I haven't seen this film since 1975 when I was 17, and although the starring players - Katharine Hepburn and Laurence Olivier - were 50 years older than me, their characterizations of two lovers who had met and fallen in love at the age I was at the time, had separated - but not for lack of love, and now are reunited under the most awkward of circumstances drew me in and held me.
I'm going to tell you upfront I intend to spoil this movie to the extent my memory allows because it impressed me so much and because it is such a shame it is not available on DVD.
The basic story is that Katharine Hepburn is a famous retired actress, Jessica Medlicott, now widowed, who takes up with a young man because his romantic interest in her revives her feeling of youthfulness. However, his interest is only her pocketbook in the end, for he sues for breach of promise, since back in turn of the century England - and America for that matter - a proposal had the force of a contract. If he wins he will take a significant portion of her wealth with him, plus at that time the winner of a civil suit is afforded the cost of legal representation from the winner, which could be significant.
So Jessica hires the best barrister in England - Laurence Olivier as Sir Arthur Glanville-Jones. Sir Arthur recognizes her immediately as his first and really only love from decades before. The problem is, she seems to have no recollection of him at all! She doesn't seem to recall their torrid love affair when he was a law student and she a struggling actress, and how she ran out on him when she decided to marry a much older wealthy man out of the blue. Sir Arthur never explicitly asks her about this, but from her demeanor he can tell she does not recognize him.
The memory of the affair may seem to be gone, but the chemistry is still there and sparks fly. Sir Arthur warns Jessica to show up to court looking old, haggard, and dressed plainly so that the jury can see how ridiculous it would be for such a young man to have such an old woman as his bride. She rebels by entering court in a bright red gown with plumes, a hat with even more plumes, and an ornate parasol. Her entry wows the jurors (I believe they were all men) as well as the judge and the rest of the court as she winks and collectively flirts with them.
Sir Arthur is furious, but during his cross examination of Jessica, and in his final argument to the jury ,he talks about how ridiculous the idea of any real marriage between the two could be. He asks the jury if they can see the two having children?, growing old together?, doing anything that a newlywed couple can look forward to? Part of the reason his argument is so impassioned is you can just tell he is thinking of the future that he and Jessica lost so many years ago - the past that could have been.
If you can ever find it, I'll let the legal decision be one secret I do not tell. However I will tell you that Jessica's memories are not as dead and buried as Sir Arthur believed. This one is absolutely worth your time end to end. Highly recommended.
I'm going to tell you upfront I intend to spoil this movie to the extent my memory allows because it impressed me so much and because it is such a shame it is not available on DVD.
The basic story is that Katharine Hepburn is a famous retired actress, Jessica Medlicott, now widowed, who takes up with a young man because his romantic interest in her revives her feeling of youthfulness. However, his interest is only her pocketbook in the end, for he sues for breach of promise, since back in turn of the century England - and America for that matter - a proposal had the force of a contract. If he wins he will take a significant portion of her wealth with him, plus at that time the winner of a civil suit is afforded the cost of legal representation from the winner, which could be significant.
So Jessica hires the best barrister in England - Laurence Olivier as Sir Arthur Glanville-Jones. Sir Arthur recognizes her immediately as his first and really only love from decades before. The problem is, she seems to have no recollection of him at all! She doesn't seem to recall their torrid love affair when he was a law student and she a struggling actress, and how she ran out on him when she decided to marry a much older wealthy man out of the blue. Sir Arthur never explicitly asks her about this, but from her demeanor he can tell she does not recognize him.
The memory of the affair may seem to be gone, but the chemistry is still there and sparks fly. Sir Arthur warns Jessica to show up to court looking old, haggard, and dressed plainly so that the jury can see how ridiculous it would be for such a young man to have such an old woman as his bride. She rebels by entering court in a bright red gown with plumes, a hat with even more plumes, and an ornate parasol. Her entry wows the jurors (I believe they were all men) as well as the judge and the rest of the court as she winks and collectively flirts with them.
Sir Arthur is furious, but during his cross examination of Jessica, and in his final argument to the jury ,he talks about how ridiculous the idea of any real marriage between the two could be. He asks the jury if they can see the two having children?, growing old together?, doing anything that a newlywed couple can look forward to? Part of the reason his argument is so impassioned is you can just tell he is thinking of the future that he and Jessica lost so many years ago - the past that could have been.
If you can ever find it, I'll let the legal decision be one secret I do not tell. However I will tell you that Jessica's memories are not as dead and buried as Sir Arthur believed. This one is absolutely worth your time end to end. Highly recommended.