MovieChat Forums > A Farewell to Arms (1932) Discussion > Absolutely no chemistry, or believable s...

Absolutely no chemistry, or believable sexual tension.

posted 16 years ago by genplant29
12 replies | jump to latest

I've just finished watching this movie. While I thought the movie very good, and definitely did enjoy it, I personally thought Gary Cooper and Helen Hayes had absolutely no chemistry or sexual tension together. Well, to clarify my statement, I found Cooper to have completely realistic tension and chemistry, going outwards, but Hayes to have none whatsoever with him, and TOTALLY felt like it was acting on her part; I didn't "buy" her passion for him, in the least. Was it just me who felt this way? I've seen this movie at least a few other times over the years, years apart (finally have a copy with a surprisingly good picture and sound!), and reached the no-chemistry conclusion each and every time. Miss Hayes' performance was well done, but didn't at all convince me where the romance was concerned. While I'm at it, the glam look SO was not "her." I hated the VERY schmaltzy ending.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ames0826 16 years ago

As for the "schmaltzy" ending, I would have preferred the book's resolution, where he stares at her dead body and goes stumbling out into the rain.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Errington_92 13 years ago

Personally I would have to disagree with the OP. I felt there was chemistry between the two especially in their final scene.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] mmcvey1 12 years ago

I think there was sizzle between them and that they were truly in love.

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

I never specifically thought about the chemistry, if it works or not, between Gary and Helen's characters. Perhaps I was too distracted by the other issues I found lacking in this movie. There are many.

The one issue that bothers me most is the recurring theme of extramarital sex and the dire consequences that stem from it. I found it odd that that played such a prominent role in the movie.

There's a war raging but it only serves as a backdrop to the main story. The war is what brings Frederic and Catherine together and it, along with the behind the scenes behavior of their supposed close friends, is what also keeps the two of them apart. Still, all the problems that befall this couple seem to stem directly from the illicit affair they're engaged in.

I don't mind movies with a strong moral message. In fact, I prefer them but, in this case, the cause-effect link feels a bit over-the-top and exaggerated.

[–] benman46 10 years ago

It played a more prominent role in the novel. Pre Hayes Code movies were able to get away with more.

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

How do you mean? I've never read the book.

[–] benman46 10 years ago

The book dealt in more detail with the affair between the two and its consequences, which not even a pre Hayes Code film would include.

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

I see. I guess I need to read the book. What's in the movie is bad enough; she loses the baby and her life. I can't imagine how much further it could possibly go.

Thanks for the clarification!

[–] Tin_ear 10 years ago

Yeah, it was a let down from the book. The novel lulls you in with all the machismo and gritty war scenes but in a weird way contrasts and establishes the romantic subplot nicely. Though the film was a confused blur, the ending was the least of the film's problems. I never thought much of Cooper but it's interesting you like Cooper because Hemingway supposedly wrote For Whom the Bell Tolls a couple years later specifically with Cooper in mind, Hemingway loved him. So maybe Cooper nailed the role afterall.

[–] thepalestfire 9 years ago

I love Gary Cooper in the few movies I've seen him in, but they have all been comedies except High Noon. I'm not sure he if he can't handle drama, or if he was just miscast here.

Citing NASA as experts on these matters is like citing the KK on matters of race relations.
- rj