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

Overrated

posted 21 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.

[–] jsrrtzjr10 14 years ago

I assume she was wounded on her back, Miss Beldon [Teresa Wright]. But movies do have many hard to explain scenes except we all know is all a fictional story.

[–] geoffrey-jackson 12 years ago

Just watched this film. Read a lot of good reports. Was looking forward to it. Knowing the subsequent real life of Greer Garson and Richard Ney shone a strange light on their interplay.

Good story with a sad, sad ending. Good directing and sets. Characterisation could have been better (thinking of Garson and Ney). Overall perhaps slightly overrated.

7/10

[–] alistla 12 years ago

One must understand: this film was made in America, early during the war (filmed between November 1941-April 1942, according to this website). It was filmed on an MGM sound stage in Los Angeles, California. To fault it for a lack of authentic architecture or accents is like attacking a performance of a Shakespeare play because the text contains anachronisms or the set isn't sufficiently realistic.

It's funny how some criticize the movie for not showing enough deprivation on the part of the British, at the same time they accuse it of being mere propaganda. If it was mere propaganda, then it would have exaggerated the travails of the British, not underplayed them.

Nevertheless, of course it was propaganda. But that doesn't mean it can't be great art. Or do you attack Picasso's Guernica, Shakespeare's Richard III, or the Chartres Cathedral because they were propaganda?