MovieChat Forums > Mrs. Miniver (1942) Discussion > Overrated

Overrated

posted 20 years ago by jcurrie58
52 replies | jump to latest

I just cannot understand how this film won so many Oscars, unless it was because it reflected the spirit of the times. I watched it on TV the other day, and there are so many things wrong with it. For instance, the family never seemed bothered by rationing, which was at its height in 1942. Then, the scene in the air raid shelter - whilst the bombs are reigning down on the village, the cat is happily washing itself. Believe you me, that cat would be hiding under the bed to avoid the noise. Then, after the flower show, why is it so dark when Mrs Miniver and her daughter in law are driving home? In summer daylight lasts until after 9 p.m. And where exactly was Teresa Wright hurt? Granted because of censorship in 1942 gory wounds could not be shown, but it's a complete mystery to me how she was wounded. And how were the family able to run a car at the time? Unless Mr Miniver was in a government job, petrol was severely rationed. A complete phoney from beginning to end, not to mention Greer Garson's self-satisfied performance. The least deserving of Oscar winners.

[–] federico_zamora 20 years ago

You're argument is, in itself, completely flawed. One thing you're right about is that this movie did reflect the spirit of its time. It was made exactly at the time this was actually happening.

First of all, you say that the family isn't bothered by the rationing. Well, it seemed to me that the German soldier took the last of the ham and drank the last of the milk, before the milk man came to deliver more. Ada, the cook, came into the bedroom and stated that there was nothing to make breakfast with. So, if not having enough food means they weren't bothered, something's up with that.

Secondly, I seriously doubt that the Academy bases its decisions for Oscars on the performance of Napoleon the Cat. Who the f*** cares what the cat is doing.
Aside from that, the bombing hadn't become so loud when the cat was bathing itself. Once the bombs started dropping close-by, the cat scurried under the bed. Greer said, "Don't worry Toby, Napoleon is under the bed" or something to that effect.

Thirdly, the flower show ended during daylight. But then they had to drop off Vincent at the base and then they drove home. By that time, assuming the flower show had been held in the early evening, by that time it would've been dark.

Carol was hurt in the neck. If you watch the DVD, you can see a faint wound on the right side of her neck. If it's a shadow of her hair, then who cares where she got hit, it's not a slasher flick...it's a drama.

Finally, Mr. Miniver did have some sort of official post either through the national or local government. He was in charge of River Patrol...as he states when he is woken in the middle of the night and called to help rescue the men at sea.

Also finally...Greer Garson's "self-satisfying performance" was good enough to give her even MORE "self-satisfaction" when she won the most important acting award she could've possibly ever received. So she must've been acting a lot better than the cat.

"Shut up, Checkers! Or I'll feed you to the Chinese!" -Dick (1999)

[–] jcurrie58 20 years ago

Sorry, but I still think you're wrong. You're obviously not British, or you would see all the mistakes that were made. Every British family had a ration book, so even if the German airman had taken the last of the ham and milk. When I said that the family weren't bothered by rationing, what I meant was they didn't seem affected by it. And I can tell you that very few, if any, British families had fridges during that time.

And I never suggested that the Academy based its decision on awarding the Oscars on the performance of Napoleon the cat. Also, even before the bombs dropped, there was the sound of the bombers roaring overhead and the cat would have been terrified. The soundtrack was obviously added afterwards. And is it really necessary to swear on this site? It's only a discussion after all.

Re the flower show - they're never held in the early evening - they're usually in the afternoon, maybe earlier, because of blackout regulations. Sorry, even if the family had to drop Vincent off at the air base, it would still be light after 9 p.m. in summer.
I take your point about Carol's wound. In 1942 films never showed blood if they could help it, as I suppose the censors would never allow it.

Mr Miniver would probably have been in something like the Home Guard, which was a unit formed in 1940, when a German invasion was threatened. He could also have been an air raid warden too. BUT, such was petrol rationing at the time that few, if any, private car owners could drive. People were encouraged to ride bicycles or take public transport.

This may all sound pedantic, but so often Hollywood gets it wrong when making films ostensibly set in Britain. (And I won't even start on the architecture, which was all wrong). I'm sure the film would have been very different if made by a British studio.

And I still think Greer Garson is a self-satisfied actress! The distinguished film critic, Pauline Kael, thought so too.

[–] Lolo1414 20 years ago

I think you are missing the entire point of this film. It was made by an American studio in order to gain American support for WWII. Therefore the underlying theme was to draw parallels between America and Britain to evoke sympathy for the cause. Not even all the actors had British accents so it should be pretty obvious that the film wasn't supposed to be overtly British.

As for the rations of 1942, the movie was released in 1942 so the rations of the year don't apply and may not have even been known at the time of production.

About the architecture, the film was made during a time that relied almost solely on prefarbricated sets so it would not be uncommon to reuse various portions from other American films.

I think it is foolish to attack insignificant details such as the movements of the cat in a film that was aiming to influence an entire country. The film would have been different if it was made by a British studio but the fact of the matter is that Britian was a little more preoccupied at the time with defending their country. You should take a moment to realize that if the movie is still being shown on TV over 60 years after it was made, it's because of qualities a little deeper than what you are criticizing. I suggest you watch the film again and pay a little closer attention to the issues at hand.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Howie0331 19 years ago

And I still think Greer Garson is a self-satisfied actress! The distinguished film critic, Pauline Kael, thought so too.

Pauline Kael was pretty self-satisfied herself, too, and a raging bitch to boot. Why do people take this old harpy's opinion as gospel? She was just a mean-spirited old wench who hated everybody!

Make Good Movies or Die!!!

[–] Tinsel 19 years ago

The film may have been released in 1942, but it begins when war is declared in Britain in 1939 (before rationing began) and continues through Dunkirk which was in May and June of 1940. The rest of your points miss so completely the point of the film, they're scarcely worth refuting. So let's leave it with Winston Churchill, who said that Mrs. Miniver was more valuable to Britain than a fleet of destroyers. It's a fine film in its own right and even more interesting when considered in the context of the time in which it was made. Good enough for Churchill, good enough for me!

[–] WAIELLO 19 years ago

I saw "Mrs Miniver" for the first time tonight. It's one of the few Academy Award winners I never saw.

Just like "It Happened One Night", I suppose at the time of its release it fit right in with the views, tastes and politics of the time. Seeing it today, in September 2005, I can't really find it relevant or exciting. I was not yet born in 1942, but if I had been, perhaps then I'd have seen it more favorably.

I also think a lot of it was propaganda to support the British war effort. The British have always had a powerful influence on the American media.

It kept me interested, for that I give it a good review. While watching, I tried putting myself into the time of its release. Europe was affected by the war more dangerously than America was, and I know the British are particularly fastidious about manners and class.

If "Mrs. Miniver" was released today it wouldn't be very popular or successful.
I will be honest, politics played a part in the decision to award it so heavily. I don't look at little errors, accents or minute details unless they have a significant effect on the story. But compared to other award winners, I didn't really find this one as exceptional.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Recrem_Sirrah 17 years ago

Furthermore, plot holes do not a bad movie make. ("Casablanca" is full of them.) Calling "Mrs. Miniver" a bad movie because it's historically inaccurate is like saying no science fiction movie based on a technology that could never exist can be entertaining.

"A critic is just a regular viewer with...an overstocked memory and an underpowered social life."

[–] don-lockwood 15 years ago

So she must've been acting a lot better than the cat.

Five years later...I agree with you, but then they don't give out Academy Awards for Best Animal Performance.

But Greer Garson was excellent, and unless you hate films that are at all didactic or dated, you'll enjoy this.

[–] eatonpl165 19 years ago

The accent thing is what bothered me the most. Why on earth wouldn't you cast Englishmen and Englishwomen in the lead roles (or at least people who can do a convincing British accent)? It just doesn't make sense. I still don't understand why Walter Pigeon was continually cast in UK roles when he blatently didn't even attempt at taking the accent. The other example is his role at the vicar in How Green is My Valley where he is supposed to be Welsh and sounds like he is from California. Why didn't the studios care about the huge problem with accents? Why didn't they try and make the film authentic?

[–] girl_1_0_1 19 years ago

They did cast an englishwoman as a lead. Greer Garson was from the UK. The little girl (Judy?) seemed to have an accent - in the 2 or 3 lines she had.

But yes, the rest of the cast could have worked on having a bit of an accent.

And for the orginal poster of this thread - this film was made mostly to get the Americans sympathetic and into the the war. LIke another poster said, the British studios probably weren't making many great films at this time - they were too busy fighting a war, so it was left up to Hollywood. Deal with the bad sets and look past the cat and the rationing and the petrol.

[–] wmoores 19 years ago

Wasn't Green Garson English? I detect a slight accent.

Henry Travers? Isn't he English?

Dame Mae Whittey? Isn't she English.

The maids...all English.

The little boy's accent is almost unintelligable.

I suggest you go back and watch the movie again.

Mrs. Miniver is one of the greatest movies of all times and it did what it was supposed to do - arouse American sympathy for the war.

[–] Amiel 19 years ago

Greer Garson was not English. She was born in County Down, Ireland, which after 1922 became County Down, Northern Ireland UK. She was dscovered in London by Sam Goldwyn.

[–] wmoores 19 years ago

Maybe I should have said British Isles.

But according to the biography, her family moved to London when she was a child so her accent doesn't really reflect Northern Ireland, it reflects a 'cultured' British accent.

Anyway you cut it, MRS. MINIVER belongs right along with SINCE YOU WENT AWAY as regards life on the home front. I am sorry SYWA didn't win more awards. To me, it is one of the greatest achievements in black and white media I have ever seen. But, we are talking about MM. Look at these and compare them to what are called 'movies' today. The best movies have already been made. Don't waste your time or money on anything since the SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION.

[–] Liza-19 17 years ago

The accent thing is what bothered me the most. Why on earth wouldn't you cast Englishmen and Englishwomen in the lead roles (or at least people who can do a convincing British accent)? It just doesn't make sense. I still don't understand why Walter Pigeon was continually cast in UK roles when he blatently didn't even attempt at taking the accent. The other example is his role at the vicar in How Green is My Valley where he is supposed to be Welsh and sounds like he is from California. Why didn't the studios care about the huge problem with accents? Why didn't they try and make the film authentic?

I have to agree about the accents. I love Teresa Wright, I think she was one of our best actresses, but I always thought her accent sounded terrible in this! Personally, I prefer Walter Pidgeon's not even bothering with it rather than Teresa's trying too hard.

And I do think this film is somewhat overrated. I don't think Teresa should have won the Oscar for this one (she should have won for Best Years of Our Lives, but that's another story) - and I don't really think it was the best picture of the year. This was the same year as Pride of the Yankees and The Magnificent Ambersons. I don't think this movie is better than those. But it was the sentimental favorite at the time, I suppose.

I don't care about money. I just want to be wonderful. - Marilyn Monroe

[–] chronowoman2003 16 years ago

Same question as to why Cary Grant was given so many American roles when he's really British?

[–] g_dekok 11 years ago

Relax and grow UP. Pidgeon was Canadien.

[–] rebeljenn 19 years ago

I am not sure of the other films that were released that same year (1942) or whether or not they would have been worthy of the Oscars or not, but, more importantly, I don't think any of us completely agree with the Oscars. Many good films have been missed out completely or over-rated.

I thought that this was a beautiful film. It is fiction but I think they did a good job making it and it made me feel that there was a war going on, based on the stories I have heard from people who did go through this time. (It was also made in the 40s so I don't agree with the inaccuracies here.) I think you're reading too much into it. It's just a film.

- Jenn

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] netstvdvs 19 years ago

Well said, igatekeeperi. Many people seem analyze a film to death. For myself, goofs in accuracy or continuity, issues with dramatic license, and other technical details don't bother me if the story, the acting, and the filmmaking are of sufficient quality to entertain or enlighten me. Such is definitely the case with this film. It doesn't matter that "love" doesn't rhyme precisely with "prove". Just shut up and enjoy the poetry.

"I've been smart; I recommend pleasant. You can quote me" - Elwood P. Dowd

[–] NoirDamedotcom 19 years ago

I'm surprised by the negative comments regarding this film, especially those concerned with the accents of the actors, how late it gets dark in England, what time flower festivals start, etc.

With all due respect, the real point of the film has been lost on some viewers. It's not just about World War II, or England, it's about survival and the human spirit.

I was thrilled to see this film airing on TCM this afternoon. Let me explain. Less than 24 hours ago, my family and I returned to the Texas area after fleeing Hurricane Rita. We dealt with incredible traffic jams getting out of the city, then gas, ice, water shortages. We drove to Arkansas in order to find an available hotel room. Once there, we shared our hotel room (one of the last ones available in the city) with another couple, friends who had evacuated Louisiana. Imagine four people and five animals sharing a room with one bed, a room which also lost power when Rita rode over Arkanasas. It was a once in a lifetime experience which I'd rather not repeat - although it had its moments, when people in the darkened lobby began singing and playing violin by flashlight!

On our way home, we drove through areas which had no electricity, and downed trees, in overpowering heat. At one gas station the cops had been called because customers were fighting over water and ice! And kid you not, we were incredibly lucky. Just read the Houston Chronicle about people in East Texas, or listen online to stories being broadcast from the United Broadcasters of New Orleans.

When people are faced with disaster, it brings out their true colors. The best thing to do is keep doing, and that's what's so special about Mrs. Miniver - the character and the movie. This family does not give up, no matter how difficult things get. The two parents do their best to provide as normal a life as they can for their children and everyone around them.

When I got up this morning, looking at the many things I have to do to get my family and business running again, I was overwhelmed. I happened to switch on the TV and see Greer Garson running her household with great aplomb, even as her husband and son participated in the great evacuation of Dunkirk. If she can keep going with such panache and a stiff upper lip, anyone can. That's the real point of the film.

[–] alistla 19 years ago

Well said, NoirDame. Contemporary Americans are so spoiled, they don't understand deprivation or struggle. To all who criticize the accents, sets, cat's performance, etc., of this movie: Keep in mind that it was made during a war. A world war, in which Britain was literally fighting for its life. Thousands of German planes were flying overhead, trying to bomb the morale out of them. Virtually every able-bodied British man was deeply involved in the war, not free to take a cruise ship to America to act in a movie. That's why so many of the actors were American, and why the sets were less than perfectly authentic. What I really appreciated about the film was that it took time to develop the characters and differentiate them from each other. A contemporary version of this film (which is impossible to imagine -- isn't that sad?) would have gotten to the war part within 10 minutes of the beginning. In Mrs. Miniver, the war doesn't get started until at least 30-40 minutes in. By then we've gotten to know the characters quite well, and so we really care about them as the film continues. Such a refreshing change of pace. And I really beg to differ about the bomb shelter scene -- it was extremely affecting, especially how it built from the characters acting nonchalantly in the beginning (the cat too -- one assumes that by this point everyone, even the cat, have grown accustomed to this drill), then as the bombing gets closer things get more tense. The acting may be too subtle for some, but I found it wonderfully understated. Beautifully done, overall.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KRAZYLOU2 19 years ago

YOU ARE OVERRATED!

IT'S A MOVIE. IT CAN'T BE PERFECT.

YOU'RE NITPICKING ON EVERYLITTLE DETAIL YOU CAN FIND, WHEN IN FACT THE MOVIE TELLS THE STORY VERY WELL.

YOU CAN MAKE A LIST OF NITPICKING FOR ANY FILM, EVER MADE. GET A LIFE.

MISTAKES ARE FOUND IN SOME OF THE GREATEST FILMS EVER MADE, REMEMBER THAT.

[–] chyna-s 19 years ago

For what it's worth (or not) I think this is a truely wonderful film and is only 1 of a handful of films that I can watch again & again, thanks mostly to the beautiful Greer Garson.

[–] teaching7 19 years ago

You have mistaken "Mrs Miniver" (a great film) with its sequel (Miniver Story) in which the scene you described appeared scene appeared. The first is generally regarded as great and the second is generally regarded as unnecessary sequel to a story well and completely told in the first rendition. I urge you to rent "Mrs. Miniver" also starring Greer Garson. It is a true cinematic gem.