JohnHowardReid Producer: Frank Lloyd. Copyright 14 September 1940 by Columbia Pictures Corp. New York opening at Radio City Music Hall, 26 September, 1940. U.S. release: 19 September 1940. Australian release: 10 April 1941. 13 reels. 10,416 feet. 115½ minutes.Australian release title: The TREE OF LIBERTY.SYNOPSIS: Backwoods surveyor marries an aristocratic Virginian.COMMENT: How my grandfather would have enjoyed this film! Unfortunately, he never saw it, not realizing that the Australian title masked a fairly faithful account of the American Howards. Admittedly, Cary Grant is atrociously miscast and feels he is obliged to render every line as loudly as possible in a curious mixture of Irish and Cockney accents. His co-star Martha Scott is also not wholly enjoyable, being both too stiff and too dull for the albeit conventional role of vivacious, lively heiress.Some of the support players are equally maladroit, particularly Richard Carlson's Tom Jefferson, and Irving Bacon, almost unrecognizably miscast as an Olin Howland-type backwoodsman.Nonetheless, ranged on the credit side of the acting ledger, Sir Cedric Hardwicke gives an unforgettably powerful performance as the embittered Fleetwood, one of his most memorable studies in well-rounded heavies. He's a malevolent character in many respects, but you can't help feeling sorry for him. That's real acting. Probably Hardwicke's best role ever, eclipsing even his hard-hearted Ralph Nickleby. He certainly wipes out the rest of the cast - with the exception of Alan Marshal who makes an excellent foil as the tippling Roger.If (Sir Cedric aside), the acting is largely second-rate, part of the fault can be attributed to the hokey script by Sidney Buchman of all people (Mr Smith Goes To Washing¬ton, The Talk of the Town, A Song To Remember). Its drama is forced, its humor unfunny, its dialogue often embarrass¬ingly amateurish. Hard to believe it's the same writer who did such a witty, polishing job on The Talk of the Town.As a director, Frank Lloyd is not always skilful with players. Action and spectacle are his forte. Fortunately, The Howards of Virginia has its share of such scenes. Moreover, Lloyd is joined by Hollywood's most inventive montage expert, Slavko Vorkapich, in creating some thrilling pre-Revolutionary episodes of dispatch-riders galloping furiously to the assembly. The sets and locations are often breathtaking.Best of all, is the music. Richard Hageman has constructed a wonderfully stirring score. The opening, credits in which the title card flashes on the screen orchestrated by the Liberty Bell, is one of the great moments of forties' cinema.

vincentlynch-moonoi I like to think of this film as Cary Grant forgetting the Cary Grant he was turning himself into...and just acting. Beginning with "Topper", he was developing the Cary Grant persona, and it showed up in 8 films before this one. But here, he doesn't play himself at all. He plays the character Matt Howard.I'm surprised when I see what a low rating this film gets by IMDb reviewers. I think the reason, perhaps, is that if you are expecting the suave and sophisticated Cary Grant, well, you're going to be disappointed. Instead, Grant portrays a rather "backwoods" oaf, who does mature as time passes.My main gripe about the film is that it takes place in Virginia (where I lived for over two decades), but many of the exterior shots were clearly photographed in the American west (where I now live) -- Santa Cruz, to be specific. Sort of like in the movie I watched last week that included all those mountains...in Florida. A minor point, perhaps, but nevertheless annoying as heck.On the other hand, a number of segments were filmed in Williamsburg, not long after it had been restored. Bravo for the film company! This is a powerful film, and overall it does a pretty good job of telling its story within accurate history of the American Revolution.Grant does somewhat overplay his role...but I assume that to be the fault of the director, Frank Lloyd. On the other hand, Martha Scott is magnificent as the wife. It was not until this evening that I realized she also played the mother in "Ben-Hur", a performance I have always admired. Sir Cedric Hardwicke is also excellent as the embittered pro-British father of Martha Scott. Other roles are also played well, though none of the supporting actors stands out, except for Richard Carlson, who does a nice turn as Thomas Jefferson.I, too, prefer the suave sophisticated Cary Grant, so this film will not make it to my DVD shelf. But, I've watched it several times on TCM, and probably will again. It's that good.

Neil Doyle CARY GRANT insisted that he would never do another costume film after THE HOWARDS OF VIRGINIA and it's easy to see why after viewing the film tonight on TCM. Except for a couple of well played scenes with his sons (TOM DRAKE and PHIL TAYLOR), Grant's performance is way too broad to be acceptable as part of a serious historical epic.Director Frank Lloyd never once tones down Grant's performance and lets the hyperactive Grant overact at any given moment in a role he clearly doesn't know how to play. At least we do get more restrained work from MARTHA SCOTT as Grant's aristocratic wife and SIR CEDRIC HARDWICKE as her snobbish brother who sides with the British during the Revolutionary War period.Obviously a lot of expense went into creating the right atmosphere for this story of the turmoil surrounding America's independence among the colonies, and there are times when you wish even more had been spent to produce the film in the gorgeous Technicolor of that era. But the script is a weak one, never able to maintain the sort of interest it should have had over a running time of two hours.The banal dialog that closes the film is about as jingoistic as you can get and enough to make anyone wince. The story was probably chosen because the producers hoped to make another DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK or GONE WITH THE WIND--but they failed utterly to do so.Summing up: Sad to see Grant so badly miscast and not given proper direction.

stills-6 Simpler than it first appears. This movie tries to be an epic about a frontier man transformed into a civic and military leader - but it doesn't try that hard. Cary Grant doesn't look like he knows quite how to play this guy, and I don't blame him. The material isn't wonderful, although it's a nice story. The wrong elements of the plot are emphasized, and the character of Matthew Howard is less a complicated man than a simple cypher.It's not a bad movie by any means, but it looks like it's trying desperately to copy "A Tale of Two Cities" and "Gone with the Wind" at the same time. It just doesn't have the legs for either one. I give this movie a 6 for Cary's personal magnetism, even in a stifling role like this one.