Rex Harrison did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Sir Alfred de Carter in Unfaithfully Yours.
Unfaithfully Yours is a rather enjoyable dark comedy about a famed conductor plotting revenge against his wife after receiving evidence of potential infidelity.
Rex Harrison once again is featured in a review of mine, and I ponder again on the actor. As this is again a successful performance of his, and I think about in comparison to his less successful work. There almost seems a requirement for some element for Harrison to disregard the material at least to an extent, as wholly earnest doesn't quite seem to suit his presence. This is helped naturally by being in a film written/directed by Preston Sturges who never minded putting his tongue firmly into his cheek. We are granted this quite quickly in the film's presentation of the married couple and their entourage. We have at the center Harrison's conductor Sir Alfred de Carter along with his perhaps excessively devoted wife Daphne de Carter (Linda Darnell). These scenes are purposefully overdone with showing just how much the two love each other, and technically here we fall upon a more earnest side. Not quite though. Harrison actually excels by getting to overdo the charm, and debonair style a bit to just lay on a bit thick with just how romantically charged the two are together. It isn't this great love affair or chemistry in normal screen terms, but rather works as this more nearly artificial creation to purposefully make any change in it a earth shattering event for the couple. That earth shattering event that is obviously to be on the way shortly in order to grant that titular unfaithfulness.
Now on a brief note we do have other scenes with Struges's sprite dialogue as Sir Alfred goes about his day outside of his loving moments with his wife. Harrison's idiosyncratic proper voice being a perfect fit for the wry style of Struges. Of course that more wry style slowly develops once the idea of the unfaithfulness is seeded. This is through a series of unfortunate mix ups, aren't they all, to convince Sir Alfred that his wife has betrayed their marriage. Once we are granted this setup is when Harrison's performance fully takes off, though he is certainly entertaining up to that point. In fact this right within the conducting scene where Sir Alfred is left to ponder what he is learned through a series of orchestral pieces. Harrison's modes of conducting are worth mention in their, not so much for specific technique but rather the emotional context he grants each piece. In each we are granted both the entrance into his thought process, and the result of it. Harrison manages to do this both in terms of actually fulfilling a bit of dramatic intention, and the more expected comedic approach. The dramatic is in simple moments yet Harrison is quite effective in creating it in his conducting reactions such a sense of somberness within the mood that develops his initial wish for understanding of his situation, but also one potential avenue for resolving it.
That is perhaps the better side of Sir Alfred, which Harrison handles well, but really what plays to the actor's strength is when it takes a bit of a darker turn. This being announced as he begins to conduct at a more aggressive tempo and Harrison reveals a beautiful sort of madness in his face fitting to a man who has lost all sense of propriety. This is shown through the darkest bit of comedy when Sir Alfred imagines one of his options being to murder his wife then frame her presumed lover for the murder. This technically could easily slant in the wrong direction however it works through Harrison's performance which brings the right intensity, but also the right lack of sincerity in his performance. In that, even as Harrison plays up the derangement of Sir Alfred as he unleashes his plan with his brilliantly maniacal expressions, he twists it towards an absurd level that properly makes the sequence funny rather than disturbing. Harrison's great because he plays it as this grandiose villain rather than a genuinely demented husband keeping the tone from ever become too unwieldy. This is the basis for the entire strength of his work which Harrison handles so well by never letting things really get too serious, except when we see Sir Alfred's better solutions.
In those moments Harrison brings a more genuine sincerity, now seemingly earned by his burdens, that offers enough of an emotional honestly to his situation. Of course those are just respites to the fun of his performance which is through the foolishness of Sir Alfred's thoughts. As he not contemplates murder, but also suicide. Again another scene where Harrison's daffy take is what makes work allowing the moment, as Sir Alfred plays Russian roulette, to be appropriately silly rather than harrowing. My favorite part of his performance actually comes in the finale of sorts as Sir Alfred, after his performance as conductor, chooses the path of murder. A potentially disturbing idea is made hilarious through Harrison's performance, which I especially love because he differentiates from his mad fantasy version. In this version Harrison is great by just being so awkward at every point. His physical work is great because he is neither realistic nor typical slapstick as one physical calamity after another befalls Sir Alfred as he attempts to put his plan into motion. Harrison is terrific by showing in every moment how utterly helpless he is to accomplish anything, and how pathetic he appears in every opportunity to be the perfect murderer. Harrison finds again the perfect tone for the moment as now he does bring a certain genuine quality but only in terms of his reactions of exasperation at his abject failure. Harrison embodies just a man wholly out of his element at every point making this planned murder absolutely delightful to observe. That is the entirety of this performance as Harrison excels in this role which plays certainly on his debonair charm, but more importantly a certain subversion of it that truly makes him shine as a performer.
13 comments:
Louis: Your top ten Martin McDonagh directing moments?
Louis: Your top 20 films where the locations they take place in is a character.
I saw BlacKkKlansman. I need some time to formulate my thoughts, so I'll just say this...WOW.
Washington-4.5
Driver-5(My supporting win)
Grace-4.5(I'm as shocked as the rest of you)
Pakkonen-3.5
Hauser and Egghold-3
Buscemi-3
Hawkins-3.5
Belafonte-4
Burke-3
Landers-2.5
Atkinson-3
Harrier-3
Oh, also, the cameo at the beginning is a 3.
Love a bit of Harrison
Sounds like another great turn. Simon Pegg for a 2010s version of this character?
Louis: I saw a documentary about Frank Serpico last night and I'm wondering do you think Eli Wallach would've been great in the role if he was a decade younger or even a fictionalized depiction of Serpico.
Louis: Your thoughts on the trailer for Welles' The Other Side Of The Wind starring John Huston.
My 1975 Lead lineup
Robert Mitchum - Farewell, My Lovely
Maxim Munzuk - Dersu Uzala
Charles Bronson - Hard Times
Bruce Dern - Smile
Oliver Reed - Tommy (Could be Supporting)
Alt. Gene Hackman in Bite The Bullet
Luke: Oliver Reed is supporting, I wish he was in it more, he was needed.
Hackman instead of Reed.
Emi Grant:
1. "On Ragland Road" - In Bruges
2. Ending - In Bruges
3. The Park - In Bruges
4. Pacifist Psychopath - Seven Psychopaths
5. Story of a cow - Six Shooter
6. Ray's Nightmare - In Bruges
7. Zachariah's story - Seven Psychopaths
8. Burning the station - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
9. Opening - Seven Psychopaths
10. Ending - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Anonymous:
Very specific location, or more of just the most atmospheric films in regards to setting.
Calvin:
I could see that, or actually I could see this golden comedic opportunity for Benedict Cumberbatch.
Luke:
Yes in regards to Wallach, as in some photographs the two look like near dead ringers.
Well definitely has the look of 70's experimental Welles, but even that is most intriguing, if in a certain sense it could feel potentially more dated then some of his earlier work. I'm obviously interested though, I mean a new Welles film at all is enough of a reason, but the subject matter/John Huston in the lead role take it further than that. The previous reactions have been rather vague in regards to those who have seen it, but here's hoping this is akin to say the re-cut of Touch of Evil.
Post a Comment