This is a delightful comedy that only the British could produce. Miss Jessica Medicott (Katherine Hepburn)--of uncertain but clearly mature in years--is being sued for 'breach of contract' by a much younger man; apparently, she promised to marry him, but relented when common sense returned to her.
She seeks out the services of a lawyer--Sir Arthur Granville-Jones(Lawrence Olivier); a lawyer who had met her almost forty years previous, spent a torrid weekend of passion with her; an event he has never forgot--but she has no recollection of. In short, the lawyer has pined for his lost love all these years and is shocked that she has no recollection of him.
When Granville-Jones makes the telling argument that Miss Medicott is of such advance age so the only reason why a man of such youth would want to marry is for her money, clearly, Miss Medicoot is chagrined at this interpretation. (Or so she pretends/acts.) But it is the winning argument. And Miss Medicott and Mr. Granville-Jones both walk out into the sunset of declining years to acknowledge a 'love among the ruins." The movie seemed so appropriate a description of Miss Hepburn: self-centered, egotistical, indifferent to the concerns of others, trite, superficial, banal, vain. (I don't care what anyone says--but anyone who would entitle an autobiography as ME has to be all that and more.) And yet, for all those weakness, they become a strength to the actor in the acting profession who must acknowledge at some level that there is NO ME but the stage presence; to assert otherwise becomes an act of defiance--hence, the title of her autobiography: ME. (Henry James had these same qualms about himself as writer.)
Lots of people comment on how the movie seemed more stage drama than film. Well, Laurence Oliver was a stage actor of some renown; and Miss Hepburn at age 25 began her film career with "Bill Of Divorcement" in 1932 at a time when stage theatrics were brought to film.
The pacing of the film was excellent, the performances were excellent--would anyone expect anything less from Hepburn and Oliver. The writing was excellent.
She seeks out the services of a lawyer--Sir Arthur Granville-Jones(Lawrence Olivier); a lawyer who had met her almost forty years previous, spent a torrid weekend of passion with her; an event he has never forgot--but she has no recollection of. In short, the lawyer has pined for his lost love all these years and is shocked that she has no recollection of him.
When Granville-Jones makes the telling argument that Miss Medicott is of such advance age so the only reason why a man of such youth would want to marry is for her money, clearly, Miss Medicoot is chagrined at this interpretation. (Or so she pretends/acts.) But it is the winning argument. And Miss Medicott and Mr. Granville-Jones both walk out into the sunset of declining years to acknowledge a 'love among the ruins." The movie seemed so appropriate a description of Miss Hepburn: self-centered, egotistical, indifferent to the concerns of others, trite, superficial, banal, vain. (I don't care what anyone says--but anyone who would entitle an autobiography as ME has to be all that and more.) And yet, for all those weakness, they become a strength to the actor in the acting profession who must acknowledge at some level that there is NO ME but the stage presence; to assert otherwise becomes an act of defiance--hence, the title of her autobiography: ME. (Henry James had these same qualms about himself as writer.)
Lots of people comment on how the movie seemed more stage drama than film. Well, Laurence Oliver was a stage actor of some renown; and Miss Hepburn at age 25 began her film career with "Bill Of Divorcement" in 1932 at a time when stage theatrics were brought to film.
The pacing of the film was excellent, the performances were excellent--would anyone expect anything less from Hepburn and Oliver. The writing was excellent.