The Holly and the Ivy

The Holly and the Ivy is a film that is as simple as its title. The story by now is well known: but because of that don't say you won't see this picture. It's D little gem, its moving, amusing, penetrating.

There are three Stirling performances from Ralph Richardson, celia Johnson and Margaret Leighton. They have all come from the larger arena of the stage, and do therefore appear a little larger than life on the screen; but they have grasped the essential of screen acting outward simplicity, inward subtlety. They were all quite human; unaffected, untricky, unsynthetic. Celia Johnson's performance was the most perfectly gauged—subtle gamut of movement and geture An "iceberg" performance; most of it under the surface.

The film is adapted from a play, so of course (producers are slow to learn ) there is too much talk. But the overloaded script is translated to the screen with simplicity and skill The director captured" the atmos-Christmas dinner, set the table, lit phere of Christmas, arranged the lights and decorations, cooked the the fire. Then he let his actors have their day. They didn't let him down. Sincerity rather than spectacle, integrity rather than technical ingenuity.

Grading: ****

Grading for Sincere Acting: *****

Quo Vadis?

The M.G.M. lion roars, that big, fat, heartless lion, and the spectacle begins. "Quo Vadis?" To the Rome, of Nero at the cost of £3,000,000. to see 30,000 extras (dressed 15,000 costumes), to be struckdumb by the magnificence of the are, to shudder with the Christians in the Arena, But "when in Rome, do as the Americans do." Copy their accent, their sentiment. And for arts sake, be grateful that the sumptuous tapestries and collosal Roman architectural monsters, almost conceal the lack of imagination and taste of the producers.

"Qou Vadis" could have been colossal in many ways The original story calls for spectacle, admittedly, but there is pathos and a theme of broad significance. All this and good taste too is missing from the film version. Material spectacle is all very well but it becomes tiresome after one hour.

Deborah Kerr gave the best major performance—out of a poor lot. Yes, even beter than Peter Ustinov who was a great disappointment. His Nero was straight from the music hall, a stagy caricature. A performance rather than a characterisation. Robert Taylor gave a brilliant performance as Robert Taylor except that he was not convincing in his conversion to Christianity. Leo Genn's acting was polished but he failed in his trump scene.

I don't condemn "Qou Vadis" wholeheartedly. I must congratulate the script writers for keeping to simple English, without the "thys." "thous" and "theen" that belong to the language of Cecil B. de Mille. Some of the scenes are well directed when we consider he had not "the heart of the matter."

A character in the film remarked that "the lire was not good, but it was colossal." So be it with "Quo Vadis."

Grading: ***

Grading for Spectacle: *****

Cry the Beloved Country

This is not the usual escapist type film turned out by Hollywood: it is not even a comedy. Adapted from the novel by Alan Paton it attempts to present to non-Africans the evils resulting from the policy of racial segregation. Mr. Paton does not attempt to give a new policy But he sees all around him fear, resulting in chaos. His altitude is best summed up in two paragraphs from ins novel, which, as a character says in it is "beautiful beyond any singing of it."

"Cry, the beloved country, for the new-born child who is the inheritor of our fear. Let him not love the earth too deeply. Let him not laugh too gladly when the water runs through his fingeers, nor stand too silent when the setting sun makes red the veldt with tire. Let him not be too moved when the birds of his land are singing, nor give too much of his heart to a mountain or valley. For fear will rob him of all if he gives too much.

"Who knows how we shall fashion such a land? For we fear not only the loss of our superiority and the loss of our whiteness. Some say that it is true that crime is bad, but would not this be worse? is it not better to hold what we have, and to pay the price of it with fear? And others say, can such fear be endured? For it is not fear that drives men to ponder these things at all?"

The script for the film version is unaltered from the novel, but unfortunately the continuity of the film is broken by bad editing. Isolated incidents occur which are treated more fully in the novel; the judge at the trial of Absolam Kumalo gives a very line speech in summing up: there is a fruitless appeal for clemency, etc.

Canada Lee as Rev. Stephen Kumalo, the Anglican minister, plays his part magnificently. Charles Carson as the elderly European who has no grudge against the natives but is prevented by prejudice from being openly on the same level as them, also plays his part well.

Here is truth and indeed a poignant sincerity; there is no superfluous sentimentalism here. The author and co-director deserve commendation for this production, but I feel that full Justice has not been done to the available material The shots from the train moving into Johannesburg city symbolises the bewilderment of the native priest as he loo enters this huge and living community, which contains a fear of——what?

It would be impossible to do full justice to this film in a brief review. Were it not for the lack of continuity in parts it would qualify for the five-star grading. As it is.

Grading: ****