MovieChat Forums > Storm in a Teacup (1938) Discussion > How does it work as an allegory for auth...

How does it work as an allegory for authoritarianism?

posted 9 years ago by persuaden
1 reply | jump to latest

Cecil Parker excels in his dictator-like part for sure. Only Sara Allgood is competition for him as best actor in the film. The major weakness is the unlikely way that the provost suddenly becoming benevolent, with all prior problems being brushed aside to make a happy ending for everybody. Megalomaniacal dictators don't just decide to become swell guys. Really interesting to know it was an allegory for then-current events, but the ending doesn't live up to the conceit.

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

I think you misunderstood the movie; at least the ending. When Victoria goes to court and says she cannot testify for the Crown because she's married to the defendant, it's a lie. She has committed perjury.

The Provost was trying to make Burden pay for having challenged him and was willing to go to great lengths to do it. He was not, however, willing to let his daughter face charges of perjury and possibly end up behind bars.

The Provost is able to change so abruptly because he didn't fundamentally disagree with the things Burden was saying. He seemed to have good intentions but he didn't like being challenged. His ego was bruised and his reputation tarnished. Often, those are the reasons that keep people from being able to work out their problems. Once he had the incentive of his daughter, he could see things in perspective.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]