Copyright 1955. A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. New York opening at the Palace: 29 July 1955 (ran two weeks). U.S. release: 19 August 1955. U.K. release: 23 April 1955. Australian release: 6 September 1955. 104 minutes. SYNOPSIS: In 1780, Washington places General Benedict Arnold in charge of the garrison at West Point.COMMENT: Although critics blamed director John Sturges for the lack of tension and suspense in this promising story idea, the blame should have been sheeted home to Karl "Fumble-Fingers" Tunberg who allows the film's central character, Benedict Arnold, to simply disappear after an elaborate (and well-written) introduction. We keep waiting for him to re-enter and then figure in a climactic unmasking and showdown, but he never does. Instead the screenplay focuses on a subsidiary figure, Major John Andre, so pallidly played by Michael Wilding, he allows everyone in sight (except Anne Francis) to steal his scenes. Fortunately, charismatic George Sanders leads the scene-stealers. He is easily the movie's greatest asset. Miss Francis is not only wasted, her part has no point or purpose at all. When the screenplay suddenly decides to bring Major Andre center stage, she simply disappears. As for Mr. Wilde, he is forced to struggle with a role that both he and Sturges (and the movie-going public) knew was quite beyond his range. (It was written for Stewart Granger, but he wisely turned the part down). Despite a lot of money up there on the screen, including its rich production values in costumes, locations and splendid autumnal CinemaScope panoramas, M-G-M was forced to sell "The Scarlet Coat" to exhibitors as a "B" attraction. It was the fourth CinemaScope movie from any studio to lose money. "Jupiter's Darling" was the first casualty, "Bedevilled" was the second loser, "The King's Thief", the third. So strike four for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer!

One of the intriguing aspects of this historical drama is the way the "Tories" or British American Loyalists are portrayed, and the sort of gloss given to their ardent support for King George III. In many ways the American Revolution was definitely a family affair, in that some of the wealthier colonial families were split asunder by it. If there is a strong criticism to be made of this film, it is that perhaps the people in this story are made out to be a little bit nicer than they were in real life.In some regards, the actions of the character of Major Boulton, played by Cornel Wilde, make him the least likable member of the cast and the flaw in the storyline. He seems to vary from being a prickly kind of patriot to being a kind of 'anything for the cause,' fellow. This film does concentrate heavily on the notions of personal honor and personal prestige which were a major social 'norm' in that day and age.In its subtext, the fact that about twenty-five percent of the colonial population was decidedly pro-British is glossed over, too. But the strength of the Tory element is not obviously maligned, although the good doctor character is about eighty-five percent upper class twit ( to steal a fine phrase from Monty Python's Flying Circus ). Anne Francis does a whole lot with a rather thin section of the script, and it stands out. She was a good choice for the woman of divided loyalties, a 'gal' who was rather more modern than the social conventions of that day might have allowed -- if there had not been a life and death struggle going on.One good aspect of the film is the way the rivalries of the American revolutionary leaders degenerated into outright jealousies, and how these personal conflicts very nearly sabotaged the entire revolutionary effort. All in all, the leading characters are very well drawn, the minor characters are not just human "props" and the fight scenes are believable enough to carry the dramatic action.This is a great spy movie. It's not quite a great historical drama, but it does satisfy well enough. It rates a seven largely because Cornel Wilde is so deeply immersed in his role, and does it so well, and because Anne Francis makes the most of her supporting effort.The color print used on Turner Classic Movies was very clear, as well, and so it was an enjoyable presentation in that important regard.Hope it runs again soon.

I was glad to see that THE SCARLET COAT, after being absent from television for many years, has begun showing up on cable - usually on TURNER NETWORK. It is one of those films that I have referred to elsewhere that once was shown pretty frequently but then vanished from the small screen.It is not as well recalled as other films about the Revolution - many of which are inferior. People recall 1776 for the solid musical underneath it.They remember THE DEVIL'S DESCIPLE for Laurence Olivier's excellent (and fun) performance as General Burgoyne, and for the good work of his co-stars Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas. But they remember THE HOWARDS OF VIRGINIA, a dull film from the early 1940s that may be the most mediocre performance in Cary Grant's career. Except for 1776 the other two films have stars in them (1776 had some good character actors, William Daniel as John Adams - repeating his stage performance fortunately - and Howard De Silva as Ben Franklin - even in the small role of Edward Rutledge there is John Cullum singing that fascinating economic lecture "Mollasses to Rum to Slave".). So it goes with all of the other films - Griffith's America does have a diabolic performance of Lionel Barrymore as Walter Butler, the Tory. LAFAYETTE has Orson Welles portraying Ben Franklin (oddly enough nobody thought of making the musical BEN FRANKLIN IN Paris into a film - with Robert Preston in the lead as on Broadway). Robert Stack starred as JOHN PAUL JONES (a movie sunk by a wooden, lifeless script). Even Al Pacino could not save REVOLUTION. As for Mel Gibson's THE PATRIOT, it collapses in his desire to show sadistic British incidents which never happened (if a British Cavalry officer had burned down an Anglican Church with it's parishioners inside in the South in 1780, King George III - who took his being head of the Anglican Church seriously - would have had that officer hung!). A sad list - fortunately there is 1776 and DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK and THE SCARLET COAT.The conspiracy of Benedict Arnold - Sir Henry Clinton - and Major John Andre is a subject that has only appeared in two movies - and oddly enough both were good. One is the comedy THE TIME OF THEIR LIVES, where Abbott and Costello link their colonial characters to the fate of Arnold's local co-conspirators. However, only the first twenty minutes of the film deal with the conspiracy at all (though the plot hinges on clearing Costello's name of treason charges). THE SCARLET COAT is a solid dramatic treat, and wisely concentrates on the real tragic hero in the story: Major John Andre. Yes, he was a spy, and had he succeeded American history would have been part of the British Empire for at least another century (Arnold was selling more than control of West Point and the Hudson - Washington and his staff were scheduled to be there on the day the trap would have been sprung). But unlike Arnold (whatever blows he unfairly received after doing such marvelous service for the American cause up to 1777) Andre never betrayed his country - he was fighting for his king and homeland, and thought he was in the right. Michael Wilding makes this point very eloquently in the film's court-martial scene. As a result, the viewer's sympathies (as well as those of Cornell Wilde's character, and all the other characters in the film) remain with the Major even unto death. It is interesting to note that in the 19th Century the Arnold Conspiracy did remain the subject of American drama - but the play that held the boards was not named "Arnold" but "Andre". He couldn't be saved but we still regret what happened to him.And then there is this 1955 film.

At the film's beginning, a card tells us this is to be about Benedict Arnold's unmasking as a traitor. So, I expected the usual historical action film, depicting the heroic Americans and the villainous British. And, at first, the film seemed to be going this way.But then, it became richer as it focused not so much on Benedict Arnold as on Major John Andre, the British Adjutant General, and Major John Boulton, an American secret agent. The essential plot point is that Boulton will pretend to desert the American forces and go over to the British, his object being to learn who the mysterious Gustavus is. Gustavus is a pseudonym for an American (Arnold, of course) who is revealing secrets of the American forces to the British.But once Boulton has "defected," he encounters two very interesting men. One is Dr. Jonathan Odell, who never trusts Boulton, thinking from start to finish that Boulton is an American agent. The other is Major John Andre, who accepts Boulton as a true defector. In his guise as defector, Boulton appears to be a man without ideals, someone interested in making money for the information that he can carry.As the film develops, Boulton and Andre come to respect each other, tho they are men on opposite sides. Andre always claims that Boulton has ideals, and so it proves to be. And Andre comes across as a loyal British subject, a man of integrity. It was amazing to see the story line develop in this way: both sides in the Revolutionary War (and every war) have fine people, people of honor and integrity, loyal to their country and its ideals. Were it not for the war, these people might be good friends and work together.In the climatic scene, Andre is found guilty of enticing Arnold to betray his country, even to offering Arnold money for information. As Andre makes clear, that is his job, and there are Americans who are trying to do the same thing with British officers as well. Andre is sentenced to death.Boulton so respects Andre he goes to George Washington in an attempt to get a reprieve from the death penalty for Andre. And Washington does provide a solution: If Andre will sign the papers, he will be exchanged for Arnold, who has deserted to the British and is among their troops. But Andre refuses. As Andre explains, from his position as a British officer, he sees Arnold as having "seen the light," i.e., that the British position is correct and the Colonists are wrong for rebelling. Andre rises to heroic status in this scene, a man to be respected, and a true British patriot, willing to sacrifice his life for his ideals. And so he does. He was executed October 2, 1780.The film is beautiful. I saw a pristine Cinemascope print. A note in the credits (read carefully) indicates that much of this film was shot at the Sleepy Hollow Restoration on the Hudson where many of the original events took place. It was shot in the autumn with the color of the leaves at their full beauty. The costumes rival the colors of nature, particularly the scarlet coats of the British officers. But color is well used (symbolically) throughout the film. For example, Odell is usually dressed in brown or gray. And Boulton is often in blue, sometimes a very vibrant blue. The film makes fine use of the Cinemascope aspect ratio.My only objection to the sets is this: Everything looks new, as if the furniture had just been purchased at a local store, as if the painters had just left yesterday, the lawn crews had just finished mowing the grass and tending the flower beds. Of course, the trees at the Sleepy Hollow Restoration have almost 175 years on them from what they looked like in 1780. The roughness of the true colonial days isn't here.Cornel Wilde and Michael Wilding do fine jobs with their roles. A lot of critics wrote off Wilding as a lightweight actor. But here his British demeanor and accent are perfectly correct for Andre, and Wilde's rougher looks are correct for the American he plays.Sanders is also satisfactory in a good part of the suspicious doctor. And Bobby Driscoll--remember him from "Song of the South"?--has a small supporting part as a teenager anxious to join the Revolutionary forces.Anne Francis is window dressing as Sally Cameron, whom both Andre and Boulton are in love with. At his end, Andre asks Boulton to look to Sally, for, should the Colonists win the war, she will probably be treated as a traitor because of her late husband's British sympathies.The script was written by Karl Tunberg, who'd done the script for "Beau Brummel" just before this. Earlier (1945), he'd written "Kitty." "The Scarlet Coat" is finer than either of these.There was only one line that was false, a storybook line: Andre says, "I must go to my rendezvous with history." But, apparently, Andre actually said this line or legend has attributed it to him. It is on his tomb in Westminster Abbey.This film is well worth your attention.