely have been noticed; if only for the way he practically commands Shearer to fall on their home's imposing staircase. Franklin is also award-worthy; when maid Una O'Connor glides into the screen, you know he intends to lift a stagy story about a mostly immobile woman up off its heels.******** The Barretts of Wimpole Street (9/14/34) Sidney Franklin ~ Norma Shearer, Frederic March, Charles Laughton, Una O'Connor

THE BARRETTS OF WIMPOLE STREET was remade in the '60s with Jennifer Jones as Elizabeth Barrett Browning, but most movie fans prefer this earlier version of the tale starring NORMA SHEARER as the ailing poetess, FREDRIC MARCH as her lover and CHARLES LAUGHTON as the control freak of a father. MGM gave it lavish production values and Sidney Franklin's direction is first rate. He would later direct the remake.MAUREEN O'SULLIVAN is charming as Elizabeth's spirited sister in love with a soldier, RALPH FORBES. Performance-wise, it's probably Shearer's best screen performance, ranking with her MARIE ANTOINETTE as the best work of her career. Her quiet resignation to living under the firm domination of her father is well realized, even in the earliest scenes.Trivia note: I don't understand why the decision was made to have UNA O'CONNOR floating into the room as though she was on a track and appears not to be walking at all. It does nothing more than create an artificial effect, especially since O'Connor's performance is more understated than usual.The character-driven story is heavy with stage dialog, moves leisurely and is not likely to find much appeal with today's film-goers. FREDRIC MARCH, who makes his entrance into the story after the first half-hour, is a lively presence but almost overdoes the youthful eagerness in his first scene with Shearer. His boundless energy seems a bit forced.CHARLES LAUGHTON is convincingly devious as the stern parent but looks a bit too young beneath the whiskers and age make-up. Shearer seldom looks as sick as she's supposed to be and is given some radiant close-ups, as if to prove that MGM's make-up department was as efficient as ever.Summing up: Never one of my favorite stories--or films--but worth watching for the performances of an excellent cast.

There are few films regarding the lives of great poets or poets at all. I can think of "Shakespeare in Love" (Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe), "The Bad Lord Byron", "Tom and Viv" (T.S.Eliot and his first wife), "The Great MacGonigal", and the two versions of "The Barretts of Wimpole Street". Although the second version of the film is considered better by some viewers (who think John Guilgud's performance as Edward Barrett is more subtle than Charles Laughton's), most film lovers thing the 1934 version is better. It certainly showed that Norma Shearer could act more than competently (her 1931 Oscar for "The Divorcée" seems justifiable due to the number of character changes she undergoes in the film, but the film was weak to begin with). Here she had a great script, and "The Barretts" remains one of her top three performances with "The Women" and "Marie Antoinette". Her jousting with Laughton as her tyrannical father is worthy of attention, and look at their eyes in their last confrontation scene. Laughton could not be too explicit about his character's incestuous motives, but his eyes tell the story - and Shearer's frightening reaction tells the revulsion and fear she feels. Fredric March's Robert Browning is optimistic and caring - which is what the character calls for (it is also what Browning apparently was like - he seems to have been ever the optimist). His willingness to admit his less than perfect side is admirable - witness how he realizes that a passage in one of his poems that Shearer cannot understand is one that does not make sense to him either (the lines concluding that sequence are quoted on this board). He is not weak reed, but a firm support for Barrett's need to flee her father. One cheers him on through the film.It was not the first film he made with Laughton. In fact, one can make a case that March and Laughton almost made a dramatic "Laurel & Hardy" pair: "Sign of the Cross", "The Barretts of Wimpole Street", "Les Miserables". To be fair Laughton got the juicier parts ("Nero", Edward Barrett", "Javert"), but March held his own in their scenes together. No small acting here, given that Laughton can steal the thunder of the picture each time by his characters and their personalities.For most of the film Laughton's character is detestable by his combination of selfishness, self-righteousness, and control-freakishness. Check out the brief scene where he is with a niece and her weak husband (Ian Wolf), which ends when he gives an overwhelmingly passionate kiss to the niece. He is a monster just barely in control of his "id". But there is one scene stands out for another reason. It is nearly comic.Edward's second oldest daughter Henrietta (Maureen O'Sullivan) has also found a boyfriend, Captain Surtees Cook (Ralph Forbes). They have been stealing away every now and then for some time together, and Forbes has even ventured into the Barrett home. They have not been caught by Edward, but he comes in early one day and finds them together. Barrett of course is surprised, and quickly realizes that Cook is a local barracks soldier who has latched onto his daughter. Barrett is also a tax payer (and a wealthy one) and he knows his tax money is spent on the upkeep of those barracks, and the training of the soldiers there to defend his country. The scene is dramatic in that it will lead to one where Edward will browbeat poor Henrietta into emotional surrender (although also eternal hatred), but for a moment the situation becomes comic. Edward stands at the door listening to first Henrietta and then Cook explain their love and devotion. He is not really impressed by this, and pulls out his watch, which he looks over. Gradually Cook realizes that his explanations are not helping him and Henrietta, and that Mr. Barrett is getting tired of his presence in his home. Eventually poor Cook leaves with some vague promise to contact Henrietta at some later date with her father's permission. As he leaves a bored and stern Edward just remains looking at his watch. In the context of the movie it is just one more reason to detest Edward Barrett, but it is a hint of Laughton's later performance as Henry Hobson in "Hobson's Choice". One wonders if it was in the original play or screenplay. It certainly helps enliven the darkness and gloom surrounding Edward Barrett.

This was a prestige effort in every way in 1934, gathering together the Academy Award winners of the past three years to appear together in the film version of a highly respected play. That the play no longer holds the stage, and that it is old fashioned melodrama, is hardly the point. The script may lean towards the treacly, but both Charles Laughton and in particular Norma Shearer give it s real lift.Laughton is somewhat hammy, playing Mr. Barrett as a slightly toned down Dr. Moreau. But I defy anyone to look away; and towards the end of the film he does give a fine impression of a man in torment. But it is Shearer who really carries the film; absolutely lovely performance, restrained and wisely underplaying with Laughton. Observe their final confrontation and note how Shearer's performance rises in intensity as Laughton's grows more subdued. This is a high class of ensemble acting.Only Fredric March lets the film down by being far too energetic as Robert Browning; meant to be cockily eccentric, he succeeds in putting your teeth on edge. Still, Norma loves him convincingly enough.A highly recommended film for a rainy afternoon.