Updated: 4 September 1997

THE BISHOP'S WIFE /
THE PREACHER'S WIFE

THE BISHOP'S WIFE

THE PREACHER'S WIFE

Taxi Driver: "Most people don't know where they're going; and they're in an awful hurry to get there. You two are different."
Cary Grant: "You noticed?"
Taxi Driver: "You know exactly where you want to go, but you want to take your time"
...Or something like that. That phrase from the first film, THE BISHOP'S WIFE, captures everything that is right in that movie, and summarizes the mistakes of the second.

One really gets the impression, especially after watching these films more or less back to back, that today's filmmakers don't know how to confidently approach a film that deals--however obliquely--with God. There is an uncertainty that undermines their effort, and makes it seem artificial. In a word, it is artificial. People are lip-synching the words of faith, because they know them--they've seen them--but without knowing what's behind them. In other words, without being able to release their matter-of-fact core of cynicism, they cannot maintain believability in professions of belief.

I haven't seen the TV series "Touched by an Angel," but maybe the reason it's so successful is that those involved have backgrounds that make their performances plausible. Religion is something that is so intrinsically important to so many, that it is easy to see how a show that approaches it...guilelessly...would be a hit.

Back to the movies. Way back. To the first one. The fine one.

First off, it has Cary Grant as the dashing angel Dudley, and David Niven as the Bishop whose wife is about to rediscover life. These are two of the most skilled screen actors of their time, and this film does not ignore that. True, the target of their efforts--Loretta Young as Julia Brougham, the Bishop's Wife in question--is a bit wooden, but the anxieties of the angel and the bishop are real all the same.

To be honest, I was a little disappointed at first. After watching the remake, I was expecting miracles from the original, and it takes its time in delivering them. I started to think that maybe the story itself was just not a very fulfilling one. Then there was a scene that changed the film into something better. It begins with a visit to Professor Wutheridge's (played by Monty Woolley) home. In this cozy but lonely little cottage, a couple of small miracles take place, one of knowledge, and one of...brandy? To be precise: a bottle begins to refill itself with brandy that "warms, but--no matter how much is consumed--never inebriates." This is about as extensive as the special effects--engineered by John P. Fulton--get. And the knowledge that is shared transforms the professor in a way that would be exciting to any scholar (though the knowledge itself is a bit of fabricated silliness, and feels like it--this is not a movie that seeks to placate the sophisticated historian).

It is in this moment, where the movie takes an unexpected look deep into some real sorrows that a man faces, and generates a catalyst for his change, that I really began to like the film quite a lot.

Uncredited in the writing of this film is Billy Wilder, the genius behind SOME LIKE IT HOT, et al. So if the film has moments of unexpected depth and true comic persuasion, it should not be surprising. Additionally, the film has as a supporting actress one Elsa Lanchester (as Matilda), who would go on to star and co-star in numerous, well-acted, roles--including one of my personal favorites: Detective Jessica Marbles in Neil Simon's MURDER BY DEATH.

Now, on to the second film.

Denzel Washington is an appealing actor. I've watched him in roles from the slave turned soldier he played, brilliantly, in GLORY, to his aggressive officer in CRIMSON TIDE. But in this film...I find him a lot less appealing. Somewhat bland, actually. And while Whitney Houston is absolutely beautiful, she never seems to rise above her one-note embittered-wife performance until she starts singing. I like her singing. I wish there were more of it in the film.

Also, Gregory Hines as Joe Hamilton might have made an enjoyable villian, but we were never really given the chance to find out. For instance, his desire to give the preacher a new, state-of-the-art, chapel is not given enough detail to be threatening. As a matter of fact, I considered it downright benign, even magnanimous, until far too late in the film. Better handled, and far better developed, is Gladys Cooper's Mrs. Hamilton from the original film. Her controlling influence is felt from the moment she is introduced, and continued until her very plausible transformation.

There were several levels on which I actually enjoyed the film. First, someone was actually trying to make a mainstream, family-oriented, movie in these negative nineties. Second, the production quality is high. This is a well-filmed show, not something given the after-school special treatment usually reserved for these "family shows." So, in the end, this isn't a bad film to rent, but I would highly recommend watching the original as well--it is a superior movie.