... IF you look at the details. Especially the set-up of the story. In England in 1632, a Canterville (aptly cast as Peter Lawford) is caught in the bushes making out with a fellow nobleman's fiancee. The cuckolded nobleman demands satisfaction. But the philandering Canterville is wounded, so he in turn calls upon his brother Simon (Charles Laughton)
to "honor the family name" by risking his life in a duel with the cheated upon nobleman. But the nobleman, much smaller than Simon, shows up to the duel at the appointed time with a superficial pinky finger wound and thus has made his "second" some giant boulder of a cousin of his. Simon runs from the scene and hides behind some drapes in the family castle. The nobleman goes to the castle in hot pursuit and tells Simon's father that Simon ran from a duel defending the family name. Simon's father responds by having the door that the drapes cover sealed with bricks. Before the last brick is placed, sealing him inside, Simon cries out revealing his presence. His dad seals the tomb anyways AND curses him to not have eternal rest until a kinsman does a brave act in his name. And leaves him there to starve. And die. And rot. Some family!
Now really. The brother really WAS making out with somebody else's fiancee. This was not Simon's problem. The offended nobleman fakes a wound and sends out a cousin who would most certainly have sent Simon to his death. But that is not necessary because his dad sends him to his death instead AND curses him. Meanwhile Simon's younger brother is free to continue philandering. Does anybody else find anything remotely unfair and morally repugnant about this story? Did Beau and Hunter ever have these problems? Well maybe if they had lived in 1632 apparently. But I digress.
Next we cut to "present day" which is 1944 England, and the Canterville castle is occupied by WWII American troops who behave like the Bowery Boys. Except Robert Young. From the beginning you know he is different because he seeks out the ghost who is attempting to scare the soldiers AND Young doesn't talk with a thick Brooklyn accent.
Well it turns out Young IS a kinsman. He and Simon both have the same birthmark. But when Young finds out that all Cantervilles are cowards and he is a Canterville too, then suddenly he doubts his bravery. This is the first psychologically interesting thing to happen in the film because bravery is, to a large extent, a frame of mind. Just like confidence is and often, in turn, competence. If you are told you are worthless enough times you will internalize it.
But this is WWII Hollywood so the moral of the story has to come down to something along the line of - You are not brave unless you are willing to do a stupid act that is very likely to mean your own death. Homefront audiences would have tolerated nothing else.
Margaret O'Brien hangs around to add a cuteness factor that might just be strong enough for you to forget all of the weird morals in this story. And the script is padded out with what amounts to a bunch of disjointed skits about cutting up and comradery among soldiers and culture clash America versus England style. You could have made this film about half as long and it would have had the same comedic and dramatic impact. There are really fine performances by Laughton (as always) as the cursed Canterville and Robert Young as his American cousin, so that is where it gets its six stars from me.
Now really. The brother really WAS making out with somebody else's fiancee. This was not Simon's problem. The offended nobleman fakes a wound and sends out a cousin who would most certainly have sent Simon to his death. But that is not necessary because his dad sends him to his death instead AND curses him. Meanwhile Simon's younger brother is free to continue philandering. Does anybody else find anything remotely unfair and morally repugnant about this story? Did Beau and Hunter ever have these problems? Well maybe if they had lived in 1632 apparently. But I digress.
Next we cut to "present day" which is 1944 England, and the Canterville castle is occupied by WWII American troops who behave like the Bowery Boys. Except Robert Young. From the beginning you know he is different because he seeks out the ghost who is attempting to scare the soldiers AND Young doesn't talk with a thick Brooklyn accent.
Well it turns out Young IS a kinsman. He and Simon both have the same birthmark. But when Young finds out that all Cantervilles are cowards and he is a Canterville too, then suddenly he doubts his bravery. This is the first psychologically interesting thing to happen in the film because bravery is, to a large extent, a frame of mind. Just like confidence is and often, in turn, competence. If you are told you are worthless enough times you will internalize it.
But this is WWII Hollywood so the moral of the story has to come down to something along the line of - You are not brave unless you are willing to do a stupid act that is very likely to mean your own death. Homefront audiences would have tolerated nothing else.
Margaret O'Brien hangs around to add a cuteness factor that might just be strong enough for you to forget all of the weird morals in this story. And the script is padded out with what amounts to a bunch of disjointed skits about cutting up and comradery among soldiers and culture clash America versus England style. You could have made this film about half as long and it would have had the same comedic and dramatic impact. There are really fine performances by Laughton (as always) as the cursed Canterville and Robert Young as his American cousin, so that is where it gets its six stars from me.