You watch the movie from the safety of 71 years or so after the fact, when Germans are once again civil, nice, and competitive.
But in those years ago, the world was not safe and tolerant. When the movie was released in 1942, the citizens of Britain had already witness the brutality of
Luftwaffe attacks from the skies on friends, relatives, and other Britons.
The early part of Mrs. Miniver was a pleasant vacation for Brits only two years before had watched movies in theaters close to the tubes to where they could run for cover. Too many movies on too many days in 1940, had been interrupted by the warning flashed on the screen AIR RAID.
By the time this movie had been made and distributed in America, Mr. Churchill had already told the British people that they would do what they must to defend their island, whatever the cost. He warned that they would fight on the beaches, on the landing grounds, and in the hills. He had also already made numerous overtures to President Roosevelt for support. The response was that we would send the Brits war materiel.
So in the context of the 21st Century, we can all understand why some might think the movie is boring or irrelevant. But in the days of the movie release, real Britons were receiving death notices of sons, fathers, and brothers.
It put Americans in the living rooms of people whose lives and families were in pain. It called to Americans for help. In 1942, it was a tremendous call.
reply
share
catlover11
10 years ago
i do understand what you are saying. I really do. But aside from the historical perspective we have now, the movie just did not pull me in.
reply
share
hilaryjrp
10 years ago
I agree with catlover11. The political or social significance of a film really has no relation to its artistic significance. This film today might be considered a variation of a documentary, because there was no character development at all, of any of the static characters. There simply was not. Additionally, the plot revolved around a semi-aristocratic family, a thing that stymies my twenty-first century brain (in that I fail to see how an American war effort would be stirred by depictions of characters other than true middle- or working-class).
reply
share
kenny-164
10 years ago
I just watched this film for the first time. My issues with it are not so much of the anachronism charge hilary and others seem to have against it. But hilary is correct about the lack of character development. Which is odd given William Wyler's large and excellent body of work, one of Hollywood's greatest directors of all time.
The cast for the most part is also excellent. Greer Garson is one of my favorite actresses. She is excellent in every role I have ever seen her in. And Teresa Wright was outstanding here, as she was a couple of years later in The Best Years of Our Lives. Walter Pidgeon was not always excellent, but he was an outstanding match for Ms. Garson in the several films they did together.
But other than some funny moments with the aristocrat played by Ms. Woody I think it was, the rest of the cast was meh.
Still, i gave it an 8, which means not only it is a very good film, I expect I will want to see it again. I just expected more given its standing in film history, and the presence of Ms. Garson and Ms. Wright. Unfortunately they were not able along with Wyler to take it to a higher level.
reply
share